Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 89385-89406 [2023-28514]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
Evaluate ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) Minimize the
reporting burden on those who are to
respond, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this ICR. Before
including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Sheleen Dumas,
Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of
the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs,
Commerce Department.
[FR Doc. 2023–28503 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–JS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD605]
Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment on the
Effects of Permitting Translocation of
Sturgeon for Scientific Research and
Enhancement Under the of the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NOAA has prepared a draft
programmatic environmental
assessment (PEA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) analyzing the environmental
impacts of the NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources’ proposal to
authorize directed take under the
sturgeon Endangered Species Act (ESA)
permitting program for the translocation
of shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum)
and Atlantic (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)
sturgeon needed to achieve recovery
objectives. We are making the draft PEA
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
available to the public for review and
comment.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before January 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The draft PEA may be
downloaded or viewed at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draftenvironmental-assessment-permittingtranslocation-sturgeon-scientificresearch-and. Please submit public
comments via email to
NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov with the
subject line ‘‘Public Comment on Draft
PEA for Permitting Sturgeon
Translocation’’. No business proprietary
information, copyrighted information,
or personally identifiable information
should be submitted in response to this
request. Please be aware that comments
submitted may be posted on a Federal
website or otherwise released publicly.
Clearly indicate which section, page
number, and line number, if applicable,
submitted comments pertain to. All
comments must be provided in English.
Please note that the U.S. Government
will not pay for response preparation, or
for the use of any information contained
in the response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Markin, Ph.D., erin.markin@noaa.gov,
(301) 427–8416; Malcolm Mohead,
malcolm.mohead@noaa.gov, (301) 427–
8427.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This draft
PEA serves as a framework to analyze
the potential impacts on the natural and
human environments for the
authorization of directed take of
sturgeon by translocation, in scientific
research or enhancement permits under
section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, to
achieve recovery objectives. For the
purposes of the sturgeon permitting
program, translocation is the intentional
capture, holding, handling, transport,
and release of individuals within a river
system (e.g., translocation of fish across
a dam or fish passage) or between river
systems within the U.S. historical range
of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon (i.e.,
Maine to Florida). NMFS proposes to
authorize directed take for the
translocation of ESA-listed Atlantic and
shortnose sturgeon as a research or
enhancement activity to support
sturgeon conservation management and
recovery objectives. NMFS proposes to
authorize translocation concurrent with
additional research or enhancement
activities, if the research or
enhancement activity’s objectives are (1)
stated as a term and condition to
implement reasonable and prudent
measures of an active biological
opinion, (2) an identified objective in a
NMFS recovery outline or recovery plan
for the species, or (3) determined
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89385
necessary by NMFS Regional Offices
and the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) to recover the species.
Programmatic NEPA reviews add value
and efficiency to the decision making
process when they inform the scope of
decisions and subsequent tiered NEPA
reviews. Therefore, NMFS decided that
completing a PEA for the proposed
action was appropriate.
This document has been prepared in
compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321,
et seq.), the 2020 Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) as
modified by the Phase 1 2022 revisions,
and NOAA policy and procedures
(NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A
(NAO 216–6A and its Companion
Manual).
Dated: December 21, 2023.
Amy Sloan,
Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–28505 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD544]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Parallel
Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project, Virginia
Beach, Virginia
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the Chesapeake Tunnel Joint
Venture (CTJV) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to the
Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project
(PTST) in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-time, 1year renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89386
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorization and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than January 26,
2024.
Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service and should be
submitted via email to ITP.pauline@
noaa.gov. Electronic copies of the
application and supporting documents,
as well as a list of the references cited
in this document, may be obtained
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
proposed or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA
is provided to the public for review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
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 the 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 the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NAO 216–
6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment and for which we
have not identified any extraordinary
circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On July 28, 2023, NMFS received a
request from CTJV for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to in-water
construction activities associated with
the PTST project near Virginia Beach,
VA. Following NMFS’ review of the
initial application, CTJV submitted
several revised versions of the
application based on NMFS’ comments.
The final version was submitted on
November 7, 2023, and was deemed
adequate and complete on November
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13, 2023. CTJV’s request is for take of 5
species by Level B harassment and, for
a subset of three of these species, by
Level A harassment. Neither CTJV nor
NMFS expect serious injury or mortality
to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS most recently issued an IHA to
CTJV for similar work on November 8,
2022, (87 FR 68462; November 15,
2022). CTJV complied with all the
requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the
previous IHA, and information
regarding their monitoring results may
be found in the Estimated Take section.
This proposed IHA would cover 1
year of a larger project for which CTJV
obtained IHAs for similar work (83 FR
36522, July 30, 2018; 85 FR 16061,
March 20, 2020; 86 FR 14606, March 17,
2021; 86 FR 67024, November 24, 2021;
and 87 FR 68462, November 15, 2022).
The larger multi-year PTST project
consists of the construction of a twolane parallel tunnel to the west of the
existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel,
connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 as
part of the 23-mile Chesapeake Bay
Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) facility.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the project is to build
an additional two lane vehicle tunnel
under the navigation channel as part of
the CBBT. The PTST project will
address existing constraints to regional
mobility based on current traffic
volume, improve safety, improve the
ability to conduct necessary
maintenance with minimal impact to
traffic flow, and ensure reliable
hurricane evacuation routes. In-water
construction work would include the
removal of a total of 158 36-inch steel
piles on the temporary dock and trestle
on Portal Islands Nos. 1 and 2 as well
as the removal of steel mooring piles on
both Portal Islands (97 total on Portal
Island No.1); the removal of 36″ steel
piles on the trestle (34 total on Portal
Island No. 2); and the removal of 36″
steel mooring piles on both Island 1 (9
piles) and Island No. 2 (18 piles). All
steel piles are hollow pipe piles. The
proposed impact and vibratory pile
removal activities can introduce sound
into the water environment which can
result in take of marine mammals by
behavioral harassment and, for some
species, by auditory injury. Proposed
construction activities are expected to
be completed from January–April as
well as in December 2024. Note that the
term ‘‘pile driving’’ is only used to refer
to pile removal activities. No pile
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
installation activities are planned by
CTJV.
place in the interim. The project
schedule is shown in table 1.
Dates and Duration
The proposed in-water removal of a
total of 158 piles would occur over 80
days. Removal will begin on Portal
Island No. 1 in January through April
2024 for 54 days then will resume on
Portal Island No. 2 in December 2024 for
26 days. No pile removal work will take
Specific Geographic Region
The PTST project is located between
Portal Islands No.1 and No. 2 of the
CBBT as shown in Figure 1. A 6,525
lineal foot (ft) (1,989 meters(m)) tunnel
will be bored underneath the Thimble
Shoal Channel connecting the Portal
Islands located near the mouth of the
Figure 1—Map of Proposed Project
Area Near Virginia Beach, Virginia
and No. 2. A tunnel boring machine
(TBM) will both excavate material and
construct the tunnel as it progresses
from Portal Island No. 1 to Portal Island
No. 2. Precast concrete tunnel segments
will be transported to the TBM for
installation. The TBM will assemble the
tunnel segments in-place as the tunnel
is bored. After the tunnel structure is
Detailed Description of the Specified
Activity
The PTST project consists of the
construction of a two lane tunnel
parallel and to the west of the existing
tunnel, connecting Portal Islands No. 1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89387
Chesapeake Bay. The CBBT is a 23-mile
(37 km) long facility that connects the
Hampton Roads area of Virginia to the
Eastern Shore of Virginia. Water depths
within the PTST construction area range
from 0 to 60 ft (18.2 m) below Mean
Lower Low Water (MLLW). The
Thimble Shoal Channel is 1,000 ft (305
m) wide and is maintained at a depth of
50 ft (15.2 m) MLLW.
completed, final upland work for the
PTST Project will include installation of
the final roadway, lighting, finishes,
mechanical systems, and other required
internal systems for tunnel use and
function. In addition, the existing
fishing pier will be repaired and
refurbished.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
EN27DE23.003
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
89388
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
Descriptions of additional upland
activities may be found in the
application but such actions will not
affect marine mammals and are not
described here.
Proposed in-water activities during
this IHA include the removal of 36-inch
steel piles on the temporary dock and
trestle (97 total on Portal Island No.1)
and the removal of 36-inch steel piles
on the trestle (34 total on Portal Island
No.2) as well as the removal of 36-inch
steel mooring piles on both Portal
Islands (9 piles on Portal Island No. 1
and 18 total on Portal Island No. 2). A
total of 158 piles will be removed over
80 in-water work days. Pile driving
activities will be conducted by initially
using an impact hammer, if necessary,
to break the friction on the previously
installed piles. If an impact hammer is
not required to initially break friction,
then a vibratory hammer will be used
for extraction. If the pile cannot be
removed with this method, the pile will
then be cut off a minimum of three feet
below the stabilized, post construction
sediment-water interface. There will be
no concurrent pile driving activity.
TABLE 1—ANTICIPATED PILE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE
[January 2024–December 2024]
Bubble
curtain
(yes/no)
Pile location
Pile function
Pile type
Installation/removal
method
Portal Island No. 1 ...
Mooring dolphins ..
Portal Island No. 1 ...
Temporary Dock/
Trestle.
Impact (if needed) ....
Vibratory (Removal)
Impact (if needed) ....
Vibratory (Removal)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
........
........
........
........
Portal Island No. 2 ...
Mooring dolphins ..
Portal Island No. 2 ...
Omega Trestle ......
36-inch Diameter
Steel Pipe Pile.
36-inch Diameter
Steel Interlocked
Pipe Piles.
36-inch Diameter
Steel Pipe Pile.
36-inch Diameter
Steel Interlocked
Pipe Piles.
Impact (if needed) ....
Vibratory (Removal)
Impact (if needed) ....
Vibratory (Removal)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
........
........
........
........
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting)
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history of the potentially
affected species. NMFS fully considered
all of this information, and we refer the
reader to these descriptions, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS’
Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments)
and more general information about
Number
of piles
9
97
18
34
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for this activity and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. 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’ SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or proposed to be authorized here, PBR
and annual serious injury and mortality
from anthropogenic sources are
Number of
piles/
days per
activity
(per hammer
type)
Number of
days per
activity
(total)
Anticipated
installation
date
5
5
49
49
(2
(2
(2
(2
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
1 January through 28
February 2024.
1 January through 30
April 2024.
9
9
17
17
(2
(2
(2
(2
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
Piles/Day)
December 1–31,
2024.
December 1–31,
2024.
included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species or stocks 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’ 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’ U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
SARs (Hayes et al. 2023). All values
presented in table 2 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and
are available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments.
TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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
Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback
whale.
I
Megaptera
novaeangliae.
Gulf of Maine .........
-,-; N .........
1,393 (0; 1,375, 2016)
I
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
22
12.15
89389
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 2—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES—Continued
Common name
Bottlenose dolphin.
Family Phocoenidae
(porpoises):
Harbor porpoise
Scientific name
Tursiops truncatus
Phocoena
phocoena.
ESA/MMPA
status;
Strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual M/SI 3
PBR
WNA Coastal,
Northern Migratory.
WNA Coastal,
Southern Migratory.
Northern North
Carolina Estuarine System.
-,-; Y ..........
6,639 (0.41; 4,759; 2016)
48
12.2–21.5
-,-; Y ..........
3,751 (0.06; 2,353; 2016)
24
0–18.3
-,-; Y ..........
823 (0.06; 782; 2017)
7.8
7.2–30
Gulf of Maine/Bay
of Fundy.
-, -; N ........
95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016)
851
164
1,729
1,458
339
4,453
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae
(earless seals):
Harbor seal ......
Gray seal 4 .......
Phoca vitulina ........
Halichoerus grypus
WNA ......................
WNA ......................
-, -; N ........
-, -; N ........
61,336 (0.08, 57,637, 2018)
27,300 (0.22, 22,785, 2016)
1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the
ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically
designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual Mortality/Serious Injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
4 The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000. The PBR value is estimated
for the U.S. population, while the M/SI estimate is provided for the entire gray seal stock (including animals in Canada).
As indicated above, all five species
(with seven managed stocks) in table 2
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
reasonably likely to occur. While North
Atlantic right whale and fin whale
could potentially occur in the area,
occurrence of these species is very rare,
the species are readily observed, and the
applicant would shut down pile driving
activity if they enter the project area.
Thus take is not expected to occur, and
they are not discussed further.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Humpback Whale
The humpback whale is found
worldwide in all oceans. In winter,
humpback whales from waters off New
England, Canada, Greenland, Iceland,
and Norway migrate to mate and calve
primarily in the West Indies, where
spatial and genetic mixing among these
groups occurs. For the humpback whale,
NMFS defines a stock on the basis of
feeding location, i.e., Gulf of Maine.
However, our reference to humpback
whales in this document refers to any
individuals of the species that are found
in the specific geographic region. These
individuals may be from the same
breeding population (e.g., West Indies
breeding population of humpback
whales) but visit different feeding areas.
Based on photo-identification only 39
percent of individual humpback whales
observed along the mid- and south
Atlantic U.S. coast are from the Gulf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002).
Therefore, the SAR abundance estimate
underrepresents the relevant
population, i.e., the West Indies
breeding population.
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were
listed under the ESA as an endangered
species worldwide. Following a 2015
global status review (Bettridge et al.,
2015), NMFS established 14 Distinct
Population Segments (DPSs) with
different listing statuses (81 FR 62259,
September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA.
The West Indies DPS, which consists of
the whales whose breeding range
includes the Atlantic margin of the
Antilles from Cuba to northern
Venezuela, and whose feeding range
primarily includes the Gulf of Maine,
eastern Canada, and western Greenland,
was delisted. As described in Bettridge
et al. (2015), the West Indies DPS has a
substantial population size (i.e.,
approximately 10,000; Stevick et al.,
2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al.,
2015), and appears to be experiencing
consistent growth.
Humpback whales are the only large
cetaceans that are likely to occur in the
project area and could be found there at
any time of the year. There has been a
decline in whale sightings in the peak
months since 2016/17; the distribution
of whale sightings occur most frequently
in the month of January through March
(Aschettino et al., 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
There have been 33 humpback whale
strandings recorded in Virginia between
1988 and 2013. Most of these strandings
were reported from ocean facing
beaches, but 11 were also within the
Chesapeake Bay (Barco and Swingle,
2014). Strandings occurred in all
seasons, but were most common in the
spring. Since January 2016, elevated
humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from
Maine through Florida. The event has
been declared an Unusual Mortality
Event (UME) with 209 strandings
recorded, 7 of which occurred in or near
the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. More
detailed information is available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast. Three
previous UMEs involving humpback
whales have occurred since 2000, in
2003, 2005, and 2006.
Humpback whales use the midAtlantic as a migratory pathway to and
from the calving/mating grounds, but it
may also be an important winter feeding
area for juveniles. Since 1989,
observations of juvenile humpbacks in
the mid-Atlantic have been increasing
during the winter months, peaking from
January through March. Biologists
theorize that non-reproductive animals
may be establishing a winter feeding
range in the mid-Atlantic since they are
not participating in reproductive
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89390
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
behavior in the Caribbean (Swingle et
al., 1993).
Bottlenose Dolphin
The bottlenose dolphin occurs in
temperate and tropical oceans
throughout the world (Blaylock 1985).
In the western Atlantic Ocean there are
two distinct morphotypes of bottlenose
dolphins, an offshore type that occurs
along the edge of the continental shelf
as well as an inshore type. The inshore
morphotype can be found along the
entire United States coast from New
York to the Gulf of Mexico, and
typically occurs in waters less than 20
m deep (Hayes et al., 2021). Bottlenose
dolphins found in Virginia are
representative primarily of either the
northern migratory coastal stock,
southern migratory coastal stock, or the
Northern North Carolina Estuarine
System Stock (NNCES).
The northern migratory coastal stock
is best defined by its distribution during
warm water months when the stock
occupies coastal waters from the
shoreline to approximately the 20 m
isobath between Assateague, Virginia,
and Long Island, New York (Garrison et
al., 2017). The stock migrates in late
summer and fall and, during cold water
months (best described by January and
February), occupies coastal waters from
approximately Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, to the North Carolina/Virginia
border. Historically, common bottlenose
dolphins have been rarely observed
during cold water months in coastal
waters north of the North Carolina/
Virginia border, and their northern
distribution in winter appears to be
limited by water temperatures. Overlap
with the southern migratory coastal
stock in coastal waters of northern
North Carolina and Virginia is possible
during spring and fall migratory
periods, but the degree of overlap is
unknown and it may vary depending on
annual water temperature (Garrison et
al., 2016). When the stock has migrated
in cold water months to coastal waters
from just north of Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, to just south of Cape Lookout,
North Carolina, it overlaps spatially
with the NNCES stock (Garrison et al.,
2017).
The southern migratory coastal stock
migrates seasonally along the coast
between North Carolina and northern
Florida (Garrison et al., 2017). During
January–March, the southern migratory
coastal stock appears to move as far
south as northern Florida. During April–
June, the stock moves back north past
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where it
overlaps, in coastal waters, with the
NNCES stock (in waters ≤1 km from
shore). During the warm water months
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
of July–August, the stock is presumed to
occupy coastal waters north of Cape
Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague,
Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay.
The NNCES stock is best defined as
animals that occupy primarily 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 (≤1 km from shore) of
North Carolina from Beaufort north to
Virginia Beach, Virginia, including the
lower Chesapeake Bay. A community of
NNCES dolphins are likely year-round
Bay residents (Eric Patterson, pers.
communication).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise is typically
found in colder waters in the northern
hemisphere. In the western North
Atlantic Ocean, harbor porpoises range
from Greenland to as far south as North
Carolina (Barco and Swingle, 2014).
They are commonly found in bays,
estuaries, and harbors less than 200 m
deep (Hayes et al., 2022). Harbor
porpoises in the United States are made
up of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
stock. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock
are concentrated in the Gulf of Maine in
the summer, but are widely dispersed
from Maine to New Jersey in the winter.
South of New Jersey, harbor porpoises
occur at lower densities. Migrations to
and from the Gulf of Maine do not
follow a defined route (Hayes et al.,
2022).
Harbor porpoise occur seasonally in
the winter and spring in small numbers
near the project area. Strandings occur
primarily on ocean facing beaches, but
they occasionally travel into the
Chesapeake Bay to forage and could
occur in the project area (Barco and
Swingle, 2014). Since 1999, stranding
incidents have ranged widely from a
high of 40 in 1999 to 2 in 2011, 2012,
and 2016 (Barco et al., 2017). In most
areas, harbor porpoise occur in small
groups of just a few individuals.
Harbor Seal
The harbor seal occurs in arctic and
temperate coastal waters throughout the
northern hemisphere, including on both
the east and west coasts of the United
States. On the east coast, harbor seals
can be found from the Canadian Arctic
down to Georgia (Blaylock, 1985).
Harbor seals occur year-round in
Canada and Maine and seasonally
(September–May) from southern New
England to New Jersey (Hayes et al.,
2022). The range of harbor seals appears
to be shifting as they are regularly
reported further south than they were
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
historically. In recent years, they have
established haulout sites in the
Chesapeake Bay including on the portal
islands of the CBBT (Rees et al., 2016,
Jones et al., 2018).
Harbor seals are the most common
seal in Virginia (Barco and Swingle,
2014). They can be seen resting on the
rocks around the portal islands of the
CBBT from December through April.
They are primarily concentrated north
of the project area at Portal Island No.
3. Over 8 field seasons (2014–2015
through 2021–2022), 79.1 percent of
seals were recorded at Portal Island No.
3; 17.4 percent were recorded at Portal
Island No. 4; and 3.5 percent were
recorded at Portal Island No. 1 and No.
2 combined (Jones and Rees 2023).
Harbor seals are central-place foragers
(Orians and Pearson, 1979) and tend to
exhibit strong site fidelity within season
and across years, generally forage close
to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit
specific foraging areas (Suryan and
Harvey, 1998; Thompson et al., 1998).
Harbor seals tend to forage at night and
haul out during the day with a peak in
the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.
(London et al., 2001).
Gray Seal
The gray seal occurs on both coasts of
the Northern Atlantic Ocean and are
divided into three major populations
The western north Atlantic stock occurs
in eastern Canada and the northeastern
United States, occasionally as far south
as North Carolina. Gray seals inhabit
rocky coasts and islands, sandbars, ice
shelves and icebergs. In the United
States, gray seals congregate in the
summer to give birth at four established
colonies in Massachusetts and Maine
(Hayes et al., 2022). From September
through May, they disperse and can be
abundant as far south as New Jersey.
The range of gray seals appears to be
shifting as they are regularly being
reported further south than they were
historically (Rees et al. 2016).
Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia
and the Chesapeake Bay. Only 15 gray
seal strandings were documented in
Virginia from 1988 through 2013 (Barco
and Swingle, 2014). They are rarely
found resting on the rocks around the
portal islands of the CBBT from
December through April alongside
harbor seals. Seal observation surveys
conducted at the CBBT recorded one
gray seal in each of the 2014/2015 and
2015/2016 seasons while no gray seals
were reported during the 2016/2017 and
2017/2018 seasons (Rees et al. 2016,
Jones et al. 2018).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured
(behavioral or auditory evoked potential
techniques) or estimated hearing ranges
(behavioral response data, anatomical
modeling, etc.). Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
89391
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in table 3.
TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) .....................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .........................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth et al. 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section provides a discussion of
the ways in which components of the
specified activity may impact marine
mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and whether
those impacts are reasonably expected
to, or reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals
during the specified activity can occur
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
from impact and vibratory pile driving
activities. The effects of underwater
noise from CTJV’s proposed activities
have the potential to result in Level A
harassment and Level B harassment of
marine mammals.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised
of both ambient and anthropogenic
sounds. Ambient sound is defined as
the all-encompassing sound in a given
place and is usually a composite of
sound from many sources both near and
far (American National Standards
Institute 1995). The sound level of an
area is defined by the total acoustical
energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may
include physical (e.g., waves, wind,
precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels,
dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and shipping activity) but
also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10 to 20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
Two types of hammers would be used
on this project. Impact hammers operate
by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing
a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the
pile into the substrate. Sound generated
by impact hammers is characterized by
rapid rise times and high peak levels, a
potentially injurious combination
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory
hammers install piles by vibrating them
and allowing the weight of the hammer
to push them into the sediment.
Vibratory hammers produce
significantly less sound than impact
hammers. Peak Sound Pressure Levels
(SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are
generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs
generated during impact pile driving of
the same-sized pile (Oestman et al.,
2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the
probability and severity of injury, and
sound energy is distributed over a
greater amount of time (Nedwell and
Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89392
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
The likely or possible impacts of
CTJV’s proposed activities on marine
mammals could be generated from both
non-acoustic and acoustic stressors.
Potential non-acoustic stressors include
the physical presence of the equipment,
vessels, and personnel; however, any
impacts to marine mammals are
expected to primarily be acoustic in
nature. Acoustic stressors include
effects of heavy equipment operation
during pile driving activities.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic
noise into the aquatic environment from
pile driving activities is the primary
means by which marine mammals may
be harassed from CTJV’s specified
activities. In general, animals exposed to
natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience behavioral, physiological,
and/or physical effects, ranging in
magnitude from none to severe
(Southall et al., 2007). Generally,
exposure to pile driving activities has
the potential to result in behavioral
reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary
cessation of foraging and vocalizing,
changes in dive behavior) and, in
limited cases, auditory threshold shifts.
Exposure to anthropogenic noise can
also lead to non-observable
physiological responses such as an
increase in stress hormones. Additional
noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can
mask acoustic cues used by marine
mammals to carry out daily functions
such as communication and predator
and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving activities on marine mammals
are dependent on several factors,
including, but not limited to, sound
type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive),
the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult
male vs. mother with calf), duration of
exposure, the distance between the pile
and the animal, received levels,
behavior at time of exposure, and
previous history with exposure
(Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al.,
2007). Here we discuss physical
auditory effects (threshold shifts)
followed by behavioral effects and
potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced
threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually
an increase, in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed
in dB. A TS can be permanent or
temporary. As described in NMFS
(2018), there are numerous factors to
consider when examining the
consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive),
likelihood an individual would be
exposed for a long enough duration or
to a high enough level to induce a TS,
the magnitude of the TS, time to
recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to
days), the frequency range of the
exposure (i.e., spectral content), the
hearing and vocalization frequency
range of the exposed species relative to
the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e.,
how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g.,
Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap
between the animal and the source (e.g.,
spatial, temporal, and spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)—
NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). Available data from
humans and other terrestrial mammals
indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift
approximates PTS onset (Ward et al.,
1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960;
Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974;
Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for
marine mammals are estimates, because
there are limited empirical data
measuring PTS in marine mammals
(e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), largely due to
the fact that, for various ethical reasons,
experiments involving anthropogenic
noise exposure at levels inducing PTS
are not typically pursued or authorized
(NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)—A
temporary, reversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual’s
hearing range above a previously
established reference level (NMFS,
2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS
measurements (Southall et al., 2007), a
TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any
day-to-day or session-to-session
variation in a subject’s normal hearing
ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran
et al., 2000). As described in Finneran
(2016), marine mammal studies have
shown the amount of TTS increases
with cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At
low exposures with lower SELcum, the
amount of TTS is typically small and
the growth curves have shallow slopes.
At exposures with higher SELcum, the
growth curves become steeper and
approach linear relationships with the
noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
serious (similar to those discussed in
Auditory Masking, below). For example,
a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small
amount of TTS in a non-critical
frequency range that takes place during
a time when the animal is traveling
through the open ocean, where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother/calf interactions
could have more serious impacts. We
note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been
observed in marine mammals, as well as
humans and other taxa (Southall et al.,
2007), so we can infer that strategies
exist for coping with this condition to
some degree, though likely not without
cost. Currently, TTS data only exist for
four species of cetaceans (bottlenose
dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze
finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis) and five species of
pinnipeds exposed to a limited number
of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and
octave-band noise) in laboratory settings
(Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed
in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and
ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching
previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general,
harbor seals and harbor porpoises have
a lower TTS onset than other measured
pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran,
2015). Additionally, the existing marine
mammal TTS data come from a limited
number of individuals within these
species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine
mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see
Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and
table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Activities for this project include
impact and vibratory pile driving. There
would likely be pauses in activities
producing the sound during each day.
Given these pauses and the fact that
many marine mammals are likely
moving through the project areas and
not remaining for extended periods of
time, the potential for threshold shift
declines.
Behavioral harassment—Exposure to
noise from pile driving activities has the
potential to behaviorally disturb marine
mammals. Available studies show wide
variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; National
Research Council (NRC), 2005).
The following subsections provide
examples of behavioral responses that
provide an idea of the variability in
behavioral responses that would be
expected given the differential
sensitivities of marine mammal species
to sound and the wide range of potential
acoustic sources to which a marine
mammal may be exposed. Behavioral
responses that could occur for a given
sound exposure should be determined
from the literature that is available for
each species, or extrapolated from
closely related species when no
information exists, along with
contextual factors. Available studies
show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is
difficult to predict specifically how any
given sound in a particular instance
might affect marine mammals
perceiving the signal. There are broad
categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that
include alteration of dive behavior,
alteration of foraging behavior, effects to
respiration, interference with or
alteration of vocalization, avoidance,
and flight.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out
time, possibly to avoid in-water
disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).
Behavioral reactions can vary not only
among individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source). In
general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant
of, or at least habituate more quickly to,
potentially disturbing underwater sound
than do cetaceans, and generally seem
to be less responsive to exposure to
industrial sound than most cetaceans.
Alteration of Feeding Behavior—
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.,
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). In addition, behavioral state
of the animal plays a role in the type
and severity of a behavioral response,
such as disruption to foraging (e.g.,
Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et al.,
2017). An evaluation of whether
foraging disruptions would be likely to
incur fitness consequences considers
temporal and spatial scale of the activity
in the context of the available foraging
habitat and, in more severe cases may
necessitate consideration of information
on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals
and the relationship between prey
availability, foraging effort and success,
and the life history stage of the animal.
Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that
disruption of feeding and displacement
could impact individual fitness and
health. However, for this to be true, we
would have to assume that an
individual could not compensate for
this lost feeding opportunity by either
immediately feeding at another location,
by feeding shortly after cessation of
acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a
later time. There is no indication this is
the case here, particularly since prey
would likely still be available in the
environment in most cases following the
cessation of acoustic exposure.
Stress responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness. Neuroendocrine stress
responses often involve the
hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system.
Virtually all neuroendocrine functions
that are affected by stress—including
immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior—are
regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89393
induced changes in the secretion of
pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al.,
1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et
al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b)
and, more rarely, studied in wild
populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a).
For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship
traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in
North Atlantic right whales. These and
other studies lead to a reasonable
expectation that some marine mammals
will experience physiological stress
responses upon exposure to acoustic
stressors and that it is possible that
some of these would be classified as
‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal
experiencing TTS would likely also
experience stress responses (NRC,
2003), however distress is an unlikely
result of these projects based on
observations of marine mammals during
previous, similar projects.
Auditory Masking—Sound can
disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal’s ability to
detect, recognize, or discriminate
between acoustic signals of interest (e.g.,
those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
89394
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. The ability of a
noise source to mask biologically
important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source
and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability,
direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical
ratios, frequency discrimination,
directional discrimination, age or TTS
hearing loss), and existing ambient
noise and propagation conditions.
Masking of natural sounds can result
when human activities produce high
levels of background sound at
frequencies important to marine
mammals. Conversely, if the
background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind
and high waves), an anthropogenic
sound source would not be detectable as
far away as would be possible under
quieter conditions and would itself be
masked. The mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay contains active military and
commercial shipping, as well as
numerous recreational and other
commercial vessel and background
sound levels in the area are already
elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects—Pinnipeds
that occur near the project site could be
exposed to airborne sounds associated
with pile driving and removal that have
the potential to cause behavioral
harassment, depending on their distance
from pile driving activities. Cetaceans
are not expected to be exposed to
airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the
MMPA. Airborne noise would primarily
be an issue for pinnipeds that are
swimming or hauled out near the
project site within the range of noise
levels elevated above the acoustic
criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in
the water could be exposed to airborne
sound that may result in behavioral
harassment when looking with their
heads above water. Most likely, airborne
sound would cause behavioral
responses similar to those discussed
above in relation to underwater sound.
For instance, anthropogenic sound
could cause hauled out pinnipeds to
exhibit changes in their normal
behavior, such as reduction in
vocalizations, or cause them to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
temporarily abandon the area and move
further from the source. However, these
animals would likely previously have
been ‘taken’ because of exposure to
underwater sound above the behavioral
harassment thresholds, which are
generally larger than those associated
with airborne sound. Thus, the
behavioral harassment of these animals
is already accounted for in these
estimates of potential take. Therefore,
we do not believe that authorization of
additional incidental take resulting from
airborne sound for pinnipeds is
warranted, and airborne sound is not
discussed further.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
CTJV’s proposed construction
activities could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal
habitat, including prey, by increasing
in-water sound pressure levels and
slightly decreasing water quality.
Increased noise levels may affect
acoustic habitat (see Auditory Masking
discussion above) and adversely affect
marine mammal prey in the vicinity of
the project areas (see discussion below).
Elevated levels of underwater noise
would ensonify the project areas where
both fishes and mammals occur and
could affect foraging success.
Additionally, marine mammals may
avoid the area during construction;
however, displacement due to noise is
expected to be temporary and is not
expected to result in long-term effects to
the individuals or populations.
In-water Construction Effects on
Potential Prey—Construction activities
would produce continuous (i.e.,
vibratory pile driving) and intermittent
(i.e., impact pile driving) sounds. Sound
may affect marine mammals through
impacts on the abundance, behavior, or
distribution of prey species (e.g.,
crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton). Marine mammal prey
varies by species, season, and location.
Here, we describe studies regarding the
effects of noise on known marine
mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and
components of sound in their
environment to perform important
functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g.,
Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009).
Depending on their hearing anatomy
and peripheral sensory structures,
which vary among species, fishes hear
sounds using pressure and particle
motion sensitivity capabilities and
detect the motion of surrounding water
(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects
of noise on fishes depends on the
overlapping frequency range, distance
from the sound source, water depth of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology.
Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage,
barotrauma (pressure-related injuries),
and mortality.
Fish react to sounds that are
especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds, and behavioral
responses such as flight or avoidance
are the most likely effects. Short
duration, sharp sounds can cause overt
or subtle changes in fish behavior and
local distribution. The reaction of fish to
noise depends on the physiological state
of the fish, past exposures, motivation
(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and
other environmental factors. Hastings
and Popper (2005) identified several
studies that suggest fish may relocate to
avoid certain areas of sound energy.
Additional studies have documented
effects of pile driving on fish; several are
based on studies in support of large,
multiyear bridge construction projects
(e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001; Scholik
and Yan, 2002; Popper and Hastings,
2009). Several studies have
demonstrated that impulse sounds
might affect the distribution and
behavior of some fishes, potentially
impacting foraging opportunities or
increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al.,
1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al.,
1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However,
some studies have shown no or slight
reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et
al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson
and Gyselman, 2009).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been
known to cause injury to fish and fish
mortality. However, in most fish
species, hair cells in the ear
continuously regenerate and loss of
auditory function likely is restored
when damaged cells are replaced with
new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a)
showed that a TTS of 4 to 6 dB was
recoverable within 24 hours for one
species. Impacts would be most severe
when the individual fish is close to the
source and when the duration of
exposure is long. Injury caused by
barotrauma can range from slight to
severe and can cause death, and is most
likely for fish with swim bladders.
Barotrauma injuries have been
documented during controlled exposure
to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al.,
2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
The most likely impact to fishes from
pile driving activities at the project area
would be temporary behavioral
avoidance of the area. The duration of
fish avoidance of this area after pile
driving stops is unknown, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment,
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
distribution, and behavior is
anticipated.
Construction activities have the
potential to have adverse impacts on
forage fish in the project area in the
form of increased turbidity. Forage fish
form a significant prey base for many
marine mammal species that occur in
the project area. Turbidity within the
water column has the potential to
reduce the level of oxygen in the water
and irritate the gills of prey fish in the
proposed project area. However, fish in
the proposed project area would be able
to move away from and avoid the areas
where increase turbidity may occur.
Given the limited area affected and
ability of fish to move to other areas,
any effects on forage fish are expected
to be minor or negligible.
In summary, given the short daily
duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the
relatively small areas being affected,
pile driving activities associated with
the proposed actions are not likely to
have a permanent, adverse effect on any
fish habitat, or populations of fish
species. Any behavioral avoidance by
fish of the disturbed area would still
leave significantly large areas of fish and
marine mammal foraging habitat in the
nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that
impacts of the specified activities are
not likely to have more than short-term
adverse effects on any prey habitat or
populations of prey species. Further,
any impacts to marine mammal habitat
are not expected to result in significant
or long-term consequences for
individual marine mammals, or to
contribute to adverse impacts on their
populations.
acoustic sources (i.e., impact and
vibratory driving) 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, primarily for high frequency
species and phocids because predicted
auditory injury zones are larger than for
mid-frequency species. Auditory injury
is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency
species. The proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of the taking to
the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities.
We note that while these factors can
contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential
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 proposed take estimates.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through the IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and
the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
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—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 or exposure
context (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle, duration of the exposure,
signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage,
depth) and can be difficult to predict
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89395
et al., 2012). Based on what the
available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based
on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
typically uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS generally predicts
that marine mammals are likely to be
behaviorally harassed in a manner
considered to be Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS
SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1
micropascal (re 1 mPa)) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and
above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Generally speaking,
Level B harassment take estimates based
on these behavioral harassment
thresholds are expected to include any
likely takes by TTS as, in most cases,
the likelihood of TTS occurs at
distances from the source less than
those at which behavioral harassment is
likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as
reduced hearing sensitivity and the
potential reduced opportunities to
detect important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns
that would not otherwise occur. CTJV’s
proposed activities include the use of
continuous (vibratory pile driving) and
impulsive (impact pile driving) sources,
and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds
of 120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa are
applicable.
Level A harassment—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). CTJV’s proposed pile
driving activities includes the use of
impulsive (impact pile driving) and
non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving)
sources.
These thresholds are provided in table
4 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/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89396
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 4—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
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* 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.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that are used in estimating the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, including source levels and
transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is
the existing background noise plus
additional construction noise from the
proposed project. Marine mammals are
expected to be affected via sound
generated by the primary components of
the project (i.e., pile driving).
The project includes vibratory and
impact pile driving. Source levels for
these activities are based on reviews of
measurements of the same or similar
types and dimensions of piles available
in the literature. Source levels for each
pile size and activity are presented in
table 5. Source levels for vibratory pile
removal and installation of piles of the
same diameter are assumed to be the
same. Note that CTJV will employ a
bubble curtain during all impact and
vibratory driving activities which NMFS
assumes will reduce source levels by 5
dB.
TABLE 5—ESTIMATES OF MEAN UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS GENERATED DURING VIBRATORY AND IMPACT PILE DRIVING
Pile type
Hammer type
36-in steel pipe ......................
Impact/(with 5 dB bubble
curtain).
Vibratory/(with ¥5 dB bubble
curtain).
Peak
RMS
SSsel
210/(205)
193/(188)
183/(178)
180/(175)
170/(165)
........................
Source
Caltrans 2015, 2020.
Caltrans 2015.
Note: CTJV will incorporate bubble curtain with a 5 dB reduction for all pile driving activities.
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:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from
the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the
initial measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical
monitoring with differing measured
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
transmission loss, a practical spreading
value of 15 is used as the transmission
loss coefficient in the above formula.
Site-specific transmission loss data for
the PTST project area are not available;
therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is
used to determine the distances to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds.
The ensonified area associated with
Level A harassment is more technically
challenging to predict due to the need
to account for a duration component.
Therefore, NMFS developed an optional
User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the
Technical Guidance that can be used to
relatively simply predict an isopleth
distance for use in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence
to help predict potential takes. We note
that because of some of the assumptions
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
included in the methods underlying this
optional tool, we anticipate that the
resulting isopleth estimates are typically
going to be overestimates of some
degree, which may result in an
overestimate of potential take by Level
A harassment. However, this optional
tool offers the best way to estimate
isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not
available or practical. For stationary
sources, such as pile driving, the
optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts
the distance at which, if a marine
mammal remained at that distance for
the duration of the activity, it would be
expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in
the optional User Spreadsheet tool are
shown in table 6, and the resulting
estimated isopleths are shown in table
7, as reported below.
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89397
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 6—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS
36-inch steel piles
Source Level (SPL) .................................................................................................................................................
Transmission Loss Coefficient .................................................................................................................................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) .........................................................................................................................
Activity Duration per day (minutes) .........................................................................................................................
Number of strikes per pile .......................................................................................................................................
Number of piles per day ..........................................................................................................................................
Distance of sound pressure level measurement .....................................................................................................
Vibratory
Impact
170 RMS
15
2.5
30
........................
2
10
183 SEL
15
2
........................
240
2
10
TABLE 7—CALCULATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS
[Meters]
Level A harassment zones
Scenario
Driving Type:
Pile Type .....................................
36-in Impact (with Bubble Curtain):
36-in. Steel ..................................
36-inVibratory (with Bubble Curtain):
36-in. Steel ..................................
MF
HF
Phocid pinnipeds
Island 1 & 2 .........
Island 1 & 2 .........
Island 1 & 2 .........
Island 1 & 2 .............
Island 1 & 2.
285 ......................
10 ........................
338 ......................
152 ...........................
736.
8 ..........................
1 ..........................
12 ........................
5 ...............................
10,000.
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take
Estimation
In this section we provide information
about the occurrence of marine
mammals, including density or other
relevant information which will inform
the take calculations as well as how the
information provided is synthesized to
produce a quantitative estimate of the
take that is reasonably likely to occur
and proposed for authorization. Several
approaches were utilized to estimate
take for affected species depending on
the best data that was available. For
some species, survey or observational
data was used to estimate take (e.g.,
harbor seal, gray seal). If density data
was available, it was employed to
develop the take estimate (i.e.,
bottlenose dolphin). In cases where the
best available information consisted
only of very low density values, NMFS
assumed the average group to arrive at
an estimate (i.e., humpback whale,
harbor porpoise).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are rare in the
Chesapeake Bay. Density data for this
species within the project vicinity were
not available. 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 showed a maximum monthly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Level B
harassment zones
LF
Jkt 262001
density of 0.107/100 km2 in March.
Because humpback whale occurrence is
low, as mentioned above, the CTJV
estimated, and NMFS concurred, that
there will be a single humpback sighting
every two months for the duration of inwater pile driving activities. There are 5
months of planned in-water
construction. Using an average group
size of two animals Kraus et al. (2016)
and 5 months of active in-water pile
driving work (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Dec)
provides an estimate of four takes
during the January–April period. NMFS
conservatively assumed that there
would be an additional sighting of 2
humpback whales in December. Because
it is expected that a full shutdown can
occur before the mammal can reach the
full extent of the Level A harassment
zone, no takes by Level A harassment
were requested or are expected.
Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize
six takes of humpback whale by Level
B harassment.
Bottlenose Dolphin
There was insufficient monitoring
data available from previous PTST IHAs
to estimate dolphin take. Therefore, the
expected number of bottlenose dolphins
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). This
report provides seasonal densities of
bottlenose dolphins for inshore areas in
the vicinity of the project and along the
coast of Virginia Beach. Like most
wildlife, bottlenose dolphins do not use
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
habitat uniformly. The heterogeneity in
available habitat, dietary items and
protection likely results in some
individuals preferring ocean and others
estuary (Ballance 1992; Gannon and
Waples 2004). Dolphins clearly have the
ability to move between these habitat
types. Gannon and Waples (2004)
suggest individuals prefer one habitat
over the other based on gut contents of
dietary items. Therefore, a subset of
survey data from Engelhaupt et al.
(2016) was used to determine seasonal
dolphin densities within the project
area. A spatially refined approach was
used by plotting dolphin sightings
within a 12 km radius of the proposed
project location. Densities were
determined following methodology
outlined in Engelhaupt et al. 2016 and
Miller et al. 2019 using the package
DISTANCE in R statistical software (R.
Core Team 2018). Calculated densities
by season are provided in table 8.
TABLE 8—DENSITIES (INDIVIDUAL/km2)
OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN FROM
INSHORE AREAS OF VIRGINIA
Season
Spring ...................................
Winter ...................................
12 km
distance
around PTST
project area
1.00
0.63
This information was then used to
calculate the monthly takes based on the
number of pile driving days per month.
These were broken out by month as
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89398
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
shown in table 9. The Level B
harassment area for each pile and
driving type was multiplied by the
appropriate seasonal density and the
anticipated number of days per activity
per month to derive the total number of
takes for each activity. Given this
information, NMFS is proposing to
authorize a total of 12,256 Level B
harassment exposures for bottlenose
dolphins. No take by Level A
harassment is proposed by NMFS since
the shutdown zone is 30 m and should
be readily visible to PSOs.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED TAKES OF BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY MONTH, LOCATION, AND DRIVING
ACTIVITY
Month
Jan
Dolphin Density (/km2) .............................
Feb
0.63
Mar
0.63
Apr
1
Dec
Totals
1
0.63
........................
1.38
0
0
1.38
0
0
........................
........................
5
212
0
0
212
0
0
........................
........................
669
1.32
0
0
1.32
9
8
........................
........................
8
202
0
0
202
9
1146
........................
........................
1146
1.38
8
12
1.38
0
0
........................
........................
56
212
8
1696
212
0
0
........................
........................
8193
1.32
0
0
1.32
17
15
........................
........................
15
Impact: Portal Island 1 Mooring Dolphins (9 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
1.38
2
2
1.38
3
3
1.38
0
0
Vibratory: Portal Island 1 Mooring Dolphins (9 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
212
2
268
212
3
401
212
0
0
Impact: Portal Island 2 Mooring Dolphins (18 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
1.32
0
0
1.32
0
0
1.32
0
0
Vibratory: Portal Island 2 Mooring Dolphins (18 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
202
0
0
202
0
0
202
0
0
Impact: Portal Island 1 Trestle/Dock Removal (97 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
1.38
13
12
1.38
15
14
1.38
13
18
Vibratory: Portal Island 1 Trestle/Dock Removal (97 Piles)
(/km2)
Refined Area
.................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
212
13
1737
212
15
2004
212
13
2756
Impact: Portal Island 2 Trestle Removal (34 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
1.32
0
0
1.32
0
0
1.32
0
0
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Vibratory: Portal Island 2 Trestle Removal (34 Piles)
Refined Area (/km2) .................................
Driving Days .............................................
Dolphin Harassments ...............................
202
0
0
202
0
0
202
0
0
202
0
0
202
17
2164
........................
........................
2164
Total ..................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
12,256
The total number of bottlenose
dolphin Level B harassment events will
be split between three bottlenose
dolphin stocks: Western North Atlantic
Southern Migratory Coastal; Western
North Atlantic Northern Migratory
Coastal; and NNCES. There is
insufficient information to apportion the
requested takes precisely to each of
these three stocks present in the project
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
area. Given that most of the NNCES
stock are found in the Pamlico Sound
estuarine system, it is assumed that no
greater than 200 of the takes will be
from this stock. Since members of the
Western North Atlantic Northern
Migratory Coastal and Western North
Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal
stocks are thought to occur in or near
the project area in greater numbers, we
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conservatively assume that no more
than half of the remaining animals will
belong to either of these stocks.
Additionally, a subset of these takes
would likely be comprised of
Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins,
although the size of that population is
unknown. It is assumed that an animal
will be taken once over a 24-hour
period; however, the same individual
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89399
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
may be taken multiple times over the
duration of the project. Therefore, the
number of takes for each stock is
assumed to overestimate the actual
number of individuals that may be
affected.
Beach from 2012 to 2015 (Engelhaupt et
al. 2014, 2015, 2016) did not produce
high enough sample sizes to calculate
densities.
One group of two harbor porpoises
was seen during spring 2015
(Engelhaupt et al. 2016). Therefore, it is
assumed that there are two harbor
porpoises exposed to noise exceeding
harassment levels each month during
the spring (March–April) for a total of
four harbor porpoises (i.e., 1 group of 2
individuals per month × 2 months per
year = 4 harbor porpoises). Harbor
porpoises are not expected to be present
in the summer, fall or winter. Harbor
porpoises are members of the highfrequency hearing group which would
have Level A harassment isopleths as
large as 338 m during impact driving of
36’’ steel pile, while the Level B
harassment zone is 736 m. Given the
relatively large Level A harassment
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are known to occur
in the coastal waters near Virginia
Beach (Hayes et al. 2019), and although
they have been reported on rare
occasions in the Chesapeake Bay near
the project area, they have not been seen
by the Protected Species Observers in
the PTST project area during the
construction. Density data for this
species within the project vicinity do
not exist or were not calculated because
sample sizes were too small to produce
reliable estimates of density.
Additionally, harbor porpoise sighting
data collected by the U.S. Navy near
Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia
zones for HF cetaceans during impact
driving and a required shutdown zone
of 200 m, NMFS will assume that 30
percent of porpoises are taken by Level
A harassment. Therefore, NMFS
proposes to authorize take of three
porpoises by Level B harassment and
one porpoise by Level A harassment.
Harbor Seal
The expected number of harbor seals
in the project area was estimated using
systematic, land and vessel-based
survey data for in-water and hauled-out
seals collected by the U.S. Navy at the
CBBT rock armor and Portal Islands
from November 2014 through April
2022 (Rees et al. 2016; Jones et al. 2018;
Jones and Rees 2020; Jones and Rees
2021; Jones and Rees 2022; Jones and
Rees 2023) and shown in table 10. The
number of harbor seals sighted by
month ranged from 0 to 170 individuals.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL HARBOR SEAL SIGHTINGS BY MONTH FROM 2014 TO 2022 AT THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY BRIDGE TUNNEL
Month
2014
2015
January ..............
February ............
March ................
April ...................
December ..........
....................
....................
....................
....................
4
....................
39
55
10
9
2016
2017
33
80
61
1
24
2018
120
106
41
3
8
2019
170
159
0
3
29
2020
7
21
18
4
0
2021
18
0
6
0
4
Monthly
average
2022
49
43
26
6
11
34
14
37
1
11
61.6
57.7
30.5
3.5
12.5
Note: Seal counts began in November 2014 and were collected for 9 field seasons (2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/
2021, 2021/2022) ending in 2022. In January 2015, no surveys were conducted.
Seal density data are in the format of
seal per unit time; therefore, seal take
requests were calculated as total number
of potential seals per pile driving day (8
hours) multiplied by the number of
driving days per month. For example, in
December seal density data is reported
at 14.3 seals per day * 26 workdays in
December, resulting in the potential of
372 instances of take for that month
(table 11). The anticipated number of
take events were summed across the
months during which in-water pile
driving is planned. The largest Level A
harassment isopleth for phocid species
is 153 m which would occur when piles
were being removed via impact hammer
with a bubble curtain. The smallest
Level A harassment zone is 1 m which
would occur when piles are removed
via vibratory hammer with a bubble
curtain. NMFS is proposing to require a
shutdown zone for harbor seals of 160
m during impact driving which would
theoretically result in no take by Level
A harassment. However, a small number
of harbor seals could enter into the
shutdown zone unseen by a PSO and
remain for sufficient duration to incur
PTS. Given that harbor seals are
common in the project area, NMFS
assumed that a single harbor seal would
experience Level A harassment during
each in-water work day (80). Therefore,
NMFS proposes to authorize the take of
80 harbor seals by Level A harassment
and 2,634 harbor seals by Level B
harassment for a total of 2,714 takes
(table 11).
TABLE 11—CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF HARBOR SEAL TAKES
Estimated
seals per work
day
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Month
January 2024 ...............................................................................................................................
February 2024 .............................................................................................................................
March 2024 ..................................................................................................................................
April 2024 .....................................................................................................................................
December 2024 ...........................................................................................................................
Gray Seal
The number of gray seals expected to
be present at the PTST project area was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
estimated using the same methodology
as was used for the harbor seal. Survey
data collected by the U.S. Navy at the
portal islands from 2015 through 2022
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61.6
57.8
30.5
3.5
12.5
Total pile
driving days
per month
15
18
13
8
26
Total number
of requested
takes
924
1,040
396.5
28
325
2,714
was utilized (Rees et al. 2016; Jones et
al. 2018; Jones and Rees 2023). A
maximum of 1 gray seal was seen during
the months of February 2015, 2016, and
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89400
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
2022. Given this information NMFS
assumed that a single gray seal would be
taken per work day in February
2024.The anticipated numbers of
monthly takes were calculated following
the same approach as for harbor seals,
and the monthly takes were then
summed (table 12). Although the project
has not recorded any gray seal sightings
to date, NMFS assumed that, over the
duration of the project, a single gray seal
could enter into the Level A harassment
zone unseen by a PSO and remain for
sufficient duration to incur PTS.
Therefore, NMFS is proposing to
authorize the take of 1 gray seal by Level
A harassment and 17 gray seals by Level
B harassment for a total of 18 proposed
takes.
TABLE 12—CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF GRAY SEAL TAKES
Estimated
seals per work
day
Month
Total pile
driving days
per month
Total number
of requested
takes
January 2024 ...............................................................................................................................
February 2024 .............................................................................................................................
March 2024 ..................................................................................................................................
April 2024 .....................................................................................................................................
December 2024 ...........................................................................................................................
0
1
0
0
0
15
18
13
8
26
0
18
0
0
0
Total ......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
18
Table 13 shows the take numbers
proposed for authorization by NMFS as
well as the percentage of each stock
affected.
TABLE 13—PROPOSED TAKE BY STOCK AND HARASSMENT TYPE AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE
Level A
harassment
Species
Stock
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 .....................
Harbor Seal .......................................
Gray Seal ..........................................
The monitoring results from work
conducted in 2020 and 2021 are found
in table 14. The results demonstrate
significantly fewer takes by harassment
than were authorized, and it is
Level B
harassment
0
1
0
0
0
80
1
important to note that estimates in the
previous IHAs as well as in this
proposed IHA are based on conservative
assumptions, including the size of
identified harassment zones and the
Total
6
3
6,028
6,028
200
2,634
17
6
4
6,028
6,028
200
2,714
18
Percent of
stock
0.4
<0.01
90.8
160.1
24.3
4.4
<0.01
abundance of marine mammals.
However, we note that these
assumptions represent the best available
information in this case.
TABLE 14—MARINE MAMMAL MONITORING RESULTS FROM IHAS ISSUED IN 2020 AND 2021
Observations
in level A
harassment
zones under
2020
IHA
Observations
in level B
harassment
zones under
2020
IHA
Level A
harassments
authorized
in 2021 IHA
Level B
harassments
authorized
in 2021 IHA
Observations
in level A
harassment
zones under
2021
IHA
Observations
in level B
harassment
zones under
2021
IHA
Species
Stock
Humpback
Whale.
Harbor Porpoise
Gulf of Maine .....
......................
12
......................
......................
......................
12
......................
......................
Gulf of Maine/
Bay of Fundy.
WNA Coastal,
Northern Migratory.
WNA Coastal,
Southern Migratory.
NNCES ..............
Western North
Atlantic.
Western North
Atlantic.
5
7
......................
......................
5
7
......................
......................
142
14,095
......................
5
......................
43,203
......................
394
142
14,095
......................
......................
......................
43,203
......................
......................
2
1,296
198
2,124
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
1154
250
1,730
......................
......................
......................
......................
1
3
......................
......................
16
24
......................
......................
Bottlenose Dolphin.
.......................
.......................
Harbor Seal .......
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Level B
harassments
authorized
in 2020 IHA
Level A
harassments
authorized
in 2020 IHA
Gray Seal ..........
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89401
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the 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 the 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, NMFS considers 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 and
impact on operations.
CTJV must conduct training between
construction supervisors, crews, marine
mammal monitoring team, and relevant
CTJV staff prior to the start of all pile
driving activities and when new
personnel join the work, so that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, monitoring protocols, and
operational procedures are clearly
understood.
Construction supervisors and crews,
PSOs, and relevant CTJV staff must
avoid direct physical interaction with
marine mammals during construction
activity. If a marine mammal comes
within 10 m of such activity, operations
must cease and vessels must reduce
speed to the minimum level required to
maintain steerage and safe working
conditions, as necessary to avoid direct
physical interaction. If an activity is
delayed or halted due to the presence of
a marine mammal, the activity may not
commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily exited and been
visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone indicated in table 15 or
15 minutes have passed without redetection of the animal.
Construction activities must be halted
upon observation of a species for which
incidental take is not authorized or a
species for which incidental take has
been authorized but the authorized
number of takes has been met entering
or within the harassment zone.
Shutdown Zones—For all pile driving
activities, CTJV would implement
shutdowns within designated zones.
The purpose of a shutdown zone is
generally to define an area within which
shutdown of the activity would occur
upon sighting of a marine mammal (or
in anticipation of an animal entering the
defined area). Shutdown zones vary
based on the activity type and marine
mammal hearing group (table 7). In most
cases, the shutdown zones are based on
the estimated Level A harassment
isopleth distances for each hearing
group. However, in cases where it
would be challenging to detect marine
mammals at the Level A harassment
isopleth, (e.g., for high frequency
cetaceans and phocids during impact
driving activities), smaller shutdown
zones have been proposed (table 15).
TABLE 15—SHUTDOWN AND MONITORING ZONES
[Meters]
Method and piles
LF cetaceans
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
36-in Impact (with bubble Curtain) ......................................
36-in Vibratory (with bubble curtain) ....................................
Protected Species Observers—The
number and placement of PSOs during
all construction activities (described in
the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
section as well as the Marine Mammal
Monitoring Plan) would ensure that the
entire shutdown zone is visible. A
minimum of one PSO must be employed
for all driving activities and placed at a
location providing, at a minimum,
adequate views of the established
shutdown zones.
Monitoring for Level B Harassment—
PSOs would monitor the shutdown
zones and beyond to the extent that
PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the
shutdown zones enables observers to be
aware of and communicate the presence
of marine mammals in the project areas
outside the shutdown zones and thus
prepare for a potential cessation of
activity should the animal enter the
shutdown zone. If a marine mammal
enters the Level B harassment zone (or
Level A harassment zone if larger than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
MFcetaceans
285
10
20
10
the Level B harassment zone), PSOs will
document the marine mammal’s
presence and behavior.
Pre and Post-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, Level A harassment, and
Level B harassment zones for a period
of 30 minutes. Pre-start clearance
monitoring must be conducted during
periods of visibility sufficient for the
lead PSO to determine that the
shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals. If the shutdown zone is
obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, in-water construction
activity will not be initiated until the
entire shutdown zone is visible. Pile
driving activities may commence
following 30 minutes of observation
when the determination is made that the
shutdown zones are clear of marine
mammals. If a marine mammal is
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
HF cetaceans
200
15
Phocids
160
10
Monitoring
zone
736
10,000
observed entering or within shutdown
zones, pile driving activities must be
delayed or halted. If pile driving is
delayed or halted due to the presence of
a marine mammal, the activity may not
commence or resume until either the
animal has voluntarily exited and been
visually confirmed beyond the
shutdown zone or 15 minutes have
passed for all other species without redetection of the animal.
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 would be
required to provide an initial set of three
strikes from the hammer at reduced
energy, with each strike followed by a
30-second waiting period. This
procedure would be conducted a total of
three times before impact pile driving
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89402
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
begins. Soft start would be implemented
at the start of each day’s impact pile
driving activities and at any time
following cessation of impact pile
driving activities for a period of 30
minutes or longer. Soft start is not
required during vibratory pile driving
activities.
Bubble Curtain—Use of a bubble
curtain during impact and vibratory pile
driving in water depths greater than 3 m
(10 ft) would be required. It must be
operated as necessary to achieve
optimal performance, and there can be
no reduction in performance
attributable to faulty deployment. At a
minimum, CTJV must adhere to the
following performance standards: The
bubble curtain must distribute air
bubbles around 100 percent of the piling
circumference for the full depth of the
water column. The lowest bubble ring
must be in contact with the substrate for
the full circumference of the ring, and
the weights attached to the bottom ring
shall ensure 100 percent substrate
contact. No parts of the ring or other
objects shall prevent full substrate
contact. Air flow to the bubblers must
be balanced around the circumference
of the pile.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of 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.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for 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 while conducting the activities.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
activity; 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); and,
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring—Marine mammal
monitoring must be conducted in
accordance with the Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. Marine
mammal monitoring during pile driving
activities must be conducted by NMFSapproved PSOs in a manner consistent
with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the
activity contractor (for example,
employed by a subcontractor), and have
no other assigned tasks during
monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO must have prior
experience performing the duties of a
PSO during construction activity
pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental
take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute other
relevant experience, education (degree
in biological science or related field) or
training for experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction
activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization.
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS
prior to beginning any activity subject to
this IHA.
PSOs should also have the following
additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including identification of behaviors;
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• 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, times,
and reason for implementation of
mitigation (or why mitigation was note
implemented when required); 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.
Visual monitoring will be conducted
by a minimum of one trained PSO
positioned at a suitable vantage point
that will allow coverage of the identified
harassment zones. The Portal Islands
and associated berms would constrain
the ensonified area to only one side (i.e.,
east or west) of the bridge tunnel
structure. Additionally, CTJV expressed
concern that since they will only be
using one drill for about two hours per
week, it will be difficult to secure
multiple observers willing to commit to
the PTST project.
Monitoring will be conducted 30
minutes before, during, and 30 minutes
after all in water construction activities.
In addition, PSOs will record all
incidents of marine mammal
occurrence, regardless of distance from
activity, and will document any
behavioral reactions in concert with
distance from piles being removed. Pile
driving activities include the time to
remove a single pile or series of piles,
as long as the time elapsed between uses
of the pile driving equipment is no more
than 30 minutes.
Reporting
CTJV will submit a draft marine
mammal monitoring report to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of
pile driving activities, or 60 days prior
to a requested date of issuance of any
future IHAs for the project, or other
projects at the same location, whichever
comes first. The marine mammal
monitoring report will include an
overall description of work completed,
a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings, and associated PSO data
sheets. Specifically, the report will
include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of
all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring
during each daily observation period,
including: (1) The number and type of
piles that were removed (e.g., impact,
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
vibratory); and (2) Total duration of
driving time for each pile (vibratory)
and number of strikes for each pile
(impact);
• PSO locations during marine
mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during
monitoring periods (at beginning and
end of PSO shift and whenever
conditions change significantly),
including Beaufort sea state and any
other relevant weather conditions
including cloud cover, fog, sun glare,
and overall visibility to the horizon, and
estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine
mammal, the following information: (1)
Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s)
and PSO location and activity at time of
sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3)
Identification of the animal(s) (e.g.,
genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO
confidence in identification, and the
composition of the group if there is a
mix of species; (4) Distance and location
of each observed marine mammal
relative to the pile being removed for
each sighting; (5) Estimated number of
animals (min/max/best estimate); (6)
Estimated number of animals by cohort
(adults, juveniles, neonates, group
composition, etc.); (7) Animal’s closest
point of approach and estimated time
spent within the harassment zone; (8)
Description of any marine mammal
behavioral observations (e.g., observed
behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral
responses thought to have resulted from
the activity (e.g., no response or changes
in behavioral state such as ceasing
feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
• Number of marine mammals
detected within the harassment zones,
by species; and,
• Detailed information about
implementation of any mitigation (e.g.,
shutdowns and delays), a description of
specific actions that ensued, and
resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
If no comments are received from
NMFS within 30 days, the draft final
report would constitute the final report.
If comments are received, a final report
addressing NMFS comments must be
submitted within 30 days after receipt of
comments. The Holder must submit all
PSO data electronically in a format that
can be queried such as a spreadsheet or
database (i.e., digital images of data
sheets are not sufficient).
In the event that personnel involved
in the construction activities discover
an injured or dead marine mammal, the
Holder must report the incident to the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
NMFS (PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@
noaa.gov and ITP.pauline@noaa.gov)
and to the Greater Atlantic Regional
Stranding Coordinator (978–282–8478)
as soon as feasible. If the death or injury
was clearly caused by the specified
activity, the Holder must immediately
cease the activities until NMFS OPR is
able to review the circumstances of the
incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to
ensure compliance with the terms of
this IHA. The Holder must not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
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 impacts or responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
impacts or responses (e.g., critical
reproductive time or location, foraging
impacts affecting energetics), 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’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89403
impacts on the 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).
To avoid repetition, the majority of
our analysis applies to all the species
listed in table 13, given that many of the
anticipated effects of this project on
different marine mammal stocks are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or
groups of species, in anticipated
individual responses to activities,
impact of expected take on the
population due to differences in
population status, or impacts on habitat,
they are described independently in the
analysis below.
Impact and vibratory pile driving
have the potential to disturb or displace
marine mammals. Specifically, the
project activities may result in take, in
the form of Level A and Level B
harassment from underwater sounds
generated from pile driving.
The takes from Level A and Level B
harassment would be due to potential
behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS.
No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated given the nature of the
activity and measures designed to
minimize the possibility of injury to
marine mammals. The potential for
harassment is minimized through the
construction method and the
implementation of the planned
mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
We anticipate that harbor porpoises,
harbor seals and gray seals may sustain
some limited Level A harassment in the
form of auditory injury. However,
animals in these locations 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 would
lose a few decibels in its hearing
sensitivity, which in most cases is not
likely to meaningfully affect its ability
to forage and communicate with
conspecifics. Impacts to individual
fitness, reproduction, or survival are
unlikely. 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
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
89404
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
sufficient notice through use of soft
start.
Behavioral responses of marine
mammals to pile driving at the project
site, if any, are expected to be mild and
temporary. Marine mammals within the
Level B harassment zone may not show
any visual cues they are disturbed by
activities or could become alert, avoid
the area, leave the area, or display other
mild responses that are not observable
such as changes in vocalization
patterns. Given the short duration of
noise-generating activities per day, any
harassment would be temporary. There
are no other areas or times of known
biological importance for any of the
affected species.
We acknowledge the existence and
concern about the ongoing humpback
whale UME. We have no evidence that
this project is likely to result in vessel
strikes (a major correlate of the UME)
and marine construction projects in
general involve the use of slow-moving
vessels, such as tugs towing or pushing
barges, or smaller work boats
maneuvering in the vicinity of the
construction project. These vessel types
are not typically associated with vessel
strikes resulting in injury or mortality.
More generally, the UME does not yet
provide cause for concern regarding
population-level impacts for humpback
whales. Despite the UME, the West
Indies breeding population or DPS,
remains healthy.
For all species and stocks, take would
occur within a limited, confined area
(adjacent to the CBBT) of the stock’s
range and the amount of take proposed
to be authorized is extremely small
when compared to stock abundance. In
addition, it is unlikely that minor noise
effects in a small, localized area of
habitat would have any effect on the
stocks’ ability to recover. In
combination, we believe that these
factors, as well as the available body of
evidence from other similar activities,
demonstrate that the potential effects of
the specified activities will have only
minor, short-term effects on individuals.
The specified activities are not expected
to impact rates of recruitment or
survival and will therefore not result in
population-level impacts.
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 serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
• Authorized Level A harassment
would be very small amounts and of
low degree;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
• No important habitat areas have
been identified within the project area;
• For all species, the specified project
area in Chesapeake Bay is a very small
and peripheral part of their range;
• CTJV would implement mitigation
measures such as bubble curtains, softstarts, and shut downs; and
• Monitoring reports from similar
work in Chesapeake Bay have
documented little to no effect on
individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of
small numbers of marine mammals 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. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is less than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to
authorize is below one third of the
estimated stock abundance for
humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray
seal, and harbor seal (in fact, take is no
more than 6 percent of the abundance
of the affected stocks, see table 13). This
is likely a conservative estimate because
they assume all takes are of different
individual animals which is likely not
the case. Some individuals may return
multiple times in a day, but PSOs would
count them as separate takes if they
cannot be individually identified.
There are three bottlenose dolphin
stocks that could occur in the project
area. Therefore, the estimated 12,256
dolphin takes by Level B harassment
would likely be split among the western
North Atlantic northern migratory
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 24.3 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 Chesapeake 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
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
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
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
(∼2 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 (≤1 km 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
community of NNCES dolphins of
indeterminate size that inhabits the
Chesapeake Bay year-round (Eric
Patterson, Personal Communication).
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, Personal
Communication). 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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
10 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;
• 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 proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would 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.
Endangered Species Act
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89405
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is proposed for authorization 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.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to CTJV for conducting
construction activities as part of the
PTST project near Virginia Beach, VA
from January through December 2024
provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft
of the proposed IHA can be found at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizationsconstruction-activities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed construction
activities associated with the PTST
project. We also request comment on the
potential renewal of this proposed IHA
as described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform decisions on the request for
this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a renewal would allow
for completion of the activities beyond
that described in the Dates and Duration
section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond 1 year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
89406
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 27, 2023 / Notices
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: December 21, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–28514 Filed 12–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Office for Coastal Management,
National Ocean Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
soliciting comments from the public
regarding a proposed revision of the
management plan for the Apalachicola
National Estuarine Research Reserve. A
management plan provides a framework
for the direction and timing of a
reserve’s programs; allows reserve
managers to assess a reserve’s success in
meeting its goals and to identify any
necessary changes in direction; and is
used to guide programmatic evaluations
of the reserve. Plan revisions are
required of each reserve in the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System at
least every five years. This revised plan
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Dec 26, 2023
Jkt 262001
Matt
Chasse of NOAA’s Office for Coastal
Management by email at matt.chasse@
noaa.gov or by phone at (410) 570–1020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to 15 CFR 921.33(c), Florida must revise
the management plan for the
Apalachicola Research Reserve at least
every five years. If approved by NOAA,
the Apalachicola Research Reserve’s
revised plan will replace the plan
previously approved in 2015.
Management plans outline a reserve’s
strategic goals and objectives;
administrative structure; programs for
conducting research and monitoring,
education, and training; resource
protection, restoration, and
manipulation plans; public access and
visitor use plans; consideration for
future land acquisition; and facility
development to support reserve
operations. In particular, this draft of
the revised management plan focuses on
addressing specific coastal management
issues including hydrological changes
in the Apalachicola River and
floodplain; coastal development; and
climate change and extreme events.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Revised Management Plan for the
Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve
SUMMARY:
is intended to replace the plan approved
in 2015.
DATES: Comments must be received at
the appropriate address (see ADDRESSES)
on or before January 26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The draft revised
management plan can be downloaded or
viewed at: https://floridadep.gov/
ANERR. The document is also available
by sending a written request to the point
of contact identified below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
You may submit comments by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments by email to
matt.chasse@noaa.gov. Include
‘‘Comments on draft Apalachicola
Management Plan’’ in the message’s
subject line. NOAA will accept
anonymous comments, however, the
written comments NOAA receives are
considered part of the public record,
and the entirety of the comment,
including the name of the commenter,
email address, attachments, and other
supporting materials, will be publicly
accessible. Sensitive personally
identifiable information, such as
account numbers and Social Security
numbers, should not be included with
the comment. Comments that are not
related to the Management Plan for the
Apalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve, or that contain
profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other
inappropriate language will not be
considered.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In developing the strategic plan, the
reserve recognized that our natural
environment and the human
communities were inextricably linked.
Likewise, the reserve identified a
common theme, either prospective or
continuing, among the issues discussed
in the plan. This common theme
informs the planned actions related to
conservation or protection and
restoration. Resilience is another
common theme that is weaved
throughout the plan.
The Research and Monitoring
Program aims to expand its
understanding of the ecological
processes related to the Apalachicola
River and watershed. This will be
achieved through continuous
monitoring of weather, climate, sea
level, and water quality data to provide
and maintain baseline ecological status
for the Apalachicola estuary. The
program plans to develop new research
initiatives and monitoring projects to fill
gaps in the understanding of key
ecosystem functions related to
pollutants, habitats, and diversity. The
program plans to continue being a
central player in gathering and applying
scientific information regarding the
Apalachicola River and Bay system, and
its efforts have contributed to the
protection and management of this
unique and valuable ecosystem. The
program will also continue summarizing
existing scientific information related to
pollutants, habitats, and biological
diversity to improve our understanding
of the reserve and its ecology.
Stewardship of the reserve is
accomplished by actively managing
resources that the reserve is directly
responsible for, and by influencing the
activities of others within and adjacent
to reserve-managed areas. The reserve’s
key land and water habitats are
influenced by upstream water quality
and quantity issues, making the
Apalachicola Research Reserve
especially conscious of potential
environmental changes associated with
off-site activities. As a result, the reserve
works to ensure that the most effective
and efficient techniques are utilized in
reserve resource management activities.
The Education and Outreach Program
efforts include on-site and off-site
education activities that prioritize infield studies for students and teachers;
development and distribution of various
media; dissemination of information at
local events; recruitment and
management of volunteers; and training
workshops for local citizens and
decision-makers. Programs target
participants from all ages and walks of
life while recognizing the local
community as key stakeholders. The
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89385-89406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XD544]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel
Project, Virginia Beach, Virginia
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the Chesapeake Tunnel Joint
Venture (CTJV) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to
the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in Virginia Beach,
Virginia. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider
[[Page 89386]]
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of
the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be
summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January
26, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
[email protected]. Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities without change. All
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
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 commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) 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 the 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 the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On July 28, 2023, NMFS received a request from CTJV for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to in-water construction activities
associated with the PTST project near Virginia Beach, VA. Following
NMFS' review of the initial application, CTJV submitted several revised
versions of the application based on NMFS' comments. The final version
was submitted on November 7, 2023, and was deemed adequate and complete
on November 13, 2023. CTJV's request is for take of 5 species by Level
B harassment and, for a subset of three of these species, by Level A
harassment. Neither CTJV nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to
result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS most recently issued an IHA to CTJV for similar work on
November 8, 2022, (87 FR 68462; November 15, 2022). CTJV complied with
all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of
the previous IHA, and information regarding their monitoring results
may be found in the Estimated Take section.
This proposed IHA would cover 1 year of a larger project for which
CTJV obtained IHAs for similar work (83 FR 36522, July 30, 2018; 85 FR
16061, March 20, 2020; 86 FR 14606, March 17, 2021; 86 FR 67024,
November 24, 2021; and 87 FR 68462, November 15, 2022). The larger
multi-year PTST project consists of the construction of a two-lane
parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel,
connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 as part of the 23-mile Chesapeake
Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) facility.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The purpose of the project is to build an additional two lane
vehicle tunnel under the navigation channel as part of the CBBT. The
PTST project will address existing constraints to regional mobility
based on current traffic volume, improve safety, improve the ability to
conduct necessary maintenance with minimal impact to traffic flow, and
ensure reliable hurricane evacuation routes. In-water construction work
would include the removal of a total of 158 36-inch steel piles on the
temporary dock and trestle on Portal Islands Nos. 1 and 2 as well as
the removal of steel mooring piles on both Portal Islands (97 total on
Portal Island No.1); the removal of 36'' steel piles on the trestle (34
total on Portal Island No. 2); and the removal of 36'' steel mooring
piles on both Island 1 (9 piles) and Island No. 2 (18 piles). All steel
piles are hollow pipe piles. The proposed impact and vibratory pile
removal activities can introduce sound into the water environment which
can result in take of marine mammals by behavioral harassment and, for
some species, by auditory injury. Proposed construction activities are
expected to be completed from January-April as well as in December
2024. Note that the term ``pile driving'' is only used to refer to pile
removal activities. No pile
[[Page 89387]]
installation activities are planned by CTJV.
Dates and Duration
The proposed in-water removal of a total of 158 piles would occur
over 80 days. Removal will begin on Portal Island No. 1 in January
through April 2024 for 54 days then will resume on Portal Island No. 2
in December 2024 for 26 days. No pile removal work will take place in
the interim. The project schedule is shown in table 1.
Specific Geographic Region
The PTST project is located between Portal Islands No.1 and No. 2
of the CBBT as shown in Figure 1. A 6,525 lineal foot (ft) (1,989
meters(m)) tunnel will be bored underneath the Thimble Shoal Channel
connecting the Portal Islands located near the mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay. The CBBT is a 23-mile (37 km) long facility that connects the
Hampton Roads area of Virginia to the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Water
depths within the PTST construction area range from 0 to 60 ft (18.2 m)
below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The Thimble Shoal Channel is 1,000
ft (305 m) wide and is maintained at a depth of 50 ft (15.2 m) MLLW.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27DE23.003
Figure 1--Map of Proposed Project Area Near Virginia Beach, Virginia
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
The PTST project consists of the construction of a two lane tunnel
parallel and to the west of the existing tunnel, connecting Portal
Islands No. 1 and No. 2. A tunnel boring machine (TBM) will both
excavate material and construct the tunnel as it progresses from Portal
Island No. 1 to Portal Island No. 2. Precast concrete tunnel segments
will be transported to the TBM for installation. The TBM will assemble
the tunnel segments in-place as the tunnel is bored. After the tunnel
structure is completed, final upland work for the PTST Project will
include installation of the final roadway, lighting, finishes,
mechanical systems, and other required internal systems for tunnel use
and function. In addition, the existing fishing pier will be repaired
and refurbished.
[[Page 89388]]
Descriptions of additional upland activities may be found in the
application but such actions will not affect marine mammals and are not
described here.
Proposed in-water activities during this IHA include the removal of
36-inch steel piles on the temporary dock and trestle (97 total on
Portal Island No.1) and the removal of 36-inch steel piles on the
trestle (34 total on Portal Island No.2) as well as the removal of 36-
inch steel mooring piles on both Portal Islands (9 piles on Portal
Island No. 1 and 18 total on Portal Island No. 2). A total of 158 piles
will be removed over 80 in-water work days. Pile driving activities
will be conducted by initially using an impact hammer, if necessary, to
break the friction on the previously installed piles. If an impact
hammer is not required to initially break friction, then a vibratory
hammer will be used for extraction. If the pile cannot be removed with
this method, the pile will then be cut off a minimum of three feet
below the stabilized, post construction sediment-water interface. There
will be no concurrent pile driving activity.
Table 1--Anticipated Pile Installation Schedule
[January 2024-December 2024]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of piles/
Installation/ Bubble curtain Number days per days per Anticipated
Pile location Pile function Pile type removal method (yes/no) of piles activity activity (per installation
(total) hammer type) date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Island No. 1......... Mooring 36-inch Impact (if Yes............ 9 5 (2 Piles/Day).. 1 January
dolphins. Diameter Steel needed). Yes............ 5 (2 Piles/Day).. through 28
Pipe Pile. Vibratory February 2024.
(Removal).
Portal Island No. 1......... Temporary Dock/ 36-inch Impact (if Yes............ 97 49 (2 Piles/Day).. 1 January
Trestle. Diameter Steel needed). Yes............ 49 (2 Piles/Day).. through 30
Interlocked Vibratory April 2024.
Pipe Piles. (Removal).
Portal Island No. 2......... Mooring 36-inch Impact (if Yes............ 18 9 (2 Piles/Day).. December 1-31,
dolphins. Diameter Steel needed). Yes............ 9 (2 Piles/Day).. 2024.
Pipe Pile. Vibratory
(Removal).
Portal Island No. 2......... Omega Trestle.. 36-inch Impact (if Yes............ 34 17 (2 Piles/Day).. December 1-31,
Diameter Steel needed). Yes............ 17 (2 Piles/Day).. 2024.
Interlocked Vibratory
Pipe Piles. (Removal).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting)
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. 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'
SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed
to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species or stocks 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' 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' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs (Hayes et al. 2023). All
values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
Table 2--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most recent Annual M/SI
Common name Scientific name Stock Strategic (Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\ PBR \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale................... Megaptera novaeangliae.. Gulf of Maine.......... -,-; N................. 1,393 (0; 1,375, 2016) 22 12.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
[[Page 89389]]
Bottlenose dolphin............... Tursiops truncatus...... WNA Coastal, Northern -,-; Y................. 6,639 (0.41; 4,759; 2016) 48 12.2-21.5
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern -,-; Y................. 3,751 (0.06; 2,353; 2016) 24 0-18.3
Migratory.
Northern North Carolina -,-; Y................. 823 (0.06; 782; 2017) 7.8 7.2-30
Estuarine System.
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise.................. Phocoena phocoena....... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -, -; N................ 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) 851 164
Fundy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal...................... Phoca vitulina.......... WNA.................... -, -; N................ 61,336 (0.08, 57,637, 2018) 1,729 339
Gray seal \4\.................... Halichoerus grypus...... WNA.................... -, -; N................ 27,300 (0.22, 22,785, 2016) 1,458 4,453
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. CV is coefficient of
variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual
Mortality/Serious Injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
\4\ The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000. The PBR value is estimated for the U.S. population, while
the M/SI estimate is provided for the entire gray seal stock (including animals in Canada).
As indicated above, all five species (with seven managed stocks) in
table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While North Atlantic
right whale and fin whale could potentially occur in the area,
occurrence of these species is very rare, the species are readily
observed, and the applicant would shut down pile driving activity if
they enter the project area. Thus take is not expected to occur, and
they are not discussed further.
Humpback Whale
The humpback whale is found worldwide in all oceans. In winter,
humpback whales from waters off New England, Canada, Greenland,
Iceland, and Norway migrate to mate and calve primarily in the West
Indies, where spatial and genetic mixing among these groups occurs. For
the humpback whale, NMFS defines a stock on the basis of feeding
location, i.e., Gulf of Maine. However, our reference to humpback
whales in this document refers to any individuals of the species that
are found in the specific geographic region. These individuals may be
from the same breeding population (e.g., West Indies breeding
population of humpback whales) but visit different feeding areas.
Based on photo-identification only 39 percent of individual
humpback whales observed along the mid- and south Atlantic U.S. coast
are from the Gulf of Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002). Therefore, the
SAR abundance estimate underrepresents the relevant population, i.e.,
the West Indies breeding population.
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an
endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review
(Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS established 14 Distinct Population
Segments (DPSs) with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259, September
8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The West Indies DPS, which consists of
the whales whose breeding range includes the Atlantic margin of the
Antilles from Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose feeding range
primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and western
Greenland, was delisted. As described in Bettridge et al. (2015), the
West Indies DPS has a substantial population size (i.e., approximately
10,000; Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Bettridge et al.,
2015), and appears to be experiencing consistent growth.
Humpback whales are the only large cetaceans that are likely to
occur in the project area and could be found there at any time of the
year. There has been a decline in whale sightings in the peak months
since 2016/17; the distribution of whale sightings occur most
frequently in the month of January through March (Aschettino et al.,
2021).
There have been 33 humpback whale strandings recorded in Virginia
between 1988 and 2013. Most of these strandings were reported from
ocean facing beaches, but 11 were also within the Chesapeake Bay (Barco
and Swingle, 2014). Strandings occurred in all seasons, but were most
common in the spring. Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale
mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through
Florida. The event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME)
with 209 strandings recorded, 7 of which occurred in or near the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay. More detailed information is available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2023-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast. Three
previous UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in
2003, 2005, and 2006.
Humpback whales use the mid-Atlantic as a migratory pathway to and
from the calving/mating grounds, but it may also be an important winter
feeding area for juveniles. Since 1989, observations of juvenile
humpbacks in the mid-Atlantic have been increasing during the winter
months, peaking from January through March. Biologists theorize that
non-reproductive animals may be establishing a winter feeding range in
the mid-Atlantic since they are not participating in reproductive
[[Page 89390]]
behavior in the Caribbean (Swingle et al., 1993).
Bottlenose Dolphin
The bottlenose dolphin occurs in temperate and tropical oceans
throughout the world (Blaylock 1985). In the western Atlantic Ocean
there are two distinct morphotypes of bottlenose dolphins, an offshore
type that occurs along the edge of the continental shelf as well as an
inshore type. The inshore morphotype can be found along the entire
United States coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico, and typically
occurs in waters less than 20 m deep (Hayes et al., 2021). Bottlenose
dolphins found in Virginia are representative primarily of either the
northern migratory coastal stock, southern migratory coastal stock, or
the Northern North Carolina Estuarine System Stock (NNCES).
The northern migratory coastal stock is best defined by its
distribution during warm water months when the stock occupies coastal
waters from the shoreline to approximately the 20 m isobath between
Assateague, Virginia, and Long Island, New York (Garrison et al.,
2017). The stock migrates in late summer and fall and, during cold
water months (best described by January and February), occupies coastal
waters from approximately Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the North
Carolina/Virginia border. Historically, common bottlenose dolphins have
been rarely observed during cold water months in coastal waters north
of the North Carolina/Virginia border, and their northern distribution
in winter appears to be limited by water temperatures. Overlap with the
southern migratory coastal stock in coastal waters of northern North
Carolina and Virginia is possible during spring and fall migratory
periods, but the degree of overlap is unknown and it may vary depending
on annual water temperature (Garrison et al., 2016). When the stock has
migrated in cold water months to coastal waters from just north of Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, to just south of Cape Lookout, North
Carolina, it overlaps spatially with the NNCES stock (Garrison et al.,
2017).
The southern migratory coastal stock migrates seasonally along the
coast between North Carolina and northern Florida (Garrison et al.,
2017). During January-March, the southern migratory coastal stock
appears to move as far south as northern Florida. During April-June,
the stock moves back north past Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where it
overlaps, in coastal waters, with the NNCES stock (in waters <=1 km
from shore). 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.
The NNCES stock is best defined as animals that occupy primarily
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
(<=1 km from shore) of North Carolina from Beaufort north to Virginia
Beach, Virginia, including the lower Chesapeake Bay. A community of
NNCES dolphins are likely year-round Bay residents (Eric Patterson,
pers. communication).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise is typically found in colder waters in the
northern hemisphere. In the western North Atlantic Ocean, harbor
porpoises range from Greenland to as far south as North Carolina (Barco
and Swingle, 2014). They are commonly found in bays, estuaries, and
harbors less than 200 m deep (Hayes et al., 2022). Harbor porpoises in
the United States are made up of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock are concentrated in the Gulf of Maine
in the summer, but are widely dispersed from Maine to New Jersey in the
winter. South of New Jersey, harbor porpoises occur at lower densities.
Migrations to and from the Gulf of Maine do not follow a defined route
(Hayes et al., 2022).
Harbor porpoise occur seasonally in the winter and spring in small
numbers near the project area. Strandings occur primarily on ocean
facing beaches, but they occasionally travel into the Chesapeake Bay to
forage and could occur in the project area (Barco and Swingle, 2014).
Since 1999, stranding incidents have ranged widely from a high of 40 in
1999 to 2 in 2011, 2012, and 2016 (Barco et al., 2017). In most areas,
harbor porpoise occur in small groups of just a few individuals.
Harbor Seal
The harbor seal occurs in arctic and temperate coastal waters
throughout the northern hemisphere, including on both the east and west
coasts of the United States. On the east coast, harbor seals can be
found from the Canadian Arctic down to Georgia (Blaylock, 1985). Harbor
seals occur year-round in Canada and Maine and seasonally (September-
May) from southern New England to New Jersey (Hayes et al., 2022). The
range of harbor seals appears to be shifting as they are regularly
reported further south than they were historically. In recent years,
they have established haulout sites in the Chesapeake Bay including on
the portal islands of the CBBT (Rees et al., 2016, Jones et al., 2018).
Harbor seals are the most common seal in Virginia (Barco and
Swingle, 2014). They can be seen resting on the rocks around the portal
islands of the CBBT from December through April. They are primarily
concentrated north of the project area at Portal Island No. 3. Over 8
field seasons (2014-2015 through 2021-2022), 79.1 percent of seals were
recorded at Portal Island No. 3; 17.4 percent were recorded at Portal
Island No. 4; and 3.5 percent were recorded at Portal Island No. 1 and
No. 2 combined (Jones and Rees 2023).
Harbor seals are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson, 1979)
and tend to exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across
years, generally forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit
specific foraging areas (Suryan and Harvey, 1998; Thompson et al.,
1998). Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day
with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (London et al.,
2001).
Gray Seal
The gray seal occurs on both coasts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean
and are divided into three major populations The western north Atlantic
stock occurs in eastern Canada and the northeastern United States,
occasionally as far south as North Carolina. Gray seals inhabit rocky
coasts and islands, sandbars, ice shelves and icebergs. In the United
States, gray seals congregate in the summer to give birth at four
established colonies in Massachusetts and Maine (Hayes et al., 2022).
From September through May, they disperse and can be abundant as far
south as New Jersey. The range of gray seals appears to be shifting as
they are regularly being reported further south than they were
historically (Rees et al. 2016).
Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay. Only 15
gray seal strandings were documented in Virginia from 1988 through 2013
(Barco and Swingle, 2014). They are rarely found resting on the rocks
around the portal islands of the CBBT from December through April
alongside harbor seals. Seal observation surveys conducted at the CBBT
recorded one gray seal in each of the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
while no gray seals were reported during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018
seasons (Rees et al. 2016, Jones et al. 2018).
[[Page 89391]]
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger &
L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al.
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
The Estimated Take section later in this document includes a
quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to
be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those
impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity
can occur from impact and vibratory pile driving activities. The
effects of underwater noise from CTJV's proposed activities have the
potential to result in Level A harassment and Level B harassment of
marine mammals.
Description of Sound Sources
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and
anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing
sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many
sources both near and far (American National Standards Institute 1995).
The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy
being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include
physical (e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds produced by marine
mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound (e.g.,
vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10 to 20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals.
Two types of hammers would be used on this project. Impact hammers
operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a
pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact
hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a
potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the
weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers
produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak Sound
Pressure Levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10
to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the
same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing
the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed
over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et
al., 2005).
[[Page 89392]]
The likely or possible impacts of CTJV's proposed activities on
marine mammals could be generated from both non-acoustic and acoustic
stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors include the physical
presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, any impacts
to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during
pile driving activities.
Acoustic Impacts
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic
environment from pile driving activities is the primary means by which
marine mammals may be harassed from CTJV's specified activities. In
general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may
experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging
in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). Generally,
exposure to pile driving activities has the potential to result in
behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging
and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and, in limited cases,
auditory threshold shifts. Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also
lead to non-observable physiological responses such as an increase in
stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask
acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such
as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile
driving activities on marine mammals are dependent on several factors,
including, but not limited to, sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. non-
impulsive), the species, age and sex class (e.g., adult male vs. mother
with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the
animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous
history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007).
Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed
by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of
threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent
or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors
to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not
limited to, the signal temporal pattern (e.g., impulsive or non-
impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough
duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the
TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the
frequency range of the exposure (i.e., spectral content), the hearing
and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the
signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the
frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the
overlap between the animal and the source (e.g., spatial, temporal, and
spectral).
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)--NMFS defines PTS as a permanent,
irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified
frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a
previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Available data
from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB
threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al.,
1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Henderson et al.,
2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, because there are
limited empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals (e.g., Kastak et
al., 2008), largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons,
experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing
PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)--A temporary, reversible increase
in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of
an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements
(Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum
threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-
session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et
al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000). As described in Finneran (2016),
marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with
cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) in an accelerating
fashion: At low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of
TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At
exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become
steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration
(i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in
which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging
from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in Auditory
Masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily
compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-
critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal
is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and
there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could
have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as
a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well
as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that
strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though
likely not without cost. Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocoena
asiaeorientalis) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited
number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in
laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained
spotted (Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to
impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset
(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises
have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species
(Finneran, 2015). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data
come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data
are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and
Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and table 5 in NMFS (2018).
Activities for this project include impact and vibratory pile
driving. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound
during each day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine
mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining
for extended periods of time, the potential for threshold shift
declines.
Behavioral harassment--Exposure to noise from pile driving
activities has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals.
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound
in a particular instance might affect marine
[[Page 89393]]
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007;
National Research Council (NRC), 2005).
The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses
that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal
species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to
which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could
occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the
literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from
closely related species when no information exists, along with
contextual factors. Available studies show wide variation in response
to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. There are broad categories of potential
response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include
alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects
to respiration, interference with or alteration of vocalization,
avoidance, and flight.
Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-
water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral reactions can
vary not only among individuals but also within an individual,
depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and
numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more
quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans,
and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial
sound than most cetaceans.
Alteration of Feeding Behavior--Disruption of feeding behavior can
be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is
usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas,
the appearance of secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment
plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral
response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in response in any given
circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et
al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). In addition, behavioral state of the
animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response,
such as disruption to foraging (e.g., Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et
al., 2017). An evaluation of whether foraging disruptions would be
likely to incur fitness consequences considers temporal and spatial
scale of the activity in the context of the available foraging habitat
and, in more severe cases may necessitate consideration of information
on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging
effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal. Goldbogen
et al. (2013) indicate that disruption of feeding and displacement
could impact individual fitness and health. However, for this to be
true, we would have to assume that an individual could not compensate
for this lost feeding opportunity by either immediately feeding at
another location, by feeding shortly after cessation of acoustic
exposure, or by feeding at a later time. There is no indication this is
the case here, particularly since prey would likely still be available
in the environment in most cases following the cessation of acoustic
exposure.
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness. Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the
hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine
functions that are affected by stress--including immune competence,
reproduction, metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones
have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism,
reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg,
1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids
are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found
that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was
associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These
and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine
mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to
acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be
classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however
distress is an unlikely result of these projects based on observations
of marine mammals during previous, similar projects.
Auditory Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance,
[[Page 89394]]
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when the receipt
of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether
the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities
produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to
marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound
is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay contains active military and commercial
shipping, as well as numerous recreational and other commercial vessel
and background sound levels in the area are already elevated.
Airborne Acoustic Effects--Pinnipeds that occur near the project
site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving
and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment,
depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are
not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in
harassment as defined under the MMPA. Airborne noise would primarily be
an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project
site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic
criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to
airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking
with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause
behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to
underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled
out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as
reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the
area and move further from the source. However, these animals would
likely previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater
sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally
larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral
harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates
of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of
additional incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds
is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further.
Marine Mammal Habitat Effects
CTJV's proposed construction activities could have localized,
temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by
increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water
quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see
Auditory Masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal
prey in the vicinity of the project areas (see discussion below).
Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas
where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success.
Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction;
however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is
not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or
populations.
In-water Construction Effects on Potential Prey--Construction
activities would produce continuous (i.e., vibratory pile driving) and
intermittent (i.e., impact pile driving) sounds. Sound may affect
marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or
distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and
location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on
known marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay,
2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory
structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure
and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of
surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on
fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the
sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing
sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include
behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related
injuries), and mortality.
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or
avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can
cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution.
The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the
fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding, spawning, migration),
and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified
several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas
of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile
driving on fish; several are based on studies in support of large,
multiyear bridge construction projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001;
Scholik and Yan, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have
demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and
behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities
or increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012;
Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999;
Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight
reaction to impulse sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al.,
2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009).
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish
and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4 to 6 dB was recoverable within 24
hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual
fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving activities at
the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area.
The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment,
[[Page 89395]]
distribution, and behavior is anticipated.
Construction activities have the potential to have adverse impacts
on forage fish in the project area in the form of increased turbidity.
Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species
that occur in the project area. Turbidity within the water column has
the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate
the gills of prey fish in the proposed project area. However, fish in
the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the
areas where increase turbidity may occur. Given the limited area
affected and ability of fish to move to other areas, any effects on
forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with
individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being
affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed actions
are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat,
or populations of fish species. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the
disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and
marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we
conclude that impacts of the specified activities are not likely to
have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or
populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse
impacts on their populations.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact
determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic sources (i.e., impact and vibratory driving) 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, primarily for high frequency species and
phocids because predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for
mid-frequency species. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-
frequency species. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent
practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential 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 proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of 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--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced
to 1 micropascal (re 1 [mu]Pa)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile
driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-
explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take
estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected
to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of
TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which
behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and
the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals
(conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in
behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur. CTJV's proposed
activities include the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and
impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL
thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa are applicable.
Level A harassment--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). CTJV's
proposed pile driving activities includes the use of impulsive (impact
pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds are provided in table 4 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.
[[Page 89396]]
Table 4--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 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [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 are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background
noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project.
Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the
primary components of the project (i.e., pile driving).
The project includes vibratory and impact pile driving. Source
levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the
same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the
literature. Source levels for each pile size and activity are presented
in table 5. Source levels for vibratory pile removal and installation
of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same. Note that
CTJV will employ a bubble curtain during all impact and vibratory
driving activities which NMFS assumes will reduce source levels by 5
dB.
Table 5--Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pile type Hammer type Peak RMS SSsel Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-in steel pipe............. Impact/(with 5 210/(205) 193/(188) 183/(178) Caltrans 2015,
dB bubble 2020.
curtain).
Vibratory/(with - 180/(175) 170/(165) .............. Caltrans 2015.
5 dB bubble
curtain).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: CTJV will incorporate bubble curtain with a 5 dB reduction for all pile driving activities.
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an
acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary
with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and
receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition
and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
TL = B * Log10 (R1/R2),
where
TL = transmission loss in dB
B = transmission loss coefficient
R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and
R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the
transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific
transmission loss data for the PTST project area are not available;
therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the
distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User
Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used
to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For
stationary sources, such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet
tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at
that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to
incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool are shown
in table 6, and the resulting estimated isopleths are shown in table 7,
as reported below.
[[Page 89397]]
Table 6--User Spreadsheet Inputs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-inch steel piles
-------------------------------
Vibratory Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Level (SPL)...................... 170 RMS 183 SEL
Transmission Loss Coefficient........... 15 15
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz)....... 2.5 2
Activity Duration per day (minutes)..... 30 ..............
Number of strikes per pile.............. .............. 240
Number of piles per day................. 2 2
Distance of sound pressure level 10 10
measurement............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Calculated Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths
[Meters]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zones
Scenario ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level B harassment
LF MF HF Phocid pinnipeds zones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving Type:
Pile Type...................... Island 1 & 2.......... Island 1 & 2.......... Island 1 & 2......... Island 1 & 2......... Island 1 & 2.
36-in Impact (with Bubble Curtain):
36-in. Steel................... 285................... 10.................... 338.................. 152.................. 736.
36-inVibratory (with Bubble
Curtain):
36-in. Steel................... 8..................... 1..................... 12................... 5.................... 10,000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations as well as how the information
provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take
that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Several approaches were utilized to estimate take for affected species
depending on the best data that was available. For some species, survey
or observational data was used to estimate take (e.g., harbor seal,
gray seal). If density data was available, it was employed to develop
the take estimate (i.e., bottlenose dolphin). In cases where the best
available information consisted only of very low density values, NMFS
assumed the average group to arrive at an estimate (i.e., humpback
whale, harbor porpoise).
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are rare in the Chesapeake Bay. Density data for
this species within the project vicinity were not available. 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 showed a maximum monthly density of 0.107/100 km\2\
in March. Because humpback whale occurrence is low, as mentioned above,
the CTJV estimated, and NMFS concurred, that there will be a single
humpback sighting every two months for the duration of in-water pile
driving activities. There are 5 months of planned in-water
construction. Using an average group size of two animals Kraus et al.
(2016) and 5 months of active in-water pile driving work (Jan, Feb,
Mar, Apr, Dec) provides an estimate of four takes during the January-
April period. NMFS conservatively assumed that there would be an
additional sighting of 2 humpback whales in December. Because it is
expected that a full shutdown can occur before the mammal can reach the
full extent of the Level A harassment zone, no takes by Level A
harassment were requested or are expected. Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize six takes of humpback whale by Level B harassment.
Bottlenose Dolphin
There was insufficient monitoring data available from previous PTST
IHAs to estimate dolphin take. Therefore, the expected number of
bottlenose dolphins 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).
This report provides seasonal densities of bottlenose dolphins for
inshore areas in the vicinity of the project and along the coast of
Virginia Beach. Like most wildlife, bottlenose dolphins do not use
habitat uniformly. The heterogeneity in available habitat, dietary
items and protection likely results in some individuals preferring
ocean and others estuary (Ballance 1992; Gannon and Waples 2004).
Dolphins clearly have the ability to move between these habitat types.
Gannon and Waples (2004) suggest individuals prefer one habitat over
the other based on gut contents of dietary items. Therefore, a subset
of survey data from Engelhaupt et al. (2016) was used to determine
seasonal dolphin densities within the project area. A spatially refined
approach was used by plotting dolphin sightings within a 12 km radius
of the proposed project location. Densities were determined following
methodology outlined in Engelhaupt et al. 2016 and Miller et al. 2019
using the package DISTANCE in R statistical software (R. Core Team
2018). Calculated densities by season are provided in table 8.
Table 8--Densities (Individual/km\2\) of Bottlenose Dolphin From Inshore
Areas of Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 km distance
Season around PTST
project area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring.................................................. 1.00
Winter.................................................. 0.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This information was then used to calculate the monthly takes based
on the number of pile driving days per month. These were broken out by
month as
[[Page 89398]]
shown in table 9. The Level B harassment area for each pile and driving
type was multiplied by the appropriate seasonal density and the
anticipated number of days per activity per month to derive the total
number of takes for each activity. Given this information, NMFS is
proposing to authorize a total of 12,256 Level B harassment exposures
for bottlenose dolphins. No take by Level A harassment is proposed by
NMFS since the shutdown zone is 30 m and should be readily visible to
PSOs.
Table 9--Estimated Takes of Bottlenose Dolphin by Level B Harassment by Month, Location, and Driving Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr Dec Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dolphin Density (/km\2\)................................ 0.63 0.63 1 1 0.63 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact: Portal Island 1 Mooring Dolphins (9 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 2 3 0 0 0 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 2 3 0 0 0 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory: Portal Island 1 Mooring Dolphins (9 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 212 212 212 212 212 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 2 3 0 0 0 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 268 401 0 0 0 669
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact: Portal Island 2 Mooring Dolphins (18 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 0 0 0 0 9 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 0 0 0 0 8 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory: Portal Island 2 Mooring Dolphins (18 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 202 202 202 202 202 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 0 0 0 0 9 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 0 0 0 0 1146 1146
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact: Portal Island 1 Trestle/Dock Removal (97 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 13 15 13 8 0 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 12 14 18 12 0 56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory: Portal Island 1 Trestle/Dock Removal (97 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 212 212 212 212 212 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 13 15 13 8 0 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 1737 2004 2756 1696 0 8193
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact: Portal Island 2 Trestle Removal (34 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 0 0 0 0 17 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 0 0 0 0 15 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory: Portal Island 2 Trestle Removal (34 Piles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refined Area (/km\2\)................................... 202 202 202 202 202 ..............
Driving Days............................................ 0 0 0 0 17 ..............
Dolphin Harassments..................................... 0 0 0 0 2164 2164
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 12,256
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total number of bottlenose dolphin Level B harassment events
will be split between three bottlenose dolphin stocks: Western North
Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal; Western North Atlantic Northern
Migratory Coastal; and NNCES. There is insufficient information to
apportion the requested takes precisely to each of these three stocks
present in the project area. Given that most of the NNCES stock are
found in the Pamlico Sound estuarine system, it is assumed that no
greater than 200 of the takes will be from this stock. Since members of
the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal and Western North
Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stocks are thought to occur in or
near the project area in greater numbers, we conservatively assume that
no more than half of the remaining animals will belong to either of
these stocks. Additionally, a subset of these takes would likely be
comprised of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, although the size of
that population is unknown. It is assumed that an animal will be taken
once over a 24-hour period; however, the same individual
[[Page 89399]]
may be taken multiple times over the duration of the project.
Therefore, the number of takes for each stock is assumed to
overestimate the actual number of individuals that may be affected.
Harbor Porpoise
Harbor porpoises are known to occur in the coastal waters near
Virginia Beach (Hayes et al. 2019), and although they have been
reported on rare occasions in the Chesapeake Bay near the project area,
they have not been seen by the Protected Species Observers in the PTST
project area during the construction. Density data for this species
within the project vicinity do not exist or were not calculated because
sample sizes were too small to produce reliable estimates of density.
Additionally, harbor porpoise sighting data collected by the U.S. Navy
near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach from 2012 to 2015
(Engelhaupt et al. 2014, 2015, 2016) did not produce high enough sample
sizes to calculate densities.
One group of two harbor porpoises was seen during spring 2015
(Engelhaupt et al. 2016). Therefore, it is assumed that there are two
harbor porpoises exposed to noise exceeding harassment levels each
month during the spring (March-April) for a total of four harbor
porpoises (i.e., 1 group of 2 individuals per month x 2 months per year
= 4 harbor porpoises). Harbor porpoises are not expected to be present
in the summer, fall or winter. Harbor porpoises are members of the
high-frequency hearing group which would have Level A harassment
isopleths as large as 338 m during impact driving of 36'' steel pile,
while the Level B harassment zone is 736 m. Given the relatively large
Level A harassment zones for HF cetaceans during impact driving and a
required shutdown zone of 200 m, NMFS will assume that 30 percent of
porpoises are taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize take of three porpoises by Level B harassment and one
porpoise by Level A harassment.
Harbor Seal
The expected number of harbor seals in the project area was
estimated using systematic, land and vessel-based survey data for in-
water and hauled-out seals collected by the U.S. Navy at the CBBT rock
armor and Portal Islands from November 2014 through April 2022 (Rees et
al. 2016; Jones et al. 2018; Jones and Rees 2020; Jones and Rees 2021;
Jones and Rees 2022; Jones and Rees 2023) and shown in table 10. The
number of harbor seals sighted by month ranged from 0 to 170
individuals.
Table 10--Summary of Historical Harbor Seal Sightings by Month From 2014 to 2022 at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly
Month 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 average
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January....................................................... ........... ........... 33 120 170 7 18 49 34 61.6
February...................................................... ........... 39 80 106 159 21 0 43 14 57.7
March......................................................... ........... 55 61 41 0 18 6 26 37 30.5
April......................................................... ........... 10 1 3 3 4 0 6 1 3.5
December...................................................... 4 9 24 8 29 0 4 11 11 12.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Seal counts began in November 2014 and were collected for 9 field seasons (2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021, 2021/2022) ending in 2022. In
January 2015, no surveys were conducted.
Seal density data are in the format of seal per unit time;
therefore, seal take requests were calculated as total number of
potential seals per pile driving day (8 hours) multiplied by the number
of driving days per month. For example, in December seal density data
is reported at 14.3 seals per day * 26 workdays in December, resulting
in the potential of 372 instances of take for that month (table 11).
The anticipated number of take events were summed across the months
during which in-water pile driving is planned. The largest Level A
harassment isopleth for phocid species is 153 m which would occur when
piles were being removed via impact hammer with a bubble curtain. The
smallest Level A harassment zone is 1 m which would occur when piles
are removed via vibratory hammer with a bubble curtain. NMFS is
proposing to require a shutdown zone for harbor seals of 160 m during
impact driving which would theoretically result in no take by Level A
harassment. However, a small number of harbor seals could enter into
the shutdown zone unseen by a PSO and remain for sufficient duration to
incur PTS. Given that harbor seals are common in the project area, NMFS
assumed that a single harbor seal would experience Level A harassment
during each in-water work day (80). Therefore, NMFS proposes to
authorize the take of 80 harbor seals by Level A harassment and 2,634
harbor seals by Level B harassment for a total of 2,714 takes (table
11).
Table 11--Calculation of the Number of Harbor Seal Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total pile Total number
Month seals per work driving days of requested
day per month takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2024.................................................... 61.6 15 924
February 2024................................................... 57.8 18 1,040
March 2024...................................................... 30.5 13 396.5
April 2024...................................................... 3.5 8 28
December 2024................................................... 12.5 26 325
2,714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Seal
The number of gray seals expected to be present at the PTST project
area was estimated using the same methodology as was used for the
harbor seal. Survey data collected by the U.S. Navy at the portal
islands from 2015 through 2022 was utilized (Rees et al. 2016; Jones et
al. 2018; Jones and Rees 2023). A maximum of 1 gray seal was seen
during the months of February 2015, 2016, and
[[Page 89400]]
2022. Given this information NMFS assumed that a single gray seal would
be taken per work day in February 2024.The anticipated numbers of
monthly takes were calculated following the same approach as for harbor
seals, and the monthly takes were then summed (table 12). Although the
project has not recorded any gray seal sightings to date, NMFS assumed
that, over the duration of the project, a single gray seal could enter
into the Level A harassment zone unseen by a PSO and remain for
sufficient duration to incur PTS. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to
authorize the take of 1 gray seal by Level A harassment and 17 gray
seals by Level B harassment for a total of 18 proposed takes.
Table 12--Calculation of the Number of Gray Seal Takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total pile Total number
Month seals per work driving days of requested
day per month takes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2024.................................................... 0 15 0
February 2024................................................... 1 18 18
March 2024...................................................... 0 13 0
April 2024...................................................... 0 8 0
December 2024................................................... 0 26 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13 shows the take numbers proposed for authorization by NMFS
as well as the percentage of each stock affected.
Table 13--Proposed Take by Stock and Harassment Type as a Percentage of Stock Abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Percent of
Species Stock harassment harassment Total stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale................ Gulf of Maine... 0 6 6 0.4
Harbor Porpoise............... Gulf of Maine/ 1 3 4 <0.01
Bay of Fundy.
Bottlenose Dolphin............ WNA Coastal, 0 6,028 6,028 90.8
Northern
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, 0 6,028 6,028 160.1
Southern
Migratory.
NNCES........... 0 200 200 24.3
Harbor Seal................... Western North 80 2,634 2,714 4.4
Atlantic.
Gray Seal..................... Western North 1 17 18 <0.01
Atlantic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitoring results from work conducted in 2020 and 2021 are
found in table 14. The results demonstrate significantly fewer takes by
harassment than were authorized, and it is important to note that
estimates in the previous IHAs as well as in this proposed IHA are
based on conservative assumptions, including the size of identified
harassment zones and the abundance of marine mammals. However, we note
that these assumptions represent the best available information in this
case.
Table 14--Marine Mammal Monitoring Results From IHAs Issued in 2020 and 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observations Observations Observations Observations
Level A Level B in level A in level B Level A Level B in level A in level B
Species Stock harassments harassments harassment harassment harassments harassments harassment harassment
authorized authorized zones under zones under authorized authorized zones under zones under
in 2020 IHA in 2020 IHA 2020 IHA 2020 IHA in 2021 IHA in 2021 IHA 2021 IHA 2021 IHA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback Whale................................ Gulf of Maine................... ............ 12 ............ ............ ............ 12 ............ ............
Harbor Porpoise............................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy...... 5 7 ............ ............ 5 7 ............ ............
Bottlenose Dolphin............................ WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory. 142 14,095 ............ 5 ............ 43,203 ............ 394
WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory. 142 14,095 ............ ............ ............ 43,203 ............ ............
NNCES........................... 2 198 ............ ............ ............ 250 ............ ............
Harbor Seal................................... Western North Atlantic.......... 1,296 2,124 ............ ............ 1154 1,730 ............ ............
Gray Seal..................................... Western North Atlantic.......... 1 3 ............ ............ 16 24 ............ ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds,
[[Page 89401]]
and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the
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 the 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, NMFS
considers 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 and impact on
operations.
CTJV must conduct training between construction supervisors, crews,
marine mammal monitoring team, and relevant CTJV staff prior to the
start of all pile driving activities and when new personnel join the
work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring
protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood.
Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant CTJV staff
must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during
construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such
activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the
minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working
conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction. If an
activity is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal,
the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has
voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone
indicated in table 15 or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of
the animal.
Construction activities must be halted upon observation of a
species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for
which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of
takes has been met entering or within the harassment zone.
Shutdown Zones--For all pile driving activities, CTJV would
implement shutdowns within designated zones. The purpose of a shutdown
zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the
activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones
vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group (table
7). In most cases, the shutdown zones are based on the estimated Level
A harassment isopleth distances for each hearing group. However, in
cases where it would be challenging to detect marine mammals at the
Level A harassment isopleth, (e.g., for high frequency cetaceans and
phocids during impact driving activities), smaller shutdown zones have
been proposed (table 15).
Table 15--Shutdown and Monitoring Zones
[Meters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring
Method and piles LF cetaceans MFcetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-in Impact (with bubble 285 20 200 160 736
Curtain).......................
36-in Vibratory (with bubble 10 10 15 10 10,000
curtain).......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected Species Observers--The number and placement of PSOs
during all construction activities (described in the Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting section as well as the Marine Mammal
Monitoring Plan) would ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible.
A minimum of one PSO must be employed for all driving activities and
placed at a location providing, at a minimum, adequate views of the
established shutdown zones.
Monitoring for Level B Harassment--PSOs would monitor the shutdown
zones and beyond to the extent that PSOs can see. Monitoring beyond the
shutdown zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the
presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown
zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the
animal enter the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal enters the Level B
harassment zone (or Level A harassment zone if larger than the Level B
harassment zone), PSOs will document the marine mammal's presence and
behavior.
Pre and Post-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, Level A
harassment, and Level B harassment zones for a period of 30 minutes.
Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of
visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine that the shutdown
zones are clear of marine mammals. If the shutdown zone is obscured by
fog or poor lighting conditions, in-water construction activity will
not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible. Pile
driving activities may commence following 30 minutes of observation
when the determination is made that the shutdown zones are clear of
marine mammals. If a marine mammal is observed entering or within
shutdown zones, pile driving activities must be delayed or halted. If
pile driving is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine
mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal
has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown
zone or 15 minutes have passed for all other species without re-
detection of the animal.
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
would be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the
hammer at reduced energy, with each strike followed by a 30-second
waiting period. This procedure would be conducted a total of three
times before impact pile driving
[[Page 89402]]
begins. Soft start would be implemented at the start of each day's
impact pile driving activities and at any time following cessation of
impact pile driving activities for a period of 30 minutes or longer.
Soft start is not required during vibratory pile driving activities.
Bubble Curtain--Use of a bubble curtain during impact and vibratory
pile driving in water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft) would be
required. It must be operated as necessary to achieve optimal
performance, and there can be no reduction in performance attributable
to faulty deployment. At a minimum, CTJV must adhere to the following
performance standards: The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles
around 100 percent of the piling circumference for the full depth of
the water column. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the
substrate for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights
attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent substrate contact.
No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full substrate
contact. Air flow to the bubblers must be balanced around the
circumference of the pile.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of 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.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
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 while
conducting the activities. 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 activity; 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); and,
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual Monitoring--Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in
accordance with the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities must be
conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the
following:
PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for
example, employed by a subcontractor), and have no other assigned tasks
during monitoring periods;
At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the
duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued
incidental take authorization;
Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience,
education (degree in biological science or related field) or training
for experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction
activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any
activity subject to this IHA.
PSOs should also have the following additional qualifications:
Ability to conduct field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols;
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including 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, times, and reason for implementation
of mitigation (or why mitigation was note implemented when required);
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.
Visual monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of one trained PSO
positioned at a suitable vantage point that will allow coverage of the
identified harassment zones. The Portal Islands and associated berms
would constrain the ensonified area to only one side (i.e., east or
west) of the bridge tunnel structure. Additionally, CTJV expressed
concern that since they will only be using one drill for about two
hours per week, it will be difficult to secure multiple observers
willing to commit to the PTST project.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30
minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs
will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of
distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in
concert with distance from piles being removed. Pile driving activities
include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as
the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more
than 30 minutes.
Reporting
CTJV will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS
within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60
days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the
project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first.
The marine mammal monitoring report will include an overall description
of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and
associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report will include:
Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including: (1) The number and type of piles that
were removed (e.g., impact,
[[Page 89403]]
vibratory); and (2) Total duration of driving time for each pile
(vibratory) and number of strikes for each pile (impact);
PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant
weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall
visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information: (1) Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location
and activity at time of sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3)
Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification,
and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; (4)
Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the
pile being removed for each sighting; (5) Estimated number of animals
(min/max/best estimate); (6) Estimated number of animals by cohort
(adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); (7) Animal's
closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the
harassment zone; (8) Description of any marine mammal behavioral
observations (e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling),
including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have
resulted from the activity (e.g., no response or changes in behavioral
state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or
breaching);
Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment
zones, by species; and,
Detailed information about implementation of any
mitigation (e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific
actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the
animal(s), if any.
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft
final report would constitute the final report. If comments are
received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted
within 30 days after receipt of comments. The Holder must submit all
PSO data electronically in a format that can be queried such as a
spreadsheet or database (i.e., digital images of data sheets are not
sufficient).
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS
([email protected] and [email protected]) and to the
Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding Coordinator (978-282-8478) as soon
as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified
activity, the Holder must immediately cease the activities until NMFS
OPR is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine
what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance
with the terms of this IHA. The Holder must not resume their activities
until notified by NMFS. 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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), 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' 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 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).
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in table 13, given that many of the anticipated
effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected
to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts
on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Impact and vibratory pile driving have the potential to disturb or
displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may
result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment from
underwater sounds generated from pile driving.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to
potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or
mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures
designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The
potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method
and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed
Mitigation section).
We anticipate that harbor porpoises, harbor seals and gray seals
may sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory
injury. However, animals in these locations 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 would lose a few decibels in its
hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to meaningfully
affect its ability to forage and communicate with conspecifics. Impacts
to individual fitness, reproduction, or survival are unlikely. 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
[[Page 89404]]
sufficient notice through use of soft start.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the
project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine
mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues
they are disturbed by activities or could become alert, avoid the area,
leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable
such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of
noise-generating activities per day, any harassment would be temporary.
There are no other areas or times of known biological importance for
any of the affected species.
We acknowledge the existence and concern about the ongoing humpback
whale UME. We have no evidence that this project is likely to result in
vessel strikes (a major correlate of the UME) and marine construction
projects in general involve the use of slow-moving vessels, such as
tugs towing or pushing barges, or smaller work boats maneuvering in the
vicinity of the construction project. These vessel types are not
typically associated with vessel strikes resulting in injury or
mortality. More generally, the UME does not yet provide cause for
concern regarding population-level impacts for humpback whales. Despite
the UME, the West Indies breeding population or DPS, remains healthy.
For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited,
confined area (adjacent to the CBBT) of the stock's range and the
amount of take proposed to be authorized is extremely small when
compared to stock abundance. In addition, it is unlikely that minor
noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any
effect on the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we believe
that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from
other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the
specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on
individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates
of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-
level impacts.
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 serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts
and of low degree;
No important habitat areas have been identified within the
project area;
For all species, the specified project area in Chesapeake
Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range;
CTJV would implement mitigation measures such as bubble
curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; and
Monitoring reports from similar work in Chesapeake Bay
have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species
impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
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. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is less than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of
the estimated stock abundance for humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray
seal, and harbor seal (in fact, take is no more than 6 percent of the
abundance of the affected stocks, see table 13). This is likely a
conservative estimate because they assume all takes are of different
individual animals which is likely not the case. Some individuals may
return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate
takes if they cannot be individually identified.
There are three bottlenose dolphin stocks that could occur in the
project area. Therefore, the estimated 12,256 dolphin takes by 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 24.3 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 Chesapeake 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 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
[[Page 89405]]
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 (~2
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 (<=1 km 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 (Eric Patterson, Personal Communication).
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, Personal
Communication). 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 10 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;
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 proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would 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.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization 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.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to CTJV for conducting construction activities as part of
the PTST project near Virginia Beach, VA from January through December
2024 provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA
can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed
construction activities associated with the PTST project. We also
request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as
described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the
request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal
IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration
of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
[[Page 89406]]
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: December 21, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-28514 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P