36522 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG107 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Parallel 

Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project in 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture 

(CTJV) to incidentally take, by Level A 

and/or Level B harassment, four species 

of marine mammals during the Parallel 

Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in 

Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from August 1, 2018, through July 31, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

United States citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On January 11, 2018, NMFS received 

a request from the CTJV for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to pile 

driving at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge 

and Tunnel (CBBT) near Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. CTJV’s request is for take of 

small numbers of harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina), gray seal (Halichoerus grypus), 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops spp.), 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), 

and humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) by Level A and Level B 

harassment. Neither the CTJV nor NMFS 

expect serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV 

authorizing the take of five species by 

Level A and Level B harassment. Pile 

driving and removal will take up to 202 

days. The IHA is effective from August 

1, 2018 through July 31, 2019. 

Description of Planned Activity 

The PTST project consists of the 

construction of a two-lane parallel 

tunnel to the west of the existing 

Thimble Shoal Tunnel, connecting 

Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (Figure 1 in 

application). Upon completion, the new 

tunnel will carry two lanes of 

southbound traffic and the existing 

tunnel will remain in operation and 

carry two lanes of northbound traffic. 

The PTST project will address existing 

constraints to regional mobility based 

on current traffic volume along the 

Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) 

facility; improve safety by minimizing 

one lane, two-way traffic in the tunnel; 

improve the ability to conduct necessary 

maintenance with minimal impact to 

traffic flow; and ensure a reliable 

southwest hurricane evacuation route 

for residents of the eastern shore and/or 

a northern evacuation route for 

residents of the eastern shore, Norfolk, 

and Virginia Beach. The CBBT is a 23 

mile fixed link crossing the mouth of 

the Chesapeake Bay which connects 

Northampton County on the Delmarva 

Peninsula with Virginia Beach, which is 

part of the Hampton Roads metropolitan 

area. 

The new parallel tunnel will be bored 

under the Thimble Shoal Channel. The 

6,525 linear feet (ft) of new tunnel will 

be constructed with a top of tunnel 

depth/elevation of 100 ft below Mean 

Low Water (MLW) within the width of 

the 1,000-ft-wide navigation channel. 

Impact pile driving will be used to 

install steel piles and vibratory pile 

driving will be utilized to install sheet 

piles. This issued IHA would cover one 

year of a larger project for which will 

run through 2022. The larger project, 

which does not employ pile driving and 

does not require additional IHAs, 

involves tunnel excavation with a 

tunnel boring machine and construction 

of a roadway within the tunnel. The 

type and numbers of piles to be 

installed, as well as those that will be 

removed during the effective period are 

summarized in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ANTICIPATED PILE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE

Pile location Pile function Pile type 

Number of 

piles 

(upland/ 

In-water) 

Anticipated 

installation 

date 

Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 .............. Mooring dolphins (in-water) ........... 36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 30 15 July to 15 August 2018. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36523 

TABLE 1—ANTICIPATED PILE INSTALLATION SCHEDULE—Continued 

Pile location Pile function Pile type 

Number of 

piles 

(upland/ 

In-water) 

Anticipated 

installation 

date 

West of Portal Island No. 1 ............. Berm construction trestle (in-water) 36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 80 15 July 2018 through 1 January 

2019. 

West of Portal Island No. 2 ............. Berm construction trestle (in-water) 36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 80 15 July 2018 through 1 January 

2019. 

Portal Island No. 1 ........................... Temporary docks (upland) ............. 36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 50 1 May 2018 through 30 June 

2018. 

Portal Island No. 1 ........................... Temporary docks (in- water) .......... 36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 82 15 July 2018 to 30 August 2018. 

Portal Island No. 2 (above MHW) ... Temporary roadway trestle (upland).36-inch diameter hollow steel ........ 12 1 May to 31 May 2018. 

Portal Island No. 1 (above MHW) ... Excavated TBM material containment holding (muck) bin (upland).28 and 18-inch steel sheet ............ 1,110 1 May 2018 to 30 September 

2018. 

Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above 

and below MHW).

Settlement mitigation and flowable 

fill containment.

28-inch steel sheet ........................ 2,554 1 August 2018 to 30 March 2019. 

Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above 

MHW).

Portal excavation ........................... Steel sheet ..................................... 1,401 1 June 2018 to 30 September 

2018, 1 January to 30 March 

2019. 

Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 (above 

MHW).

Excavation Support ........................ Steel sheet ..................................... 240 1 April 2018 to 30 August 2019 to

1 January 2019 to 30 March 

2019. 

Total (above and below water) ........................................................ ........................................................ 5,305 Sheet 

Piles 334 

Round Piles 

CTJV will install up to 272 in-water 

36-in steel pipe piles by impact driving 

and 1,936 in-water sheet piles by 

vibratory installation and expects 

activities to take up to 202 days. These 

actions could produce underwater 

sound at levels that could result in the 

injury or behavioral harassment of 

marine mammal species. A detailed 

description of CTJV’s planned project is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; 

April 30, 2018). Since that time, the 

project start date has been delayed by 

approximately one month. No 

additional changes have been made to 

the planned project activities. Therefore, 

a detailed description is not provided 

here. Please refer to that Federal 

Register notice for the description of the 

specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to CTJV was published in the 

Federal Register on April 30, 2018 (83 

FR 18777). That notice described, in 

detail, CTJV’s activity, the marine 

mammal species that may be affected by 

the activity, the anticipated effects on 

marine mammals and their habitat, 

proposed amount and manner of take, 

and proposed mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting measures. During the 30- 

day public comment period, NMFS 

received one comment letter from the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission); the Commission’s 

recommendations and our responses are 

provided here, and the comments have 

been posted online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS review more 

thoroughly both the applications prior 

to deeming them complete and its 

notices prior to submitting them for 

publication in the Federal Register and 

that NMFS better evaluate the proposed 

exclusion/shut-down zones that are to 

be implemented for each proposed 

incidental take authorization. Further, 

the Commission references several 

specific minor errors that were in the 

proposed notice (for example, incorrect 

numbers in Tables). 

Response: NMFS thanks the 

Commission for its recommendation. 

NMFS makes every effort to read the 

notices thoroughly prior to publication 

and will continue this effort to publish 

the best possible product for public 

comment. NMFS will be diligent when 

considering the appropriateness of 

proposed exclusion and shutdown 

zones for future IHAs. Further, NMFS 

has corrected the errors the Commission 

noted. 

Comment 2: The Commission noted 

that NMFS used the lower reported 

source level for estimating the various 

Level A and B harassment zones during 

vibratory pile driving, which resulted in 

underestimating the Level A and B 

harassment zones, associated ensonified 

areas, and number of takes of bottlenose 

dolphins. 

Response: Note that in the Federal 

Register notice of proposed IHA (83 FR 

18777; April 30, 2018) a source value of 

154 dB RMS SPL was applied for 

vibratory installation of 28-inch sheet. 

NMFS used a higher source level of 155 

dB RMS SPL in this notice. The 

vibratory source levels based on rootmean-square sound pressure levels 

(SPLrms) and sound exposure levels 

metrics were not the same value 

according to NAVFAC 2017 which was 

cited as the reference for these values. 

Furthermore, the source levels based on 

1-sec averages (155 dB RMS SPL) and 

10-sec averages (154 dB RMS SPL) were 

not identical when they should be 

represented by the same value. When a 

difference is reported, it likely is due to 

the operator averaging decibels rather 

than taking the linear average of the 

pressures/intensities and then 

converting to dB. Therefore, the higher 

source level (155 dB RMS SPL) has been 

adopted in this notice. 

Comment 3: The Commission noted 

that NMFS used incorrect assumptions 

for estimating the various Level A and 

B harassment zones when multiple 

hammers are used. 

Response: NMFS used a source value 

of 186 dB RMS SPL to estimate the 

extent of the Level A harassment zone 

during simultaneous impact driving of 

two piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB 

to the source levels after employing the 

rules for decibal addition as described 

in WSDOT 2017. However, the rules of 

decibal addition do not apply to 

simultaneous impact driving scenarios 

since hammer strikes will not be 

synchronized. Therefore, NMFS has 

reverted to using the original proxy 

source level of 183 dB when estimating 

the extent of the Level A harassment 

zone during simultaneous impact 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

driving of two piles with bubble 

curtains. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

commented that NMFS did not not 

account for the possibility that the 

proposed in-water activities would not 

be finished by March 31 which is the 

deadline established by CTJV. 

Therefore, the numbers of harbor seal 

Level A and B harassment takes is 

underestimated. 

Response: Even with the delay in 

project schedule, CTJV is confident that 

in-water activities will be concluded by 

March 31, 2019. To minimize the risk 

that the number of harbor seal takes may 

be exceeded, for this notice NMFS used 

the maximum haul-out count from onsite surveys (40) multiplied by the 

number of days of proposed activities 

(202) to estimate the number of harbor 

seal takes. In the Federal Register notice 

of proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 

2018), NMFS had multiplied monthly 

sighting rates by months of activities 

with an end date of March 31. 

Comment 5: The Commission noted 

NMFS used inconsistent assumptions 

regarding estimating Level A 

harassment takes. NMFS assumed that 

40 percent of the total number of harbor 

porpoise takes would equate to total 

Level A harassment takes based on the 

large size of the Level A harassment 

zones. However, NMFS did not make 

this assumption when estimated Level 

A jarassment take of harbor and gray 

seals. 

Response: In this notice, NMFS has 

assumed that Level A harassment takes 

of harbor seals and gray seals represent 

40 percent of total takes for each 

species. 

Comment 6: The Commission noted 

that NMFS was requiring two protected 

species observers (PSOs) only during 

simultaneous pile driving. The 

Commission felt that two PSOs should 

be employed during all pile driving 

activities. 

Response: NMFS had proposed that 

only a single PSO would be required 

during non-simultaneous pile driving. 

The PSO would be stationed on the 

portal island where non-simultaneous 

pile driving was underway. However, 

given the large sizes of the monitoring 

zones, NMFS will require two PSO’s 

during all pile driving operations to 

ensure adequate visual coverage of the 

monitoring zones. 

Comment 7: The Commission felt that 

the proposed 50-m exclusion zone for 

phocids was unnecessarily large for 

vibratory pile driving which could put 

CTJV in a situation in which it is 

implementing numerous unnecessary 

delays or shut downs for pinnipeds. 

Response: NMFS agrees with this 

assessment and has reduced the size of 

the exclusion zone for phocids from 50 

m to 15 m during vibratory pile driving. 

Comment 8: The Commission feels 

there are some shortcomings that need 

to be addressed regarding the 

methodology for determining the extent 

of the Level A harassment zones based 

on the associated PTS cumulative sound 

exposure level (SELcum) thresholds for 

the various types of sound sources. 

Specifically, the Commission believes 

that the Level A and B harassment zones 

do not make sense biologically or 

acoustically in the context of one 

another (when the Level A harassment 

zone is larger than the Level B 

harassment zone) due to NMFS’s 

unrealistic assumption that the animals 

remain stationary throughout the entire 

day of the activity. The Commission 

believes that it would be prudent for 

NMFS to consult with scientists and 

acousticians to determine the 

appropriate accumulation time that 

action proponents should use to 

determine the extent of the Level A 

harassment zones based on the 

associated PTS SELcum thresholds in 

such situations. 

Response: During the 2016 Technical 

Guidance’s recent review, in accordance 

with E.O. 13795, NMFS received 

comments from multiple Federal 

agencies, including the Commission, 

recommending the establishment of a 

working group to investigate more 

realistic means of approximating the 

accumulation period associated with 

sound exposure beyond the default 24- 

h accumulation period. Based on these 

comments, NMFS will be convening a 

working group to re-evaluate 

implementation of the default 24-h 

accumulation period and investigate 

means for deriving more realistic 

accumulation periods. Nonetheless, 

although NMFS Level A harassment 

zones include conservative assumptions 

and may overestimate the likelihood of 

injury somewhat, the take estimates are 

appropriate given the available 

information and support a robust 

negligible impact analysis and support 

the small numbers finding. 

Comment 9: The Commission noted 

that NMFS has been inconsistently 

applying presumed source level 

reductions when bubble curtains are 

used during impact pile driving. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

refrain from using a source level 

reduction factor for sound attenuation 

device implementation (i.e., bubble 

curtains) during impact pile driving for 

all relevant incidental take 

authorizations. If and when NMFS 

determines the appropriate 

accumulation time associated with its 

SELcum thresholds, it could consider 

using a source level reduction to 

estimate the ranges to Level A 

harassment. NMFS should then review 

the related literature on bubble curtain 

efficacy in concert with estimated 

ranges to the SELcum thresholds based 

on the revised accumulation time to 

determine what, if any, source level 

reduction would be appropriate. The 

Commission further recommended that 

NMFS refrain from using a source level 

reduction factor for sound attenuation 

device implementation during impact 

pile driving for all relevant incidental 

take authorizations and that source 

levels should not be reduced when 

determining the range to Level B 

harassment. 

Response: NMFS believes it 

reasonable to use a source level 

reduction factor for sound attenuation 

device implementation during impact 

pile driving. NMFS understands that 

previous study results have been 

inconsistent and that noise level 

reductions measured at different 

received ranges may vary, given that 

both Level A and Level B estimation 

using geometric modeling is based on 

noise levels measured at near-source 

distances (∼10 m). NMFS is working on 

guidance to increase consistency in the 

application of source level deductions 

from bubble curtain use, but in the 

meanwhile continues to evaluate 

proposals on a case by case basis. In this 

case we used a 10-dB reduction factor 

based on data from Caltrans 2015. We 

understand that there are other reported 

reduction levels that also could have 

been selected. However, we were unable 

to identify studies of bubble curtain 

efficacy that would have been any more 

applicable to the CTJV project than 

Caltrans 2015. 

The Commission is opposed to the 

use of noise reduction factors during 

impact driving as well as application of 

reductions to Level B harassment. The 

Commission feels that bubble curtains 

have not consistently achieved reduced 

sound levels in the far field because 

sound resonates through the ground into 

the far field. Bubble curtains are not 

designed to, nor can they, attenuate 

ground-borne sound. While NMFS 

agrees that some energy is transmitted 

through the ground into the farfield, it 

is also likely that most of the energy is 

transmitted through the water column. 

Given that most studies of bubble 

curtain effectiveness have demonstrated 

at least some decrease in energy 

transmitted through the water column, 

NMFS will continue to permit 

appropriate source level reductions 

during impact driving for both Level A 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36525 

and Level B harassment. Furthermore, if 

there are no reductions permitted when 

using bubble curtains, applicants would 

have less incentive to employ them at 

all. Without bubble curtains, more 

energy will likely be transmitted into 

both the near field and far field, 

potentially increasing the risk of 

animal’s exposure to sound at Level A 

and Level B harassment levels. 

Comment 10: The Commission 

commented that the method NMFS used 

to estimate the numbers of takes during 

the proposed activities, which summed 

fractions of takes for each species across 

project days, does not account for and 

negates the intent of NMFS’ 24-hour 

reset policy. The Commission also 

recommends that NMFS develop and 

share guidance on this issue. 

Response: NMFS has shared our 

internal guidance on rounding and the 

consideration of qualitative factors in 

take estimation with the Commission 

and further, as noted, disagrees with the 

assertion that the method described is at 

odds with what the Commission terms 

NMFS’ ‘‘24-hour reset policy.’’ 

Comment 11: The Commission 

requested clarification of certain issues 

associated with NMFS’s notice that oneyear renewals could be issued in certain 

limited circumstances and expressed 

concern that the renewal process, as 

proposed, would bypass the public 

notice and comment requirements. The 

Commission recommended that instead 

of bypassing comment, NMFS utilize 

abbreviated Federal Register notices, as 

have been used recently to solicit 

comment on actions that meet the 

renewal criteria. The Commission also 

suggested that NMFS should discuss the 

possibility of renewals through a more 

general route, such as a rulemaking, 

instead of notice in a specific 

authorization. The Commission further 

recommended that if NMFS did not 

pursue a more general route, that the 

agency provide the Commission and the 

public with a legal analysis supporting 

our conclusion that this process is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. 

Response: The proposed process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Additional reference to this 

solicitation of public comment has 

recently been added at the beginning of 

FR notices that consider renewals. 

NMFS appreciates the streamlining 

achieved by the use of abbreviated FR 

notices and intends to continue using 

them for proposed IHAs that include 

minor changes from previously issued 

IHAs, but which do not satisfy the 

renewal requirements. However, we 

believe our proposed method for issuing 

renewals meets statutory requirements 

and maximizes efficiency. Note that 

such renewals would be limited to 

where the activities are identical or 

nearly identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA, monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized, 

and the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as are 

all IHAs. Last, NMFS will publish on 

our website a description of the renewal 

process before any renewal is issued 

utilizing the new process. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence near the PTST 

project location and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond United States waters. All 

managed stocks in this region are 

assessed in NMFS’s United States 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments (Hayes et 

al., 2017a,b). All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2016 Stock Assessment Report 

(Hayes et al., 2017a) and draft 2017 

stock assessment report (Hayes et al. 

2017b) (available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Atlantic Right whale .. Eubalaena glacialis ................... Western North Atlantic (WNA) .. E/D; Y 458 (0; 455; 2017) .......... 1.4 36 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36526 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ................ Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Gulf of Maine ............................ –; N 335 (0.42; 239; 2012) ..... 3.7 8.5 

Fin whale ............................ Balaenoptera physalus ............. WNA .......................................... E/D; Y 1,618 (0.33; 1,234; 2011) 2.5 2.65 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Bottlenose dolphin .............. Tursiops spp. ............................ WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory.D; Y 11,548 (0.36; 8,620; 

2010–11).

86 1.0–7.5 

WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory.D; Y 9,173 (0.46; 6,326; 

2010–11).

63 0–12 

Northern North Carolina Estuarine System.D; S 823 (0.06; 782; 2013) ..... 7.8 1.0–16.7 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .................. Phocoena phocoena ................. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ...... -; N 79,833 (0.32; 61,415; 

2011).

706 307 

(0.16) 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ......................... Phoca vitulina ........................... WNA .......................................... -; N 75,834 (0.1; 66,884, 

2012).

2,006 368 

Gray seal ............................ Halichoerus grypus ................... WNA .......................................... –; N 27,131 (.1, 25,908, 2016) 1,554 5,207 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

Note: Italicized species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the planned project areas are 

included in Table 2. However, the 

occurrence of endangered North 

Atlantic right whales and endangered 

fin whales is such that take is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. Between 

1998 and 2013, there were no reports of 

North Atlantic right whale strandings 

within the Chesapeake Bay and only 

four reported standings along the coast 

of Virginia. During this same period, 

only six fin whale strandings were 

recorded within the Chesapeake Bay 

(Barco and Swingle 2014). In 2016, there 

were no reports of fin whale strandings 

(Barco et al., 2017). Due to the low 

occurrence of North Atlantic right 

whales and fin whales, NMFS is not 

authorizing take of these species. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the 

planned project, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 2018); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ website 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

pile driving and removal activities for 

the planned project have the potential to 

result in behavioral harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. The Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; 

April 30, 2018) included a discussion of 

the effects of anthropogenic noise on 

marine mammals. The project would 

not result in permanent impacts to 

habitats used directly by marine 

mammals, such as haulout sites, but 

may have potential short-term impacts 

to food sources such as forage fish and 

minor impacts to the immediate 

substrate during installation and 

removal of piles. These potential effects 

are discussed in detail in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 

FR 18777; April 30, 2018) therefore that 

information is not repeated here; please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

that information. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informs both NMFS’ consideration of 

small numbers and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines harassment as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment, in the form of disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36527 

marine mammals resulting from 

exposure to acoustic sources including 

impact and vibratory pile driving 

equipment. There is also potential for 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

result, due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., impact pile driving, seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. 

CTJV’s planned activity includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving) and impulsive (impact pile 

driving) sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

2016) identifies dual criteria to assess 

auditory injury (Level A harassment) to 

five different marine mammal groups 

(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result 

of exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). CTJV’s tunnel project 

includes the use of impulsive (impact 

hammer) and non-impulsive (vibratory 

hammer) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2016 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ....................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB;LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 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 will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

Pile driving will generate underwater 

noise that potentially could result in 

disturbance to marine mammals 

swimming by the project area. 

Transmission loss (TL) underwater is 

the decrease in acoustic intensity as an 

acoustic pressure wave propagates out 

from a source until the source becomes 

indistinguishable from ambient sound. 

TL parameters vary with frequency, 

temperature, sea conditions, current, 

source and receiver depth, water depth, 

water chemistry, and bottom 

composition and topography. A 

standard sound propagation model, the 

Practical Spreading Loss model, was 

used to estimate the range from pile 

driving activity to various expected 

SPLs at potential project structures. This 

model follows a geometric propagation 

loss based on the distance from the 

driven pile, resulting in a 4.5 dB 

reduction in level for each doubling of 

distance from the source. In this model, 

the SPL at some distance away from the 

source (e.g., driven pile) is governed by 

a measured source level, minus the TL 

of the energy as it dissipates with 

distance. The TL equation is: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36528 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

TL = 15log10(R1/R2) 

Where: 

TL is the transmission loss in dB, 

R1 is the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 is the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

The degree to which underwater noise 

propagates away from a noise source is 

dependent on a variety of factors, most 

notably by the water bathymetry and 

presence or absence of reflective or 

absorptive conditions including the sea 

surface and sediment type. The TL 

model described above was used to 

calculate the expected noise 

propagation from both impact and 

vibratory pile driving, using 

representative source levels to estimate 

the harassment zone or area exceeding 

specified noise criteria. 

Sound source levels from the PTST 

project site were not available. 

Therefore, literature values published 

for projects similar to the PTST project 

were used to estimate the amount of 

sound (RMS SPL) that could potentially 

be produced. The PTST Project will use 

round, 36-inch-diameter, hollow steel 

piles and 28-inch wide sheet piles. Data 

reported in the Compendium of Pile 

Driving Sound Data (Caltrans 2015) for 

similar piles size and types are shown 

in Table 4. The use of an encased bubble 

curtain is expected to reduce sound 

levels by 10 decibels (dB) (NAVFAC 

2014, ICF Jones and Stokes 2009). Using 

data from previous projects (Caltrans 

2015) and the amount of sound 

reduction expected from each of the 

sound mitigation methods, we estimated 

the peak noise level (SPLpeak), the root 

mean squared sound pressure level 

(RMS SPL), and the single strike sound 

exposure level (sSEL) for each pile 

driving scenario of the PTST project 

(Table 4). 

TABLE 4—THE SOUND LEVELS (dB PEAK, dB RMS, AND dB SSEL) EXPECTED TO BE GENERATED BY EACH HAMMER

TYPE/MITIGATION

Type of pile Hammer type 

Estimated 

peak noise 

level 

(dB peak) 

Estimated 

cumulative 

sound exposure level 

(dB cSEL) 

Estimated 

pressure 

level 

(dB RMS) 

Estimated 

single strike 

sound 

exposure 

level 

(dB sSEL) 

Relevant piles 

at the PTST 

project 

Pile function 

36-inch Steel Pipe .............. Impact a .............................. 210 NA 193 183 Battered ........... Mooring dolphins. 

36-inch Steel Pipe .............. Impact with Bubble Curtain b.

200 NA 183 173 Plumb .............. Mooring dolphins and Temporary Pier. 

24-inch AZ Sheet ................ Vibratory c ........................... 182 NA 155 155 Sheet ............... Containment Structure. 

36-inch Steel Pipe and 36- 

inch Steel Pipe.

Impact w/Bubble Curtain at 

PI 1 and PI 2.

200 NA 183 183 Plumb .............. Mooring Dolphins, Temporary Pier. 

36-inch Steel Pipe and 24- 

inch AZ Sheet Pile.

Impact w/Bubble Curtain at 

PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 

2.

200 NA 183 183 Plumb and 

Sheet.

Mooring Dolphins, Containment Structure. 

36-inch Steel Pipe and 24- 

inch AZ Sheet Pile.

Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain at 

PI 2.

200 NA 183 183 Plumb and 

Sheet.

Mooring Dolphins and Containment Structure. 

aExamples from Caltrans 2015. These examples were the loudest provided in the Caltrans 2015 compendium for 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles and in the 

Proxy Source Sound Levels and Potential Bubble Curtain Attenuation for Acoustic Modeling of nearshore marine Pile Driving at Navy Installations in Puget Sound 

(NAVFAC 2014). bEstimates of sound produced from impact that use sound mitigation measures were developed by subtracting 10 dB for an encased bubble curtain (ICF Jones 

and Stokes 2009, NAVFAC 2014). A 10-dB reduction in sound for this sound mitigation method is the minimum that may be expected and, therefore, represents a 

conservative estimate in sound reduction. cExample from NAVFAC 2017. Average 1-second and 10-second Broadband RMS SPL (dB re 1 μPa) for Vibratory Pile-Driving normalized to 10 meters at JEB Little Creek. 

When NMFS’s Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which will result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools, and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For stationary sources, NMFS’s User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which, if a marine mammal 

remained at that distance the whole 

duration of the activity, it would not 

incur PTS. Inputs used in the User 

Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths 

are reported below. 

The Impact Pile Driving (Stationary 

Source: Impulsive, Intermittent) (Sheet 

E.1) spreadsheet provided by NOAA 

Fisheries requires inputs for assorted 

variables which are shown in Table 4. 

RMS SPL’s for simultaneous pile 

driving were determined using the rules 

for decibel addition (WSDOT 2017). The 

expected number of steel piles driven 

during a 24-hour period would be a 

maximum of eight for plumb piles and 

three for battered piles for each portal 

island. Practical spreading was assumed 

(15logR) and a pulse duration of 0.1 

seconds utilized. The distance from the 

source where the literature based RMS 

SPL was 10 meters while the number of 

strikes per pile was 1,000. Model 

outputs delineating PTS isopleths are 

provided in Table 6 assuming impact 

installation of three battered round steel 

piles per day and eight plumb round 

steel piles per day as well as vibratory 

installation of up to eight sheets per day 

over eight hours. 

The Optional User Spreadsheet for 

vibratory pile driving (non-impulsive, 

stationary, continuous) (Sheet A) 

requires inputs for the sound pressure 

level of the source (dB RMS SPL), the 

expected activity duration in hours 

during per 24-hour period, the 

propagation of the sound and the 

distance from the source at which the 

sound pressure level was measured. 

Calculations also assumed that the 

expected activity level duration would 

be eight hours per Portal Island per 24- 

hour period. Practical spreading was 

assumed and the measured distance 

from the sound source was 10 meters. 

The inputs from Table 5 determined 

isopleths where PTS from underwater 

sound during impact and vibratory 

driving as shown in Table 6. Note that 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36529 

in the Federal Register notice of 

proposed IHA (83 FR 18777; April 30, 

2018) a source value of 154 dB RMS SPL 

was used for vibratory installation of 28- 

inch sheet piles and a value of 186 dB 

RMS SPL was used for simultaneous 

impact installation of 36-inch steel piles 

employing bubble curtains. NMFS opted 

to use a higher source level of 155 dB 

RMS SPL. Since the vibratory source 

levels based on root-mean-square sound 

pressure levels (SPLrms) and sound 

exposure levels metrics were not the 

same value in NAVFAC 2017, neither 

were the source levels based on 1-sec 

and 10-sec averages. These metrics 

should be represented by the same 

value. When a difference is reported, it 

likely is due to the operator averaging 

decibels rather than taking the linear 

average of the pressures/intensities and 

then converting to dB. Therefore, the 

higher source level has been adopted in 

this notice. 

A source value of 186 dB RMS SPL 

was used to estimate the extents of the 

Level A harassment zone during 

simultaneous impact driving of two 

piles. NMFS incorrectly added 3 dB to 

the impact driving source levels rather 

than assuming the proxy source level 

(186 vs. 183 dB). NMFS has reverted to 

using a proxy source level of 183 dB re 

1 mPa when estimating the extent of the 

Level A harassment zone during 

simultaneous impact driving of two 

piles with bubble curtains. These 

revisions have been included in Table 4 

and Table 5. Table 6 shows user 

spreadsheet outputs of the radial 

distance from piles driven from Portal 

Island 1 and Portal Island 2 to PTS 

isopleths. 

TABLE 5—USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS

Spreadsheet tab used 

E.1: Impact pile 

driving 

(stationary source: 

impulsive, 

intermittent) 

A: Stationary source: 

non-impulsive, 

continuous 

E.1: Impact pile driving 

(stationary source: impulsive, 

intermittent) 

E.1: Impact pile driving 

(stationary source: impulsive, 

intermittent) 

Pile Type and Hammer Type ............. 36-in steel impact 

(battered pile).

28-in sheet vibratory 36-in steel impact w/bubble curtain 

at P1 and P2 (plumb piles).

36-in steel impact w/bubble curtain 

at P1 (plumb pile) and sheet pile 

vibratory at P2. 

Source Level (RMS SPL) ................... 193 ............................ 155 ............................ 183 .................................................... 183. 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ... 2 ................................ 2.5 ............................. 2 ........................................................ 2. 

Number of strikes in 1 h OR number 

of strikes per pile.

1,000 ......................... NA ............................. 1,000 ................................................. 1,000. 

Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period OR number of piles per day.3 steel piles ............... 8 hours/8 sheets ....... 8 steel piles per portal island (16 

total).

8 steel piles. 

Propagation (xLogR) .......................... 15 .............................. 15 .............................. 15 ...................................................... 15. 

Distance of source level measurement (meters).10 .............................. 10 .............................. 10 ...................................................... 10. 

Pulse Duration (seconds) ................... 0.1 ............................. NA ............................. 0.1 ..................................................... 0.1. 

TABLE 6—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN FROM PORTAL ISLAND 1 (PI 1) AND PORTAL ISLAND 2 (PI 2) 

TO PTS ISOPLETHS * 

Hammer type 

Low-frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid-frequency 

cetaceans 

High-frequency 

cetaceans 

Phocid 

pinnipeds Applicable piles in the 

PTST project 

Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 Island 1 Island 2 

Impact (battered) at PI 1 

OR PI 2.

2,077.2 2,077.2 73.9 73.9 2,474.3 2,474.3 1,111.6 1,111.6 Battered Piles for Mooring 

Dolphins. 

Vibratory ............................ 10.9 10.9 1.0 1.0 16.1 16.1 6.6 6.6 Sheet Piles for Containment. 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain 

(plumb) simultaneous at 

PI 1 and PI 2.

1,366.1 1,366.1 48.6 48.6 1,627.2 1,627.2 731.1 731.1 Plumb Piles for temporary 

pier. 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain 

(plumb) simultaneous at 

PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 

2.

860.6 10.9 30.6 1.0 1,025.1 16.1 460.5 6.6 Plumb Piles for Temporary 

Pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for 

Containment. 

Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain 

(plumb) at PI 2 Simultaneous.

10.9 860.6 1.0 30.6 16.18 1,025.1 6.6 460.5 Plumb Piles for temporary 

pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for 

Containment. 

* Distances based on up to 3 battered round steel piles per day, 8 plumb round steel piles per day, and up to 8 sheets per day over 8 hours. 

Table 7 shows the radial distance to 

Level B isopleths and Table 8 shows the 

areas of ensonified Level B zones 

associated with each of the planned 

driving scenarios. 

TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE(S) TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS 1 FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS

Hammer type driving scenario 

Radial distance (m) 

Applicable piles in the PTST project 

Island 1 Island 2 

Impact (battered) .......................................................... 1,584.9 1,584.9 Battered Piles for Mooring Dolphins.

Vibratory ....................................................................... 2,154.4 2,154.4 Sheet Piles for Containment. 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and PI 2 simultaneous.341.5 341.5 Plumb Piles for temporary pier. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36530 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 7—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE(S) TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS 1 FOR CETACEANS AND

PINNIPEDS—Continued 

Hammer type driving scenario 

Radial distance (m) 

Applicable piles in the PTST project 

Island 1 Island 2 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous.341.5 2,154.4 Plumb Piles for Temporary Pier and Mooring Dolphins; Sheet Pile for Containment. 

Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain 

(plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous.

2,154.4 341.5 Plumb Piles for temporary pier and Mooring Dolphins; 

Sheet Pile for Containment. 

1 Level B harassment thresholds—160 dB for impact driving/120 dB for vibratory driving. 

TABLE 8—LEVEL B AREAS (km2) FOR

ALL PILE DRIVING SCENARIOS

PLANNED FOR USE DURING PTST 

PROJECT

Scenario Zone size 

(km2) 

Impact Simultaneous Plumb 0.88 

Impact Battered .................... 8.27 

Vibratory Sheet ..................... 1 16.49 

Simultaneous Vibratory 

Sheet and Impact Plumb .. 16.49 

1 Level B ensonified area at Portal Island 1 

= 16.37 km2 and at Portal Island 2 = 16.49 

km2. For the purposes of this IHA, NMFS will 

conservatively assume that the ensonified 

area at both Portal Islands = 16.49 km2. 

To calculate level B disturbance zones 

for airborne noise from pile driving, the 

spherical spreading loss equation 

(20LogR) was used to determine the 

Level B zones. The airborne noise 

threshold for behavioral harassment for 

all pinnipeds, except harbor seals, is 

100 dB RMS re 20 mPa (unweighted) and 

for harbor seals is 90 dB RMS re 20 mPa 

(unweighted). 

Literature estimates were used to 

estimate the amount of in-air sound 

produced from driving a pile above the 

MHW line (Laughlin 2010a,b). Hollow 

steel piles that were 30 inches in 

diameter were used as a close proxy to 

the 36-inch-diameter hollow steel piles 

that will be driven at the PTST project. 

AZ 24-inch sheet pile was used as a 

proxy for the sheet pile to be driven 

during the PTST Project (Table 9). Using 

the spherical spreading loss model with 

these estimates, Level B isopleths were 

estimated as shown below in Table 9. 

Note that the take estimates for 

pinnipeds were based on surveys which 

included counts of hauled out animals. 

Therefore, to avoid double counting, 

airborne exposures are not evaluated 

further for purposes of estimating take 

under the issued IHA. During any 

upland pile driving before issuance of 

the IHA, however, shutdown will occur 

whenever pinnipeds enter into the Level 

B zones as depicted below to avoid 

unauthorized take. 

TABLE 9—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) from PILE DRIVEN ABOVE MHW TO LEVEL B SOUND THRESHOLDS FOR HARBOR

SEALS AND GRAY SEALS

Source Sound level 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

Harbor seals Gray seals 

Impact Hammer 36- inch Pile ......................... 110 dBL5SEQ at 15ma ..................................... N/A 150 47 

Vibratory Hammer Assumed equivalent to 24- 

in sheet.

92 dBL5SEQ at 15m ........................................ N/A 19 6 

aLaughlin 2010a,b as cited in City of Unalaska 2016 IHA for Unalaska Marine Center. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Humpback whales are relatively rare 

in the Chesapeake Bay but may be found 

within or near the Chesapeake Bay at 

any time of the year. Between 1998 and 

2014, 11 humpback whale strandings 

were reported within the Chesapeake 

Bay (Barco and Swingle 2014). 

Strandings occurred in all seasons, but 

were most common in the spring. There 

is no existing density data for this 

species within or near the Chesapeake 

Bay. Populations in the mid-Atlantic 

have been estimated for humpback 

whales off the coast of New Jersey with 

a density of 0.00013 per square 

kilometer (Whitt et al., 2015). A similar 

density may be expected off the coast of 

Virginia. 

Bottlenose dolphins are abundant 

along the Virginia coast and within the 

Chesapeake Bay and can be seen seen 

annually in Virginia from May through 

October. Approximately 65 strandings 

are reported each year (Barco and 

Swingle 2014). Stranded bottlenose 

dolphins have been recorded as far 

north as the Potomac River in the 

Chesapeake Bay (Blaylock 1985). A 2016 

Navy report on the occurrence, 

distribution, and density of marine 

mammals near Naval Station Norfolk 

and Virginia Beach, Virginia provides 

seasonal densities of bottlenose 

dolphins for inshore areas in the 

vicinity of the project area (Engelhaupt 

et al., 2016) (Table 10). 

There is little data on the occurrence 

of harbor porpoises in the Chesapeake 

Bay. Harbor porpoises are the second 

most common marine mammal to strand 

in Virginia waters with 58 reported 

strandings between 2007 through 2016. 

Unlike bottlenose dolphins, harbor 

porpoises are found in Virginia in the 

cooler months, primarily late winter and 

early spring, and they strand primarily 

on ocean facing beaches (Barco et al., 

2017). Given the lack of abundance data, 

NMFS assumed that a limited number of 

harbor porpoises (2) would be taken 

during each month of planned 

construction in order to generate a take 

estimate for this species. 

Harbor seals are the most common 

seal in Virginia (Barco and Swingle 

2014). They can be seen resting on the 

rocks around the portal islands of the 

CBBT from December through April. 

They are unlikely to occur in the project 

area in the summer and early fall. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36531 

Survey data for in-water and hauled out 

harbor seals was collected by the United 

States Navy at the CBBT portal islands 

from 2014 through 2016 (Rees et al., 

2016) (Table 12). Surveys reported 112 

harbor seals in the 2014/2015 season, 

185 harbor seals during the 2015/2016 

season, and 307 during the 2016/2017 

season. (Rees et al., 2016; Rees et al. 

2017). 

Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia 

and the Chesapeake Bay with only 15 

gray seal strandings documented in 

Virginia from 1988–2013 (Barco and 

Swingle 2014). They are rarely found 

resting on the rocks around the portal 

islands of the CBBT from December 

through April alongside harbor seals. 

Observation surveys conducted by the 

Navy at the CBBT portal islands 

recorded one gray seal in the 2014/2015, 

two gray seals in 2015/2016, and two 

gray seals in 2016/2017 seasons (Rees et 

al., 2016; Rees et al. 2017). 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The following assumptions are made 

when estimating potential incidences of 

take: 

• All marine mammal individuals 

potentially available are assumed to be 

present within the relevant area, and 

thus incidentally taken; 

• An individual can only be taken 

once during a 24-h period; 

• Exposures to sound levels at or 

above the relevant thresholds equate to 

take, as defined by the MMPA. 

Humpback Whale 

As noted previously, humpback 

whales are rare in the Chesapeake Bay, 

although they do occur. Density off of 

the coast of New Jersey, and presumably 

Virginia and Maryland, is extremely low 

(0.00013 animals/km2). Because density 

is extremely low, CTJV has requested 

and NMFS is authorizing one Level B 

take every two months for the duration 

of in-water pile driving activities. Pile 

driving activities are expected to occur 

over a 10-month period. Therefore, a 

total of 5 Level B takes of humpback 

whales is authorized by NMFS. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Total number of takes for bottlenose 

dolphin were calculated using the 

seasonal density described above 

(individuals/km2/day) of animals within 

the inshore study area at the mouth of 

the Chesapeake Bay (Englehaupt et al., 

2016). Project specific dolphin densities 

were calculated within the respective 

Level B harassment zone and season. 

Densities were then used to calculate 

the seasonal takes based on the number 

and type of pile driving days per season. 

For example, the density of dolphins in 

summer months is assumed to be 3.55 

dolphins/km2 * 0.88 km2 (harassment 

zone for Simultaneous Plumb Pile 

driving as shown in Table 8) = 3.12 

dolphins/km2 per day in summer as 

shown in Table 11. This density was 

then multiplied by number of 

simultaneous plumb pile driving days to 

provide takes for that season (e.g. 3.12 

dolphins/km2 * 24 days = 74.88 

estimated summer exposures from 

simultaneous plumb pile driving). The 

sum of the anticipated number of 

seasonal takes resulted in 4,740 

estimated exposures as shown in Table 

10 split among three stocks. There is 

insufficient information to apportion the 

takes precisely to the three stocks 

present in the area. Given that members 

of the NNCES stock are thought to occur 

in or near the Bay in very small 

numbers, and only during July and 

August, we will conservatively assume 

that no more than 100 of the takes will 

be from this stock. Most animals from 

this stock spend the summer months in 

Pamlico Sound and the range of species 

extends as far south as Beaufort, NC. In 

colder months, animals are thought to 

go no farther north than Pamlico Sound. 

Since members of the southern 

migratory coastal and northern 

migratory coastal stocks are known to 

occur in or near the Bay in greater 

numbers, we will conservatively assume 

that no more than half of the remaining 

animals (2,320) will accrue to either of 

these stocks. The largest level B zone for 

mid-frequency cetaceans occurs during 

vibratory driving and extends out 

2,154.4 meters. The largest Level A 

isopleth is 73.9 meters and would occur 

during installation of three battered 

piles on a single day. NMFS proposes a 

shutdown zone that extends 200 m, so 

no Level A take is authorized. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION USED TO CALCULATE BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN EXPOSURES

Season 

Density 

(individuals 

per km2) 

Estimated 

number 

of pile 

driving days 

Total number 

of requested 

takes 

Summer 2018 .............................................................................................................................. 3.55 45 866.37 

Fall 2018 ...................................................................................................................................... 3.88 77 2745.94 

Winter 2019 ................................................................................................................................. 0.63 70 962.62 

Spring 2019 ................................................................................................................................. 1.00 10 194.9 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,740 

TABLE 11—SEASONAL DAILY TAKE BY DRIVING SCENARIO (SEASONAL DENSITY * SCENARIO ZONE SIZE) AND ESTIMATED

NUMBER OF DRIVING DAYS PER SEASON

Season 

Impact 

simultaneous 

plumb daily take 

(days/season) 

Impact 

batter daily 

take 

(days/season) 

Vibratory 

sheet daily 

take 

(days/season) 

Simultaneous 

vibratory 

sheet and 

impact 

plumb daily 

take 

(days/season) 

Number 

of pile 

driving days 

Summer ............................................................ 3.12 (24) 29.35 (15) 58.54 (6) 58.54 (0) 45 

Fall ................................................................... 3.41 (36) 32.10 (0) 63.98 (41) 63.98 (0) 77 

Winter ............................................................... 0.55 (12) 5.21 (0) 10.39 (34) 10.39 (24) 70 

Spring ............................................................... 0.88 (0) 8.27 (0) 16.49 (9) 16.49 (1) 10 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36532 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

Harbor Porpoise 

Little is known about the abundance 

of harbor porpoises in the Chesapeake 

Bay. A recent survey of the Maryland 

Wind Energy Area found that porpoises 

occur frequently offshore January to 

May (Wingfield et al., 2017). This 

finding reflects the pattern of winter and 

spring strandings in the mid-Atlantic. 

NMFS will assume that there is a 

porpoise sighting once during every two 

months of operations. That would 

equate to five sightings over ten months. 

Assuming an average group size of two 

results in a total estimated take of 10 

porpoises. Harbor porpoises are 

members of the high-frequency hearing 

group which would have Level A 

isopleths as large of 2,474 meters during 

impact installation of three battered 

piles per day. Given the relatively large 

Level A zones during impact driving, 

NMFS will assume that 40 precent of 

porpoises are taken by Level A 

harassment. Therefore, NMFS 

authorizes the take of 4 porpoises by 

Level A take and 6 porpoises by Level 

B take. 

Harbor Seal 

The number of harbor seals expected 

to be present in the PTST project area 

was estimated using survey data for inwater and hauled out seals collected by 

the United States Navy at the portal 

islands in 2016 and 2017 (Rees et al., 

2017). The survey data revealed a 

maximum of 40 animals observed per 

day. The maximum number of seals per 

day (40) was multiplied by the total 

number of driving days (202) resulting 

in an estimated 8,080 harbor seal takes. 

The largest level B zone would occur 

during vibratory driving and extends 

out 2,154.4 meters from the sound 

source. The largest Level A isopleth is 

1,111.6 meters which would occur 

during impact installation of three 

battered piles. The smallest Level A 

zone during impact driving is 6.6 meters 

meters which would occur when a 

single steel pile is impact driven at the 

same time that vibratory driving of sheet 

piles is occurring. NMFS authorized a 

shutdown zone for harbor seals of 15 

meters since seals are common in the 

project area and are known to approach 

the shoreline. A larger shutdown zone 

would likely result in multiple 

shutdowns and impede the project 

schedule. NMFS will assume that 40 

percent of the exposed seals will occur 

within the Level A zone specified for a 

given scenario. Therefore, NMFS 

authorizes the Level A take of 3,232 and 

Level B take of 4,848 harbor seals. 

Gray Seals 

The number of gray seals potentially 

exposed to Level B harassment in the 

project area was calculated using survey 

data recording gray seal observations 

was collected by the U.S. Navy at the 

portal islands from 2014 through 2016 

(Rees et al., 2016). Potential gray seal 

exposures were calculated as the 

number of potential seals per pile 

driving day (8 hours) multiplied by the 

number of pile driving days per month. 

The anticipated numbers of monthly 

exposures as shown in Table 13 were 

summed. Therefore, NMFS has 

authorized the take of 67 gray seals by 

Level B harassment. The Level A 

isopleths for gray seals are identical to 

those for harbor seals. With a shutdown 

zone of 15 meters, NMFS recommended 

the Level A take of 40 percent of gray 

seals. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the 

Level A take of 27 and Level B take of 

40 gray seals. 

TABLE 13—CALCULATION FOR THE NUMBER OF GRAY SEAL EXPOSURES

Month 

Estimated 

seals per 

work day 

Total pile 

driving days 

per month 

(includes upland driving) 

Gray seal 

takes 

June 2018 .................................................................................................................................... Seals not expected to be present. 

July 2018 ..................................................................................................................................... Seals not expected to be present. 

August 2018 ................................................................................................................................. Seals not expected to be present. 

September 2018 .......................................................................................................................... Seals not expected to be present. 

October 2018 ............................................................................................................................... Seals not expected to be present. 

November 2018 ........................................................................................................................... 0 27 0 

December 2018 ........................................................................................................................... 0 24 0 

January 2019 ............................................................................................................................... 0 42 0 

February 2019 ............................................................................................................................. 1.6 42 67 

March 2019 .................................................................................................................................. 0 11 0 

Table 14 provides a summary of 

authorized Level B takes as well as the 

percentage of a stock or population 

authorized for take. 

TABLE 14—AUTHORIZED TAKE AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION

Species Stock Authorized 

Level A takes 

Authorized 

Level B takes 

Percent 

population 

Humpback whale ............................................ Gulf of Maine .................................................. ........................ 5 1.5 

Bottlenose dolphin .......................................... WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory ................. ........................ 2,320 20.1 

WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory ................. ........................ 2,320 25.2 

NNCES ........................................................... ........................ 100 12.1 

Harbor porpoise .............................................. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ........................... 4 6 <0.01 

Harbor seal ..................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................... 3,232 4,848 10.6 

Gray seal ......................................................... Western North Atlantic ................................... 27 40 0.25 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36533 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

contained in the IHA: 

• Pile Driving Delay/Shutdown 

Zone—For in-water heavy machinery 

work (using, e.g., standard barges, tug 

boats, barge-mounted excavators, or 

clamshell equipment used to place or 

remove material), a minimum 10 meters 

shutdown zone shall be implemented. If 

a marine mammal comes within 10 

meters of such operations, operations 

shall cease and vessels shall reduce 

speed to the minimum level required to 

maintain steerage and safe working 

conditions. This type of work could 

include (but is not limited to) the 

following activities: (1) Vibratory pile 

driving; (2) movement of the barge to 

the pile location; (3) positioning of the 

pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., 

stabbing the pile); or (4) removal of the 

pile from the water column/substrate 

via a crane (i.e., deadpull). 

• Non-authorized Take Prohibited—If 

a species for which authorization has 

not been granted (e.g., North Atlantic 

right whale, fin whale) or a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized takes are met, is 

observed approaching or within the 

Level B Isopleth, pile driving and 

removal activities must shut down 

immediately using delay and shut-down 

procedures. Activities must not resume 

until the animal has been confirmed to 

have left the area or an observation time 

period of 15 minutes has elapsed. 

• Use of Impact Installation—During 

pile installation of hollow steel piles, an 

impact hammer rather than a vibratory 

hammer will be used to reduce the 

duration of pile driving decrease the 

ZOI for marine mammals. 

• Cushion Blocks—Use of cushion 

blocks will be required during impact 

installation. Cushion blocks reduce 

source levels and, by association, 

received levels, although exact 

decreases in sound levels are unknown. 

• Use of Bubble Curtain—An encased 

bubble curtain will be used for impact 

installation of plumb round piles at 

water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft). 

Bubble curtains will not function 

effectively in shallower depths. shall 

employ a bubble curtain during impact 

pile driving of steel piles. CTJV shall 

implement the following performance 

standards: (1) The bubble curtain must 

distribute air bubbles around 100 

percent of the piling perimeter for the 

full depth of the water column; (2) the 

lowest bubble ring shall be in contact 

with the mudline for the full 

circumference of the ring, and the 

weights attached to the bottom ring 

shall ensure 100 percent mudline 

contact. No parts of the ring or other 

objects shall prevent full mudline 

contact; and (3) CTJV will require that 

construction contractors train personnel 

in the proper balancing of air flow to the 

bubblers, and shall require that 

construction contractors submit an 

inspection/performance report for 

approval by the CTJV within 72 hours 

following the performance test. 

Corrections to the attenuation device to 

meet the performance standards shall 

occur prior to impact driving. 

• Soft-Start—The use of a soft start 

procedure is believed to provide 

additional protection to marine 

mammals by warning or providing a 

chance to leave the area prior to the 

hammer operating at full capacity, and 

typically involves a requirement to 

initiate sound from the hammer at 

reduced energy followed by a waiting 

period. A soft-start procedure will be 

used for impact pile driving at the 

beginning of each day’s in-water pile 

driving or any time impact pile driving 

has ceased for more than 30 minutes. 

The CTJV will start the bubble curtain 

prior to the initiation of impact pile 

driving. The contractor will provide an 

initial set of strikes from the impact 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period, then two 

subsequent sets. 

• Establishment of Additional 

Shutdown Zones and Monitoring 

Zones—For all impact and vibratory 

pile driving shutdown and monitoring 

zones will be established and 

monitored. 

• CTJV will establish a shutdown 

zone of 200 meters for common 

dolphins and harbor porpoises and 15 

meters for harbor and gray seals. The 

shutdown zones for humpback whales 

are depicted in Table 16. 

• For all impact and vibratory pile 

driving shutdown and monitoring zones 

will be established and monitored. 

Level B zones are shown in Table 15. 

TABLE 15—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS

Hammer type driving scenario 

Radial distance 

(m) 

Island 1 Island 2 

Impact (battered) ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,585 1,585 

Vibratory ................................................................................................................................................................... 2,155 2,155 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and PI 2 simultaneous ........................................................................... 345 345 

Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 1 and Vibratory at PI 2 simultaneous ....................................................... 345 2,155 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36534 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 15—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM PILE DRIVEN TO LEVEL B ISOPLETHS FOR CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS— 

Continued 

Hammer type driving scenario 

Radial distance 

(m) 

Island 1 Island 2 

Vibratory at PI 1 and Impact w/Bubble Curtain (plumb) at PI 2 simultaneous ....................................................... 2,155 345 

• The Level A zones will depend on 

the number of piles driven and the 

presence of marine mammals per 24- 

hour period. Up to 3 battered piles or 8 

plumb steel piles will be driven per 24- 

hour period using the following 

adaptive monitoring approach. 

Monitoring will begin each day using 

the three-pile Level A zone for battered 

piles (or eight-pile zone for plumb 

piles). If after the first pile is driven, no 

marine mammals have been observed in 

the Level A zone, then the Level A zone 

will reduce to the two-pile zone. If no 

marine mammals are observed within 

the two-pile shutdown zone during the 

driving of the second pile, then the 

Level A zone will reduce to the one-pile 

zone. However, if a mammal is observed 

approaching or entering the three-pile 

Level A zone during the driving of the 

first pile, then the three-pile Level A 

zone will be monitored for the 

remainder of pile driving activities for 

that day. Likewise, if a marine mammal 

is observed within the two-pile but not 

the three-pile Level A zone, then the 

two-pile Level A zone will be monitored 

for the remainder of pile driving 

activities for that day. The same 

protocol will be followed for installation 

of up to 8 plumb piles per day. 

The Level A isopleths for all 

authorized species are shown in Table 

16. Isopeths associated with lowfrequency cetaceans will signify 

shutdown zones for humpback whales. 

TABLE 16—RADIAL DISTANCE (METERS) FROM DRIVEN PILE TO PTS ZONES FOR CETACEANS AND PHOCID PINNIPEDS

FOR SCENARIOS INVOLVING IMPACT HAMMER

Class of marine 

mammals Piles per day Impact hammer (battered pile) 

Impact 

hammer 

with bubble 

curtain 

simultaneous 

(plumb pile) ** 

Simultaneous 

Driving— 

Vibratory 

hammer and 

impact 

hammer with 

bubble curtain 

(plumb pile) 

Low-Frequency Cetaceans * ............................................................ 8 

7 

N/A 

N.A 

1,366 

1,249.1 

860.6 

787.3 

6 N/A 1,127.7 710.4 

5 N/A 998.6 629.1 

4 N/A 860.6 542.1 

3 2,077.2 710.4 447.5 

2 1,585.2 542.1 341.5 

1 998.6 341.5 215.1 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans ............................................................... 8 

7 

N/A 

N/A 

48 

44.4 

30.6 

28.0 

6 N/A 40.1 25.3 

5 N/A 35.5 22.4 

4 N/A 30.6 19.3 

3 73.9 25.3 15.9 

2 56.4 19.3 12.1 

1 35.5 12.1 7.7 

High Frequency Cetaceans ............................................................. 8 

7 

N/A 

N/A 

1,627 

1,488.6 

1,025.1 

937.8 

6 N/A 1,343.3 846.2 

5 N/A 1,189.5 749.4 

4 N/A 1,025.1 645.8 

3 2,474.3 846.2 533.1 

2 1,888.3 645.8 406.8 

1 1,189.5 406.8 256.3 

Phocid Pinnipeds ............................................................................. 8 

7 

N/A 

N/A 

731 

68.8 

460.5 

412.3 

6 N/A 603.5 380.2 

5 N/A 534.4 336.7 

4 N/A 460.5 290.1 

3 1,111.6 380.2 239.5 

2 848.3 290.1 182.8 

1 534.4 182.8 115.1 

* These isopleths serve as shutdown zones for all large whales, including humpback and fin whales. 

** Assumes 1 pile installed at each island per day ranging from maximum of 16 piles to minimum of 2 piles. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36535 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s suggested measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the planned action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

The following visual monitoring 

measures are contained in the IHA: 

• Pre-activity monitoring shall take 

place from 30 minutes prior to initiation 

of pile driving activity and post-activity 

monitoring shall continue through 30 

minutes post-completion of pile driving 

activity. Pile driving may commence at 

the end of the 30-minute pre-activity 

monitoring period, provided observers 

have determined that the shutdown 

zone is clear of marine mammals, which 

includes delaying start of pile driving 

activities if a marine mammal is sighted 

in the zone. 

• If a marine mammal approaches or 

enters the shutdown zone during 

activities or pre-activity monitoring, all 

pile driving activities at that location 

shall be halted or delayed, respectively. 

If pile driving is halted or delayed due 

to the presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not resume or commence 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

left and been visually confirmed beyond 

the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have 

passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Pile driving activities include 

the time to install or remove a single 

pile or series of piles, as long as the time 

elapsed between uses of the pile driving 

equipment is no more than thirty 

minutes. 

• Monitoring distances, in accordance 

with the identified shutdown zones, 

Level A zones and Level B zones, will 

be determined by using a range finder, 

scope, hand-held global positioning 

system (GPS) device or landmarks with 

known distances from the monitoring 

positions. 

• A minimum of two PSOs will be 

required during all pile driving 

activities. Monitoring locations shall be 

based on land both at Portal Island No. 

1 and Portal Island No. 2 during 

simultaneous driving or on the Portal 

Island with active driving during nonsimultaneous driving. 

• Monitoring will be continuous 

unless the contractor takes a break 

longer than 2 hours from active pile and 

sheet pile driving, in which case, 

monitoring will be required 30 minutes 

prior to restarting pile installation. 

• If marine mammals are observed, 

their location within the zones, and 

their reaction (if any) to pile activities 

will be documented. 

• If weather or sea conditions restrict 

the observer’s ability to observe, or 

become unsafe, pile installation will be 

suspended until conditions allow for 

monitoring to resume. 

• For in-water pile driving, under 

conditions of fog or poor visibility that 

might obscure the presence of a marine 

mammal within the shutdown zone, the 

pile in progress will be completed and 

then pile driving suspended until 

visibility conditions improve. 

• Monitoring of pile driving shall be 

conducted by qualified PSOs (see 

below), who shall have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. CVTJV shall adhere to the 

following conditions when selecting 

observers: 

(1) Independent PSOs shall be used 

(i.e., not construction personnel). 

(2) At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction 

activities. 

(3) Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience. 

(4) CTJV shall submit PSO CVs for 

approval by NMFS. 

• CTJV will ensure that observers 

have the following additional 

qualifications: 

(1) Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols. 

(2) Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors. 

(3) Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations. 

(4) Writing skills sufficient to prepare 

a report of observations including but 

not limited to the number and species 

of marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior. 

(5) Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal activities. It 

will include an overall description of 

work completed, a narrative regarding 

marine mammal sightings, and 

associated marine mammal observation 

data sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Date and time that monitored 

activity begins or ends; 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each observation period; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36536 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

• Deviation from initial proposal in 

pile numbers, pile types, average 

driving times, etc.; 

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility); and 

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tide state). 

• For each marine mammal sighting: 

(1) Species, numbers, and, if possible, 

sex and age class of marine mammals; 

(2) Description of any observable 

marine mammal behavior patterns, 

including bearing and direction of travel 

and distance from pile driving activity; 

(3) Location and distance from pile 

driving activities to marine mammals 

and distance from the marine mammals 

to the observation point; 

(4) Estimated amount of time that the 

animals remained in the Level A Level 

B zone; 

• Description of implementation of 

mitigation measures within each 

monitoring period (e.g., shutdown or 

delay); and 

• Other human activity in the area. 

• A summary of the following: 

(1) Total number of individuals of 

each species detected within the Level 

A and Level B Zone, and estimated as 

taken if correction factor is applied. 

(2) Daily average number of 

individuals of each species 

(differentiated by month as appropriate) 

detected within the Level A and Level 

B Zone, and estimated as taken, if 

correction factor is applied. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such 

as an injury, serious injury or mortality, 

CTJV would immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

NMFS Greater Atlantic Region New 

England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the following 

information: 

• Description of the incident; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

Beaufort sea state, visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS would work with CTJV to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. CTJV would not be able to 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that CTJV discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the cause 

of the injury or death is unknown and 

the death is relatively recent (e.g., in 

less than a moderate state of 

decomposition as described in the next 

paragraph), CTJV would immediately 

report the incident to the Chief of the 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region 

New England/Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities would be able to continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS would work with 

CTJV to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that CTJV discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal and the 

lead PSO determines that the injury or 

death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

CTJV would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Region New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 

24 hours of the discovery. CTJV would 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS and 

the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

CTJV’s planned pile driving activities 

are highly localized. Only a relatively 

small portion of the Chesapeake Bay 

may be affected. The project is not 

expected to have significant adverse 

effects on marine mammal habitat. No 

important feeding and/or reproductive 

areas for marine mammals are known to 

be near the project area. Project-related 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of 

their foraging range, but because of the 

relatively small impacted area of the 

habitat range utilized by each species 

that may be affected, the impacts to 

marine mammal habitat are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm negative consequences. 

A limited number of animals could 

experience Level A harassment in the 

form of PTS if they remain within the 

Level A harassment zone during certain 

impact driving scenarios. The sizes of 

the Level A zones are dependent on the 

number of steel piles driven in a 24- 

hour period. Up to 8 steel plumb piles 

or 3 steel battered piles could be driven 

in a single day, which would result in 

a relatively large Level A zones. (If 

fewer piles are driven per day then the 

Level A zones would be smaller). 

However, an animal would have to be 

within the Level A zones during the 

driving of all 8 plumb or 3 battered 

piles. This is unlikely, as marine 

mammals tend to move away from 

sound sources. Furthermore, the degree 

of injury is expected to be mild and is 

not likely to affect the reproduction or 

survival of the individual animals. It is 

expected that, if hearing impairments 

occurs, most likely the affected animal 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 36537 

would lose a few dB in its hearing 

sensitivity, which in most cases is not 

likely to affect its survival and 

recruitment. 

Exposures to elevated sound levels 

produced during pile driving activities 

may cause behavioral responses by an 

animal, but they are expected to be mild 

and temporary. Effects on individuals 

that are taken by Level B harassment, on 

the basis of reports in the literature as 

well as monitoring from other similar 

activities, will likely be limited to 

reactions such as increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 

2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving, although even this reaction 

has been observed primarily only in 

association with impact pile driving. 

These reactions and behavioral changes 

are expected to subside quickly when 

the exposures cease. The pile driving 

activities analyzed here are similar to, or 

less impactful than, numerous 

construction activities conducted in 

numerous other locations on the east 

coast, which have taken place with no 

reported injuries or mortality to marine 

mammals, and no known long-term 

adverse consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Repeated exposures of 

individuals to levels of sound that may 

cause Level B harassment are unlikely 

to result in permanent hearing 

impairment or to significantly disrupt 

foraging behavior. Furthermore, Level B 

harassment will be reduced through use 

of mitigation measures described herein. 

CTJV will employ noise attenuating 

devices (i.e., bubble curtains, pile caps) 

during impact driving of plumb steel 

piles. During impact driving of both 

plumb and battered piles, 

implementation of soft start procedures 

and monitoring of established shutdown 

zones will be required, significantly 

reduces any possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient notice through use of soft start 

(for impact driving), marine mammals 

are expected to move away from a 

sound source. PSOs will be stationed on 

a portal island whenever pile driving 

operations are underway at that island. 

The portal island locations provide a 

relatively clear view of the shutdown 

zones as well as monitoring zones. 

These factors will limit exposure of 

animals to noise levels that could result 

in injury. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated; 

• The area of potential impacts is 

highly localized; 

• No adverse impacts to marine 

mammal habitat; 

• The absence of any significant 

habitat within the project area, 

including rookeries, or known areas or 

features of special significance for 

foraging or reproduction; 

• Anticipated incidents of Level A 

harassment would likely be mild; 

• Anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

and 

• The anticipated efficacy of the 

required mitigation measures in 

reducing the effects of the specified 

activity. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

NMFS has determined that the 

estimated Level B take of humpback 

whale is 1.5 percent of the Gulf of 

Maine stock; take of harbor seals is 10.6 

percent of the Western North Atlantic 

stock; take of gray seals is 0.25 percent 

of the Western North Atlantic stock; and 

take of harbor porpoise is <0.01 percent 

of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy 

stock. Total estimated take of bottlenose 

dolphins is 4,740. NMFS assumes 100 

takes accruing to the NNCES stock and 

no more than half (2,300) of the 

remaining takes accruing to either of 

two migratory coastal stocks. This stock 

division represents 12.1 percent of the 

NCCES stock, 20.1 percent of the 

Western North Atlantic northern 

migratory coastal stock and 25.2 percent 

of the Western North Atlantic southern 

migratory coastal stock. Additionally, 

some number of the anticipated takes 

are likely to be repeat sightings of the 

same individual, lowering the number 

of individuals taken. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36538 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Notices 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV for 

conducting pile driving and removal 

activities as part of the PTST project 

between August 1, 2018 through July 31, 

2019, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: July 25, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16204 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG373 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

hold public meetings of the Council and 

its Committees. 

DATES: The meetings will be held 

Monday, August 13, 2018 through 

Thursday, August 16, 2018. For agenda 

details, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront, 

3001 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, 

VA 23451, telephone: (757) 213–3000. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 800 N. State St., 

Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: 

(302) 674–2331. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council; telephone: (302) 

526–5255. The Council’s website, 

www.mafmc.org also has details on the 

meeting location, proposed agenda, 

webinar listen-in access, and briefing 

materials. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following items are on the agenda, 

though agenda items may be addressed 

out of order (changes will be noted on 

the Council’s website when possible). 

Monday, August 13, 2018 

Swearing in of New and Reappointed 

Council Members 

Election of Officers 

Illex Control Date and 2018 and 2019 

Fishery 

Consider a new or existing (August 2, 

2013) control date and review and 

consider adjustment to 2018 and 2019 

Illex specifications. 

Atlantic Mackerel Framework and 

Specifications 

Approve rebuilding plan and 

associated 2019–2021 specifications 

including river herring and shad cap. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 

Council Meeting With the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass and Bluefish Boards 

MRIP Presentation on New Estimates 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass Framework and Addendum on 

Conservation Equivalency, Block Island 

Sound Transit, and Slot Limits 

Framework meeting 1—review draft 

alternatives and review and approve 

draft addendum. 

Black Sea Bass Specifications 

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, 

Advisory Panel, and staff 

recommendations and adopt 2019 

specifications. 

Black Sea Bass Wave 1 Fishery and 

Letter of Authorization (LOA) 

Consider a potential February 2019 

opening of the recreational Wave 1 

fishery and discuss the continued 

development of the LOA Framework. 

Wednesday, August 15, 2018 

Council Meeting With the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

Bass and Bluefish Boards 

Summer Flounder Specifications 

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, 

Advisory Panel, and staff 

recommendations and adopt 2019 

specifications. 

Scup Specifications 

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, 

Advisory Panel, and staff 

recommendations regarding previously 

implemented 2019 specifications and 

recommend changes to 2019 

specifications if necessary. 

Bluefish Specifications 

Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, 

Advisory Panel, and staff 

recommendations and adopt 2019 

specifications. 

Bluefish Allocation Amendment 

Review scoping comments and 

discuss next steps and determine issues 

to be included in public hearing 

document. 

ASMFC Bluefish FMP Review 

Thursday, August 16, 2018 

Responsible Offshore Development 

Alliance 

Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP for 

Management of Shortfin Mako Sharks 

Business Session 

Committee Reports (SSC); Executive 

Director’s Report; Organization Reports; 

and, Liaison Reports. 

Continuing and New Business 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during these meetings. Actions 

will be restricted to those issues 

specifically identified in this notice and 

any issues arising after publication of 

this notice that require emergency 

action under Section 305(c) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the 

public has been notified of the Council’s 

intent to take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aid 

should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, 

(302) 526–5251, at least 5 days prior to 

the meeting date. 

Dated: July 25, 2018. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16221 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES