3976 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this ICR. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Department PRA Clearance Officer, Office of 

the Chief Information Officer, Commerce 

Department. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01518 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB731] 

Marine Mammals; File No. 22260 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Allyson Hindle, Ph.D., University of 

Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S Maryland 

Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154, has 

applied in due form for a permit to 

conduct research on Weddell seals 

(Leptonychotes weddellii). 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email 

comments must be received on or before 

February 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the ‘‘Features’’ box on 

the Applications and Permits for 

Protected Species (APPS) home page, 

https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then 

selecting File No. 22260 from the list of 

available applications. These documents 

are also available upon written request 

via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@

noaa.gov. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted via email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include File No. 22260 in the subject 

line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

via email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@

noaa.gov. The request should set forth 

the specific reasons why a hearing on 

this application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Young or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

The applicant proposes multiple 

studies to investigate how physiology 

supports and limits hypoxia tolerance in 

diving marine mammals. The applicant 

proposes to take 30 adult Weddell seals 

at an isolated dive hole and 36 freeranging adult Weddell seals in Erebus 

Bay, Antarctica over two field seasons, 

with up to two unintentional mortalities 

proposed annually. Animals may be 

taken via capture, restraint, transport, 

anesthesia and sedation, external and 

internal instrumentation, biological 

sampling, marking, weighing, and 

ultrasound. The number of times an 

animal may receive a specific procedure 

is dependent on which of the four 

experimental groups it is assigned. 

Animals transported to remote breathing 

holes for dive tests will be held at the 

location for approximately six days 

before being returned to their original 

location of capture. Samples collected 

during these studies may be exported to 

the United States for analysis. While 

only 2 years of field study would be 

authorized, the permit would remain 

valid for 5 years to allow additional 

time for sample importation. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of the 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: January 20, 2022. 

Julia M. Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01491 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB562] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the 

Replacement of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the United States Department of 

the Navy (Navy) for authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to the 

replacement of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-time, one-year renewal that could 

be issued under certain circumstances 

and if all requirements are met, as 

described in Request for Public 

Comments at the end of this notice. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

prior to making any final decision on 

the issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorizations and agency responses 

will be summarized in the final notice 

of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than February 25, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.Corcoran@

noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3977 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for 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 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

or making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On July 15, 2021 NMFS received a 

request from the Navy for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to the 

reconstruction of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on October 27, 2021. 

Subsequently, the Navy provided a 

revised and updated version of the 

application, which was determined to 

be adequate and complete on January 

10, 2022. The Navy’s request is for take 

of a small number of five species by 

Level B harassment and Level A 

harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously 

issued IHAs to the Navy for similar 

work (86 FR 48986; September 1, 2021; 

85 FR 33139; June 01, 2020; 83 FR 

30406; June 28, 2018). This proposed 

IHA would cover one year of a larger 

project for which the Navy plans to 

submit a request for a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) for additional 

work occurring from April 1, 2023 

through December 30, 2026. The larger 

4-year project involves the demolition 

and reconstruction of a submarine pier 

at Naval Station Norfolk. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The Navy is proposing the 

replacement of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

(NAVSTA) Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. The 

existing Pier 3 would be completely 

demolished and a new Pier 3 will be 

constructed immediately north of the 

existing location (See Figure 1). Work at 

Pier 4, Pier 3T and the bulkheads 

associated with Pier 3 and 3T (CEP–175, 

CEP–176, and CEP–102) will also occur 

(See Figure 1). The proposed project 

includes impact and vibratory pile 

driving and vibratory pile removal and 

drilling. Drilling is considered a 

continuous noise source, similar to 

vibratory pile driving. Sounds resulting 

from pile driving and removal may 

result in the incidental take of marine 

mammals by Level A and Level B 

harassment in the form of auditory 

injury or behavioral harassment. The inwater construction period for the 

proposed action will occur over 12 

months. 

Dates and Duration 

The proposed IHA would be effective 

from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. 

Approximately 280 days will be 

required for the project. The Navy plans 

to conduct all work during daylight 

hours. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Pier 3 at NAVSTA Norfolk is located 

at the confluence of the Elizabeth River, 

James River, Nansemond River, 

LaFeyette, Willoughby Bay, and 

Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2). 

Human generated sound is a 

significant contributor to the ambient 

acoustic environment surrounding 

NAVSTA Norfolk, as it is located in 

close proximity to shipping channels as 

well as several Port of Virginia facilities 

with frequent, noise-producing vessel 

traffic that, altogether, have an annual 

average of 1,788 vessel calls (Port of 

Virginia, 2021). Other sources of 

human-generated underwater sound not 

specific to naval installations include 

sounds from echo sounders on 

commercial and recreational vessels, 

industrial ship noise, and noise from 

recreational boat engines. Additionally, 

on average, maintenance dredging of the 

navigation channel occurs every 2 years 

(USACE and Port of Virginia, 2018). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3978 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN26JA22.002</GPH>

Legend 

··• ~on CjCft1rudlon 

D ~ Ind Dtmoli!krl 

Demdllon 

FWlj«tate· 

.· □ ~ !30Un<hl!y 

N 

A 

Figure 1. Project Site Map, location of existing and proposed Pier 3. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3979 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The proposed project involves the 

replacement of Pier 3 at the NAVSTA 

waterfront. The existing Pier 3 would be 

completely demolished and a new Pier 

3 would be constructed immediately 

north of the existing location. 

Additional work associated with the 

replacement of Pier 3 includes the 

outfitting of Pier 4 for temporary 

submarine berthing, demolition of Pier 

3T, construction at the CEP–176 and the 

CEP–175 bulkheads, and beginning of 

construction of the CEP–102 bulkhead 

and relieving platform. The project 

includes six phases that will be 

completed under this proposed IHA and 

the future requested LOA. A 

preliminary work schedule and activity 

details for the work under this proposed 

IHA are provided in Table 1. In water 

construction activities and specific 

project phases that would occur under 

this IHA are described in more detail 

below: 

Pile Removal—Piles are anticipated to 

be removed with a vibratory hammer, 

however direct pull or clamshell 

removal may be used depending on site 

conditions. Since vibratory removal is 

the loudest activity, to be precautionary, 

we assume all piles will be removed 

with a vibratory hammer. Pile removal 

methods are described as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN26JA22.003</GPH>

i) LI lMlfll<I. ..... ____ . ____ ...,. 

Figure 2. Project location Map, Naval Station Norfolk. 
3980 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

• Vibratory Extraction—This method 

uses a barge-mounted crane with a 

vibratory driver to remove all pile types. 

The vibratory driver is suspended from 

a crane by a cable and positioned on top 

of the pile to loosen the pile from the 

sediment. Once the pile is released from 

the sediments, the crane continues to 

raise the driver and pull the pile from 

the sediment and place it on a barge; 

• Clamshell—In cases where a 

vibratory driver is not possible (e.g., 

when the pile may break apart from 

clamp force and vibration), a clamshell 

apparatus may be lowered from the 

crane in order to remove pile stubs. The 

use and size of the clamshell bucket 

would be minimized to reduce the 

potential for generating turbidity during 

removal; and 

• Direct Pull—Pile may also be 

removed by wrapping piles with a cable 

or chain and pulling them directly from 

the sediment with a crane. This method 

is based on site conditions. 

Pile Installation—The proposed pile 

installation/removal would occur using 

land-based or barge-mounted cranes and 

vary in method based on pile type. 

Concrete piles would be installed using 

an impact hammer. Steel piles and 

polymeric piles would be installed 

using an impact hammer or vibratory 

hammer. Drilling may also occur for the 

installation of concrete bearing piles at 

CEP–102, concrete fender piles, and 

polymeric fender piles. No concurrent 

activity will occur. 

Outfitting Pier 4—In order to support 

the temporary berthing of submarines, 

Pier 4 fender support piles will be 

replaced with stronger, more 

structurally sound fender piles. On the 

south side of Pier 4 (see Figure 1), 36, 

14-inch timber piles will be removed 

with a vibratory hammer and 36, 24- 

inch precast square concrete piles will 

be installed with an impact hammer 

with drilling used as necessary. 

Demolition of Pier 3T—The existing 

Pier 3T will be completely demolished 

and will not be replaced. Demolition of 

Pier 3T will include the removal of 286, 

18-inch square concrete piles and 87, 

14-inch timber piles using a vibratory 

hammer. 

CEP–175 Bulkhead—Once Pier 3T is 

demolished, a new fender system will 

be constructed at CEP–175 where Pier 

3T previously abutted the bulkhead (see 

Figure 1). To accomplish this, nine, 13- 

inch polymeric fender piles would be 

installed to align with the existing 

fender system. Piles will be installed 

with either impact or vibratory 

hammers, with drilling used as 

necessary. 

Pier 3 Construction—The new Pier 3 

will be constructed immediately north 

of and adjacent to the current Pier 3 (see 

Figure 1). The new pier will consist of 

a cast in place concrete deck supported 

by 530, 24-inch square concrete bearing 

piles. A fender system will be 

constructed on the north and south 

sides of the pier consisting of 392, 24- 

inch square concrete and 18, 18-inch 

steel pipe fender piles for berthing 

submarines. The fender system piles 

would not be installed in year one and 

therefore are not analyzed in this 

proposed IHA. 

CEP–176 Bulkhead—The wharf 

upgrade will consist of a new steel 

combi-wall bulkhead and relieving 

platform on the landside of the 

bulkhead that serves as the bulkhead 

anchoring system. The bulkhead will be 

constructed using 109, 42-inch steel 

pipe bearing piles and 221, 28-inch steel 

sheet piles. The steel pipe pile/steel 

sheet pile combination will be driven 

waterside of the existing deteriorated 

concrete bulkhead and will be installed 

with either an impact or vibratory 

hammer. Once Pier 3T is demolished 

and the new CEP–176 bulkheads are 

completed, dredging would occur along 

the face of CEP–176 bulkhead to allow 

for safe berthing and maneuvering. As 

described above, the project area is a 

noisy, industrial area. Noise created 

during dredging operations may exceed 

harassment thresholds, but is similar to 

noise produced through other common 

activities occurring at the project 

location and is unlikely to be 

distinguishable from the background 

noise created by ongoing industrial 

activity. Therefore, the likelihood of 

harassing marine mammals is reduced 

and no incidental takes are expected as 

a result of the dredging activity. 

Dredging and disposal activities are not 

discussed further in this document. 

CEP–102 Bulkhead—Repairs to the 

CEP–102 bulkhead will begin with the 

demolition of a portion of the existing 

fender pile system prior to new 

construction of Pier 3 and the CEP–176 

bulkhead. Fender piles to be removed 

include: 22, 18-inch square concrete 

fender piles, 9, 14-inch timber fender 

piles, and 4, 13-inch polymeric piles. 

All piles will be removed by use of a 

vibratory hammer. A steel combi-wall 

bulkhead and a reinforced concrete 

relieving platform would then be 

constructed in two phases, with a small, 

approximately 50-foot portion, 

constructed concurrently with 

construction of the new Pier 3. Noise 

producing sources will not be used 

simultaneously, however. The portion 

of the CEP–102 combi-wall that will be 

constructed under this proposed IHA 

consists of 4, 42-inch steel pipe bearing 

piles and 8, 28-inch steel sheet piles 

that will be installed with either an 

impact or vibratory hammer. Eleven, 24- 

inch precast concrete fender piles will 

also be installed using an impact 

hammer. Drilling may be utilized as 

needed prior to the use of the impact 

hammer. 

Table 1 outlines a preliminary work 

schedule for the demolition and 

reconstruction of Pier 3 at NAVSTA. 

Some project elements will use only one 

method of pile installation (e.g., 

vibratory OR drilling/impact OR impact 

only), but all methods have been 

analyzed. The method of installation 

will be determined by the construction 

crew once demolition and installation 

has begun. Therefore, the total take 

estimate reflects the worst case scenario 

for the proposed project. 

TABLE 1—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 1 

Location Activity Amount and schedule Type and size Method 1

Daily 

production 

rate 

(piles/day) 

Strikes/duration 

per pile 

Total 

production 

days 

Pier 4 ............... Demolition of Existing 

Fender Piles.

36 fender piles June 

2022–September 

2022.

14-inch timber ..... Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 9 

Installation of Fender 

Piles.

36 fender piles June 

2022–September 

2022.

24-inch precast 

concrete 

square.

Drilling with Impact 

Hammer OR.

6 6 hours ................... 6 

Impact Hammer ......... 12 450 strikes .............. 3 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3981 

TABLE 1—PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 1—Continued 

Location Activity Amount and schedule Type and size Method 1

Daily 

production 

rate 

(piles/day) 

Strikes/duration 

per pile 

Total 

production 

days 

Pier 3T ............. Demolition of Existing 

Pier 3T.

286 bearing piles August 2022–November 2022.18-inch precast 

concrete 

square.

Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 72 

87 fender piles August 

2022–November 

2022.

14-inch timber ..... Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 22 

CEP–175 ......... Repair Fender System 9 fender piles October 

2022–November 

2022.

13-inch polymeric Drilling with Impact 

Hammer OR.

7 60 minutes .............. 2 

Impact Hammer OR ... 7 450 strikes .............. 2 

Vibratory Hammer ...... 7 30 minutes .............. 2 

CEP–102 ......... Demolish Partial Existing Fender System.22 fender piles October 2022–November 

2022.

18-inch concrete 

square.

Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 6 

9 fender piles October 

2022–November 

2022.

14-inch timber ..... Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 3 

4 fender piles ............. 13-inch polymeric Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 1 

Pier 3 ............... Begin Construction of 

New Pier 3.

300 bearing piles October 2022–March 

2023.

24-inch precast 

concrete 

square.

Impact Hammer ......... 2 3,200 strikes ........... 150 

CEP–176 ......... Begin Construction of 

New Bulkhead.

109 bearing piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

42-inch steel pipe Impact Hammer OR ... 2 1,800 strikes ........... 55 

Vibratory Hammer ...... 2 240 minutes ............ 55 

221 sheet piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

28-inch steel 

sheet.

Impact Hammer OR ... 4 270 strikes .............. 56 

Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 56 

CEP–102 ......... Construction of a Portion of the New 

Bulkhead.

4 bearing piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

42-inch steep 

pipe.

Impact Hammer OR ... 2 2,000 strikes ........... 2 

Vibratory Hammer ...... 2 240 minutes ............ 2 

8 bulkhead sheet piles 

December 2022–30 

March 2023.

28-inch steel 

sheet.

Impact Hammer OR ... 4 270 strikes .............. 2 

Vibratory Hammer ...... 4 60 minutes .............. 2 

11 bearing piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

24-inch precast 

concrete 

square.

Pre-drilling with Impact Hammer OR.2 6 hours ................... 6 

Impact Hammer ......... 2 2,700 strikes ........... 6 

Total piles installed, extracted, or drilled 1,142.

Total days pile 

driving/extraction/drilling.

.................................... .................................... ............................. .................................... ...................... ................................. 234 280 

1Only one method of installation is likely; however, because the exact means of installation are up to the selected construction contractor, all possibilities have 

been analyzed. 2Total number of days takes into account the most days possible for each pile type with multiple potential installation methods (i.e., the worst case scenario). 3The preliminary schedule has work at Pier 4, demolition of Pier 3T, start of construction at Pier 3, and work at CEP–175 potentially occurring in the same timeframe, thus multiple pile types could be driven in the same day and the total days of pile driving/extraction/drilling reflects this assumption. Thus, the maximum number of days of work from these activities is associated with beginning the construction of Pier 3 (150 days). Adding remaining work, minus those activities that would 

occur during the same time frame (Pier 4, demo Pier 3T, and CEP–175), equals 280 days. 4 Multiple types of equipment may be used on the same day; however, use of multiple noise sources (hammers or drills) would not occur at the same time. There 

will be no simultaneous activities associated with this project. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3982 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy’s 

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 (SARs; 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2021). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico SARs (e.g., Hayes et al., 2021). 

All values presented in Table 2 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2021 draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021). 

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 Eschrichtiidae: 

Humpback whale .................... Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Gulf of Maine ................................. -,-;Y 1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) ....... 22 12.15 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Bottlenose dolphin .................. Tursiops truncatus ........ Western North Atlantic (WNA) 

Coastal, Northern Migratory.

-,-; Y 6,636 (0.41; 4,759; 2016) .. 48 12.2–21.5 

Bottlenose dolphin .................. Tursiops truncatus ........ WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory -,-; Y 3,751 (0.06; 2,353; 2016) .. 24 0–18.3 

Bottlenose dolphin .................. Tursiops truncatus ........ Northern North Carolina Estuarine -,-; Y 823 (0.06; 782; 2017) ........ 7.8 7.2–30 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ...................... Phocoena phocoena ..... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy .......... -,-; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) 851 217 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ............................. Phoca vitulina ............... WNA .............................................. -; N 61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 2018) 1729 339 

Gray seal 4 .............................. Halichoerus grypus ....... WNA .............................................. -; N 27,300 (0.22; 23,785; 2016) 1,389 4,453 

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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury (M/SI) 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. 4This stock abundance estimate for only the U.S. portion of this stock. The actual stock abundance, including the Canadian portion of the population, is estimated 

to be approximately 451,431 animals. The PBR value listed here is only for the U.S. portion of the stock, while M/SI reflects both the Canadian and U.S. portions. 

As indicated above, all five species 

(with seven managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing it. While North 

Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis), minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata acutorostrata), and fin 

whales (Balaenoptera physalus) have 

been documented in the area, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

these whales is far outside the proposed 

area for this project and take is not 

expected to occur. Therefore, they are 

not discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided below. 

Based on sighting data and passive 

acoustic studies, the North Atlantic 

right whale could occur off the coast of 

Virginia year-round (Department of 

Navy (DoN) 2009; Salisbury et al., 

2006). They have also been reported 

seasonally off Virginia during 

migrations in the spring, fall, and winter 

(Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program (CeTAP) 1981, 1982; Niemeyer 

et al., 2008; Kahn et al., 2009; McLellan 

2011b, 2013; Mallette et al., 2016a, 

2016b, 2017, 2018a; Palka et al., 2017; 

Cotter 2019). Right whales are known to 

frequent the coastal waters of the mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay (Knowlton et al., 

2002) and the area is a seasonal 

management area (November 1–April 

30) mandating reduced ship speeds out 

to approximately 20 nautical miles (37 

kilometers [km]); however, the project 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3983 

area is further inside the Bay and away 

from this area. 

North Atlantic right whales have 

stranded in Virginia, one each in 2001, 

2002, 2004, 2005; three during winter 

(February and March) and one in 

summer (September) Costidis et al., 

2017, 2019). In January 2018, a dead, 

entangled North Atlantic right whale 

was observed floating over 60 miles 

(96.6 km) offshore of Virginia Beach 

(Costidis et al., 2019). All North Atlantic 

right whale strandings in Virginia 

waters have occurred on ocean-facing 

beaches along Virginia Beach and the 

barrier islands seaward of the lower 

Delmarva Peninsula (Costidis et al., 

2017). Right whales are not expected to 

occur in the project area, and NMFS is 

not proposing to authorize take of this 

species. 

Fin whales have been sighted off 

Virginia (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Swingle et 

al., 1993, DoN 2009; Hyrenback et al., 

2012; Barco 2013; Mallette et al., 2016a, 

b; Aschettino et al., 2018; Engelhaupt et 

al., 2017, 2018; Cotter 2019), and in the 

Chesapeake Bay (Bailey 1948; CeTAP 

1981, 1982; Morgan et al., 2002; Barco 

2013; Aschettino et al., 2018); however, 

they are not likely to occur in the 

project area. Sightings have been 

documented around the Chesapeake Bay 

Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) during the winter 

months (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Barco 2013; 

Aschettino et al., 2018). 

Eleven fin whale strandings have 

occurred off Virginia from 1988 to 2016 

mostly during the winter months of 

February and March, followed by a few 

in the spring and summer months 

(Costidis et al., 2017). Six of the 

strandings occurred in the Chesapeake 

Bay (three on eastern shore; three on 

western shore) with the remaining five 

occurring on the Atlantic coast (Costidis 

et al., 2017. Documented strandings 

near the project area have occurred: 

February 2012, a dead fin whale washed 

ashore on Oceanview Beach in Norfolk 

(Swingle et al., 2013); December 2017, 

a live fin whale stranded on a shoal in 

Newport News and died at the site 

(Swingle et al., 2018); February 2014, a 

dead fin whale stranded on a sand bar 

in Pocomoke Sound near Great Fox 

Island, Accomack (Swingle et al., 2015); 

and, March 2007, a dead fin whale near 

Craney Island, in the Elizabeth River, in 

Norfolk (Barco 2013). Only stranded fin 

whales have been documented in the 

project area; no free-swimming fin 

whales have been observed. Fin whales 

are not expected to occur in the project 

area, and NMFS is not proposing to 

authorize take of this species. 

Minke whales have been sighted off 

Virginia (CeTAP 1981, 1982; Hyrenbach 

et al., 2012; Barco 2013; Mallette et al., 

2016a, b; McLellan 2017; Engelhaupt et 

al., 2017, 2018; Cotter 2019), near the 

CBBT (Aschettino et al., 2018), but 

sightings in the project area are from 

strandings (Jensen and Silber 2004; 

Barco 2013; DoN 2009). In August 1994, 

a ship strike incident involved a minke 

whale in Hampton Roads (Jensen and 

Silber 2004; Barco 2013). It was reported 

that the animal was struck offshore and 

was carried inshore on the bow of a ship 

(DoN 2009). Twelve strandings of minke 

whales have occurred in Virginia waters 

from 1988 to 2016 (Costidis et al., 2017). 

There have been six minke whale 

stranding from 2017 through 2020 in 

Virginia waters. Minke whales are not 

expected to occur in the project area, 

and NMFS is not proposing to authorize 

take of this species. 

Humpback Whales 

Humpback whales are found 

worldwide in all oceans. In winter, 

humpback whales from waters off New 

England, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, 

and Norway, migrate to mate and calve 

primarily in the West Indies, where 

spatial and genetic mixing among these 

groups occurs. NMFS defines a 

humpback whale stock on the basis of 

feeding location, i.e., Gulf of Maine. 

However, our reference to humpback 

whales in this document refers to any 

individual of the species that are found 

in the species geographic region. These 

individuals may be from the same 

breeding population (e.g., West Indies 

breeding population of humpback 

whales) but visit different feeding areas. 

Based on photo-identification, only 39 

percent of individual humpback whales 

observed along the mid- and south 

Atlantic U.S. coast are from the Gulf of 

Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002). 

Therefore, the SAR abundance estimate 

is an underrepresentation of the relevant 

population, i.e., the West Indies 

breeding population. 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

Humpback whales in the project area 

are expected to be from the West Indies 

DPS, which consists of the whales 

whose breeding range includes the 

Atlantic margin of the Antilles from 

Cuba to northern Venezuela, and whose 

feeding range primarily includes the 

Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and 

western Greenland. This DPS is not ESA 

listed. Bettridge et al., (2003) estimated 

the size of the West Indies DPS at 

12,312 (95% CI 8,688–15,954) whales in 

2004–05, which is consistent with 

previous population estimates of 

approximately 10,000–11,000 whales 

(Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al., 1999) 

and the increasing trend for the West 

Indies DPS (Bettridge et al., 2015). 

Although humpback whales are 

migratory between feeding areas and 

calving areas, individual variability in 

the timing of migrations may result in 

the presence of individuals in highlatitude areas throughout the year 

(Straley, 1990). Records of humpback 

whales off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast 

(New Jersey to North Carolina) from 

January through March suggest these 

waters may represent a supplemental 

winter feeding ground used by juvenile 

and mature humpback whales of U.S. 

and Canadian North Atlantic stocks 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015). 

Humpback whales are most likely to 

occur near the mouth of the Chesapeake 

Bay and coastal waters of Virginia Beach 

between January and March; however, 

they could be found in the area yearround, based on shipboard sighting and 

stranding data (Barco and Swingle, 

2014; Aschettino et al., 2015; 2016; 

2017; 2018). Photo-identification data 

support the repeated use of the midAtlantic region by individual humpback 

whales. Results of the vessel surveys 

show site fidelity in the survey area for 

some individuals and a high level of 

occurrence within shipping channels— 

an important high-use area by both the 

Navy and commercial traffic (Aschettino 

et al., 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018). 

Nearshore surveys conducted in early 

2015 reported 61 individual humpback 

whale sightings, and 135 individual 

humpback whale sightings in late 2015 

through May 2016 (Aschettino et al., 

2016). Subsequent surveys confirmed 

the occurrence of humpback whales in 

the nearshore survey area: 248 

individuals were detected in 2016–2017 

surveys (Aschettino et al., 2017), 32 

individuals were detected in 2017–2018 

surveys (Aschettino et al., 2018), and 80 

individuals were detected in 2019 

surveys (Aschettino et al., 2019). 

Sightings in the Hampton Roads area in 

the vicinity of NAVSTA Norfolk were 

reported in nearshore surveys and 

through tracking of satellite-tagged 

whales in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The 

numbers of whales detected, most of 

which were juveniles, reflect the 

varying level of survey effort and 

changes in survey objectives from year 

to year, and do not indicate abundance 

trends over time. Most recently, the 

Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel 

Expansion Project (HRBT), which 

spanned from September 2020 through 

July 10, 2021 did not observe any 

humpback whales near the project site 

between Norfolk and Hampton, VA over 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3984 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

197 days of observations (Hampton 

Roads Connector Partners (HRCP), 

Unpublished). 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Along the U.S. East Coast and 

northern Gulf of Mexico, the bottlenose 

dolphin stock structure is well studied. 

There are currently 53 management 

stocks identified by NMFS in the 

western North Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico, including oceanic, coastal, and 

estuarine stocks (Hayes et al., 2017; 

Waring et al., 2015, 2016). 

There are two morphologically and 

genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin 

morphotypes (distinguished by physical 

differences) described as coastal and 

offshore forms (Duffield et al., 1983; 

Duffield, 1986). The offshore form is 

larger in total length and skull length, 

and has wider nasal bones than the 

coastal form. Both inhabit waters in the 

western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf 

of Mexico (Curry and Smith, 1997; 

Hersh and Duffield, 1990; Mead and 

Potter, 1995) along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast. The coastal morphotype of 

bottlenose dolphin is continuously 

distributed along the Atlantic coast 

south of Long Island, New York, around 

the Florida peninsula, and along the 

Gulf of Mexico coast. This type typically 

occurs in waters less than 25 meters 

deep (Waring et al., 2015). The range of 

the offshore bottlenose dolphin includes 

waters beyond the continental slope 

(Kenney, 1990), and offshore bottlenose 

dolphins may move between the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Atlantic (Wells et al., 

1999). 

Two coastal stocks are likely to be 

present in the project area: Western 

North Atlantic Northern Migratory 

Coastal stock and Western North 

Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal 

stock. Additionally, the Northern North 

Carolina Estuarine System stock may 

occur in the project area. 

Bottlenose dolphins are the most 

abundant marine mammal along the 

Virginia coast and within the 

Chesapeake Bay, typically traveling in 

groups of 2 to 15 individuals, but 

occasionally in groups of over 100 

individuals (Engelhaupt et al., 2014; 

2015; 2016). Bottlenose dolphins of the 

Western North Atlantic Northern 

Migratory Coastal stock winter along the 

coast of North Carolina and migrate as 

far north as Long Island, New York, in 

the summer. They are rarely found 

north of North Carolina in the winter 

(NMFS, 2018a). The Western North 

Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal 

stock occurs in waters of southern North 

Carolina from October to December, 

moving south during winter months and 

north to North Carolina during spring 

months. During July and August, the 

Western North Atlantic Southern 

Migratory Coastal stock is presumed to 

occupy coastal waters north of Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina, to the eastern 

shore of Virginia (NMFS, 2018a). It is 

possible that these animals also occur 

inside the Chesapeake Bay and in 

nearshore coastal waters. The North 

Carolina Estuarine System stock 

dolphins may also occur in the 

Chesapeake Bay during July and August 

(NMFS, 2018a). 

Vessel surveys conducted along 

coastal and offshore transects from 

NAVSTA Norfolk to Virginia Beach in 

most months from August 2012 to 

August 2015 reported bottlenose 

dolphins throughout the survey area, 

including the vicinity of NAVSTA 

Norfolk (Engelhaupt et al., 2014; 2015; 

2016). The final results from this project 

confirmed earlier findings that 

bottlenose dolphins are common in the 

study area, with highest densities in the 

coastal waters in summer and fall 

months. However, bottlenose dolphins 

do not completely leave this area during 

colder months, with approximately 

200–300 individuals still present in 

winter and spring months, which is 

commonly referred to as the Chesapeake 

Bay resident dolphin population 

(Engelhaupt et al., 2016). 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises inhabit cool 

temperate-to-subpolar waters, often 

where prey aggregations are 

concentrated (Watts and Gaskin, 1985). 

Thus, they are frequently found in 

shallow waters, most often near shore, 

but they sometimes move into deeper 

offshore waters. Harbor porpoises are 

rarely found in waters warmer than 63 

degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius) 

(Read 1999) and closely follow the 

movements of their primary prey, 

Atlantic herring (Gaskin 1992). 

In the western North Atlantic, harbor 

porpoise range from Cumberland Sound 

on the east coast of Baffin Island, 

southeast along the eastern coast of 

Labrador to Newfoundland and the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence, then southwest to about 

34 degrees North on the coast of North 

Carolina (Waring et al., 2016). During 

winter (January to March), intermediate 

densities of harbor porpoises can be 

found in waters off New Jersey to North 

Carolina, and lower densities are found 

in waters off New York to New 

Brunswick, Canada (Waring et al., 

2016). Harbor porpoises sighted off the 

mid-Atlantic during winter include 

porpoises from other western North 

Atlantic populations (Rosel et al., 1999). 

There does not appear to be a 

temporally coordinated migration or a 

specific migratory route to and from the 

Bay of Fundy region (Waring et al., 

2016). During fall (October to December) 

and spring (April to June), harbor 

porpoises are widely dispersed from 

New Jersey to Maine, with lower 

densities farther north and south 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015). 

Based on stranding reports, passive 

acoustic recorders, and shipboard 

surveys, harbor porpoise occur in 

coastal waters primarily in winter and 

spring months, but there is little 

information on their presence in the 

Chesapeake Bay. They do not appear to 

be abundant in the NAVSTA Norfolk 

area in most years, but this is 

confounded by wide variations in 

stranding occurrences over the past 

decade. In the recent HRBT project, zero 

harbor porpoises were observed near the 

project area (HRCP, Unpublished). 

Harbor Seal 

The Western North Atlantic stock of 

harbor seals occurs in the project area. 

Harbor seal distribution along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast has shifted in recent 

years, with an increased number of seals 

reported from southern New England to 

the mid-Atlantic region (DiGiovanni et 

al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2017; Kenney 

R.D. 2019; Waring et al., 2016). Regular 

sightings of seals in Virginia have 

become a common occurrence in winter 

and early spring (Costidis et al., 2019). 

Winter haulout sites for harbor seals 

have been documented in the 

Chesapeake Bay at the CBBT, on the 

Virginia Eastern Shore, and near Oregon 

Inlet, North Carolina (Waring et al., 

2016; Rees et al., 2016; Jones et al., 

2018). 

Harbor seals regularly haul out on 

rocks around the portal islands of the 

CBBT and on mud flats on the nearby 

southern tip of the Eastern Shore from 

December through April (Rees et al., 

2016; Jones et al., 2018). Seals captured 

in 2018 on the Eastern Shore and tagged 

with satellite-tracked tags that lasted 

from 2 to 5 months spent at least 60 

days in Virginia waters before departing 

the area. All tagged seals returned 

regularly to the capture site while in 

Virginia waters, but individuals utilized 

offshore and Chesapeake Bay waters to 

different extents (Ampela et al., 2019). 

The area that was utilized most heavily 

was near the Eastern Shore capture site, 

but some seals ranged into the 

Chesapeake Bay. To supplement this 

information, the HRBT project reported 

seeing zero seals in or around the 

project area (HRCP, Unpublished). 

Gray Seal 

The Western North Atlantic stock of 

gray seal occurs in the project area. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3985 

western North Atlantic stock is centered 

in Canadian waters, including the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic coasts 

of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and 

Labrador, Canada, and the northeast 

U.S. continental shelf (Hayes et al., 

2017). Gray seals range south into the 

northeastern United States, with 

strandings and sightings as far south as 

North Carolina (Hammill et al., 1998; 

Waring et al., 2004). Gray seal 

distribution along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast has shifted in recent years, with an 

increased number of seals reported in 

southern New England (DiGiovanni et 

al., 2011; Kenney R.D., 2019; Waring et 

al., 2016). Recent sightings included a 

gray seal in the lower Chesapeake Bay 

during the winter of 2014 to 2015 (Rees 

et al., 2016). Along the coast of the 

United States, gray seals are known to 

pup at three or more colonies in 

Massachusetts and Maine. 

Gray seals are uncommon in Virginia 

and in the Chesapeake Bay. Only 15 

gray seal strandings were documented 

in Virginia from 1988 through 2013 

(Barco and Swingle, 2014). They are 

rarely found resting on the rocks around 

the portal islands of the CBBT from 

December through April alongside 

harbor seals. Seal observation surveys 

conducted at the CBBT recorded one 

gray seal in each of the 2014/2015 and 

2015/2016 seasons while no gray seals 

were reported during the 2016/2017 and 

2017/2018 seasons (Rees et al., 2016, 

Jones et al., 2018). Sightings have been 

reported off Virginia and near the 

project area during the winter and 

spring (Barco 2013; Rees et al., 2016; 

Jones et al., 2018; Ampela et al., 2019). 

However, the HRBT monitoring report 

indicated that zero gray seals were 

observed during the course of their 

project (HRCP, Unpublished). 

Unusual Mortality Events 

An unusual mortality event (UME) is 

defined under Section 410(6) of the 

MMPA as a stranding that is 

unexpected; involves a significant dieoff of any marine mammal population; 

and demands immediate response. 

Currently, ongoing UME investigations 

are underway for pinnipeds along the 

Northeast Atlantic coast. There is an 

active UME for humpback whales along 

the Atlantic coast. 

Northeast Pinniped UME 

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of 

harbor seal and gray seal mortalities 

have occurred across Maine, New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts. This 

event has been declared an UME. 

Additionally, seals showing clinical 

signs have been stranding as far south 

as Virginia, although not in elevated 

numbers; therefore, the UME 

investigation now encompasses all seal 

strandings from Maine to Virginia. 

Lastly, while take is not proposed for 

these species in this proposed IHA, ice 

seals (harp and hooded seals) have also 

started stranding with clinical signs, 

again not in elevated numbers, and 

those two seal species have also been 

added to the UME investigation. 

Additional information is available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/newengland-mid-atlantic/marine-lifedistress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusualmortality-event-along. 

Atlantic Humpback Whale UME 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through Florida. This event has 

been declared an UME since 2017. A 

portion of the whales have shown 

evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike; 

however, this finding is not consistent 

across all whales examined, and 

additional research is needed. 

Additional information is available at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021- 

humpback-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-atlantic-coast. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................................. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .......................................................................................... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al., 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3986 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Five marine 

mammal species (three cetacean and 

two pinniped, both phocid, species) 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

one is classified as a low-frequency 

cetacean (i.e., humpback whale), one is 

classified as a mid-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., bottlenose dolphin), and one is 

classified as a high-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Description of Sound Sources 

The marine soundscape is comprised 

of both ambient and anthropogenic 

sounds. Ambient sound is defined as 

the all-encompassing sound in a given 

place and is usually a composite of 

sound from many sources both near and 

far. The sound level of an area is 

defined by the total acoustical energy 

being generated by known and 

unknown sources. These sources may 

include physical (e.g., waves, wind, 

precipitation, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, 

dredging, aircraft, construction). 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and shipping activity) but 

also on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include vibratory pile removal, impact 

and vibratory pile driving, and drilling. 

The sounds produced by these activities 

fall into one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive. 

Impulsive sounds (e.g., explosions, 

gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile 

driving) are typically transient, brief 

(less than 1 second), broadband, and 

consist of high peak sound pressure 

with rapid rise time and rapid decay 

(ANSI 1986; NIOSH 1998; ANSI 2005; 

NMFS 2018a). Non-impulsive sounds 

(e.g. aircraft, machinery operations such 

as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile 

driving, and active sonar systems) can 

be broadband, narrowband or tonal, 

brief or prolonged (continuous or 

intermittent), and typically do not have 

the high peak sound pressure with raid 

rise/decay time that impulsive sounds 

do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 

2018a). The distinction between these 

two sound types is important because 

they have differing potential to cause 

physical effects, particularly with regard 

to hearing (e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Impact hammers operate by 

repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto 

a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. 

Sound generated by impact hammers is 

characterized by rapid rise times and 

high peak levels, a potentially injurious 

combination (Hastings and Popper 

2005). Vibratory hammers install piles 

by vibrating them and allowing the 

weight of the hammer to push them into 

the sediment. The vibrations produced 

also cause liquefaction of the substrate 

surrounding the pile, enabling the pile 

to be extracted or driven into the ground 

more easily. Vibratory hammers 

produce significantly less sound than 

impact hammers. Peak sound pressure 

levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, 

but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than 

SPLs generated during impact pile 

driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman 

et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, 

reducing the probability and severity of 

injury, and sound energy is distributed 

over a greater amount of time (Nedwell 

and Edwards 2002; Carlson et al., 2005). 

As mentioned previously, drilling is 

considered a continuous source, similar 

to vibratory pile driving. The drilling 

may be used before driving piles in 

order to facilitate pile driving and hence 

the applicant calls this activity ‘‘predrilling’’ in their application. For the 

proposed project, the drilling apparatus 

utilized would vary depending on the 

different applications during in-water 

construction activities. Drilling would 

be used as necessary to remove sand 

with shell fragments or any obstructions 

in order to accelerate pile driving. 

The likely or possible impacts of the 

Navy’s proposed activity on marine 

mammals could involve both nonacoustic and acoustic stressors. 

Potential non-acoustic stressors could 

result from the physical presence of the 

equipment and personnel; however, any 

impacts to marine mammals are 

expected to be primarily acoustic in 

nature. Acoustic stressors include 

effects of heavy equipment operation 

during pile driving, removal and 

drilling. 

Acoustic Impacts 

The introduction of anthropogenic 

noise into the aquatic environment from 

pile driving or drilling is the primary 

means by which marine mammals may 

be harassed from the Navy’s specified 

activity. In general, animals exposed to 

natural or anthropogenic sound may 

experience physical and psychological 

effects, ranging in magnitude from none 

to severe (Southall et al., 2007). In 

general, exposure to pile driving or 

drilling noise has the potential to result 

in auditory threshold shifts and 

behavioral reactions (e.g., avoidance, 

temporary cessation of foraging and 

vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). 

Exposure to anthropogenic noise can 

also lead to non-observable 

physiological responses such an 

increase in stress hormones. Additional 

noise in a marine mammal’s habitat can 

mask acoustic cues used by marine 

mammals to carry out daily functions 

such as communication and predator 

and prey detection. The effects of pile 

driving or drilling noise on marine 

mammals are dependent on several 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

sound type (e.g., impulsive vs. nonimpulsive), the species, age and sex 

class (e.g., adult male vs. mom with 

calf), duration of exposure, the distance 

between the pile and the animal, 

received levels, behavior at time of 

exposure, and previous history with 

exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall 

et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3987 

auditory effects (threshold shifts) 

followed by behavioral effects and 

potential impacts on habitat. 

NMFS defines a noise-induced 

threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually 

an increase, in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). The amount of 

threshold shift is customarily expressed 

in decibels (dB). A TS can be permanent 

or temporary. As described in NMFS 

(2018), there are numerous factors to 

consider when examining the 

consequence of TS, including, but not 

limited to, the signal temporal pattern 

(e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), 

likelihood an individual would be 

exposed for a long enough duration or 

to a high enough level to induce a TS, 

the magnitude of the TS, time to 

recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to 

days), the frequency range of the 

exposure (i.e., spectral content), the 

hearing and vocalization frequency 

range of the exposed species relative to 

the signal’s frequency spectrum (i.e., 

how an animal uses sound within the 

frequency band of the signal; e.g., 

Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap 

between the animal and the source (e.g., 

spatial, temporal, and spectral). 

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)— 

NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, 

irreversible increase in the threshold of 

audibility at a specified frequency or 

portion of an individual’s hearing range 

above a previously established reference 

level (NMFS 2018). Available data from 

humans and other terrestrial mammals 

indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset (see Ward et 

al., 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al., 

1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; 

Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for 

marine mammals are estimates, as with 

the exception of a single study 

unintentionally inducing PTS in a 

harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there 

are no empirical data measuring PTS in 

marine mammals largely due to the fact 

that, for various ethical reasons, 

experiments involving anthropogenic 

noise exposure at levels inducing PTS 

are not typically pursued or authorized 

(NMFS 2018). 

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)— 

TTS is a temporary, reversible increase 

in the threshold of audibility at a 

specified frequency or portion of an 

individual’s hearing range above a 

previously established reference level 

(NMFS 2018). Based on data from 

cetacean TTS measurements (see 

Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is 

considered the minimum threshold shift 

clearly larger than any day-to-day or 

session-to-session variation in a 

subject’s normal hearing ability 

(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 

2000, 2002). As described in Finneran 

(2015), marine mammal studies have 

shown the amount of TTS increases 

with cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) in an accelerating fashion: At 

low exposures with lower SELcum, the 

amount of TTS is typically small and 

the growth curves have shallow slopes. 

At exposures with higher SELcum, the 

growth curves become steeper and 

approach linear relationships with the 

noise SEL. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that takes place during 

a time when the animal is traveling 

through the open ocean, where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

a time when communication is critical 

for successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. We 

note that reduced hearing sensitivity as 

a simple function of aging has been 

observed in marine mammals, as well as 

humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 

2007), so we can infer that strategies 

exist for coping with this condition to 

some degree, though likely not without 

cost. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus 

leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise (Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis)) and five species of 

pinnipeds exposed to a limited number 

of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and 

octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 

(Finneran 2015). TTS was not observed 

in trained spotted (Phoca largha) and 

ringed (Pusa hispida) seals exposed to 

impulsive noise at levels matching 

previous predictions of TTS onset 

(Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, 

harbor seals and harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran 

2015). Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. No data are available on noiseinduced hearing loss for mysticetes. For 

summaries of data on TTS in marine 

mammals or for further discussion of 

TTS onset thresholds, please see 

Southall et al., (2007), Finneran and 

Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and 

Table 5 in NMFS (2018). Installing piles 

for this project requires a combination 

of drilling, impact pile driving and 

vibratory pile driving. For this project, 

these activities would not occur at the 

same time and there would be pauses in 

activities producing the sound during 

each day. Given these pauses and that 

many marine mammals are likely 

moving through the ensonified area and 

not remaining for extended periods of 

time, the potential for TS declines. 

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to 

noise from pile driving and removal also 

has the potential to behaviorally disturb 

marine mammals. Available studies 

show wide variation in response to 

underwater sound; therefore, it is 

difficult to predict specifically how any 

given sound in a particular instance 

might affect marine mammals 

perceiving the signal. If a marine 

mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

Disturbance may result in changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where sound sources are located. 

Pinnipeds may increase their haul out 

time, possibly to avoid in-water 

disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). In 

general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant 

of, or at least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater sound 

than do cetaceans, and generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al., (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Stress responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; 

Moberg 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, 

more rarely, studied in wild populations 

(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 

example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous, similar projects in the area. 

Masking—Sound can disrupt behavior 

through masking, or interfering with, an 

animal’s ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic 

exploration) in origin. The ability of a 

noise source to mask biologically 

important sounds depends on the 

characteristics of both the noise source 

and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-tonoise ratio, temporal variability, 

direction), in relation to each other and 

to an animal’s hearing abilities (e.g., 

sensitivity, frequency range, critical 

ratios, frequency discrimination, 

directional discrimination, age or TTS 

hearing loss), and existing ambient 

noise and propagation conditions. 

Masking of natural sounds can result 

when human activities produce high 

levels of background sound at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. 

Airborne Acoustic Effects—Although 

pinnipeds are known to haul-out 

regularly on man-made objects, such as 

the nearby Chesapeake Bay Bridge 

Tunnel, we believe that incidents of 

take resulting solely from airborne 

sound are unlikely due to the sheltered 

proximity between the proposed project 

area and these haulout sites (over 16 

miles (26 km)). There is a possibility 

that an animal could surface in-water, 

but with head out, within the area in 

which airborne sound exceeds relevant 

thresholds and thereby be exposed to 

levels of airborne sound that we 

associate with harassment, but any such 

occurrence would likely be accounted 

for in our estimation of incidental take 

from underwater sound. Therefore, 

authorization of incidental take 

resulting from airborne sound for 

pinnipeds is not warranted, and 

airborne sound is not discussed further 

here. Cetaceans are not expected to be 

exposed to airborne sounds that would 

result in harassment as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Marine Mammal Habitat Effects 

The Navy’s construction activities 

could have localized, temporary impacts 

on marine mammal habitat by 

increasing in-water sound pressure 

levels and slightly decreasing water 

quality. However, since the focus of the 

proposed action is pile driving and 

drilling, no net habitat loss is expected 

as the new Pier 3 will be immediately 

north of the existing Pier 3 and once 

complete, the current Pier 3 will be 

demolished. Construction activities are 

of short duration and would likely have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3989 

temporary impacts on marine mammal 

habitat through increases in underwater 

sounds. Increased noise levels may 

affect acoustic habitat (see masking 

discussion above) and adversely affect 

marine mammal prey in the vicinity of 

the project area (see discussion below). 

During pile driving activities, elevated 

levels of underwater noise would 

ensonify the project area where both 

fishes and marine mammals may occur 

and could affect foraging success. 

Additionally, marine mammals may 

avoid the area during construction, 

however displacement due to noise is 

expected to be temporary and is not 

expected to result in long-term effects to 

the individuals or populations. 

Temporary and localized reduction in 

water quality will occur because of inwater construction activities as well. 

Most of this effect will occur during the 

installation and removal of piles when 

bottom sediments are disturbed. The 

installation of piles will disturb bottom 

sediments and may cause a temporary 

increase in suspended sediment in the 

project area. In general, turbidity 

associated with pile installation is 

localized to about 25-ft (7.6 meter) 

radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 

1980). Cetaceans are not expected to be 

close enough to the pile driving areas to 

experience effects of turbidity, and any 

pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of 

turbidity. Therefore, we expect the 

impact from increased turbidity levels 

to be discountable to marine mammals 

and do not discuss it further. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals 

except for the actual footprint of the 

new Pier 3. The total seafloor area 

affected by pile installation and removal 

is a very small area compared to the vast 

foraging area available to marine 

mammals in the project area and lower 

Chesapeake Bay. Pile extraction and 

installation may have impacts on 

benthic invertebrate species primarily 

associated with disturbance of 

sediments that may cover or displace 

some invertebrates. The impacts will be 

temporary and highly localized, and no 

habitat will be permanently displaced 

by construction. Therefore, it is 

expected that impacts on foraging 

opportunities for marine mammals due 

to the demolition and reconstruction of 

Pier 3 would be minimal. 

It is possible that avoidance by 

potential prey (i.e., fish) in the 

immediate area may occur due to 

temporary loss of this foraging habitat. 

The duration of fish avoidance of this 

area after pile driving stops is unknown, 

but we anticipate a rapid return to 

normal recruitment, distribution and 

behavior. Any behavioral avoidance by 

fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave large areas of fish and marine 

mammal foraging habitat in the nearby 

vicinity in the in the project area and 

lower Chesapeake Bay. 

Effects on Potential Prey 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., fish). Marine mammal prey varies 

by species, season, and location. Here, 

we describe studies regarding the effects 

of noise on known marine mammal 

prey. 

Fish utilize the soundscape and 

components of sound in their 

environment to perform important 

functions such as foraging, predator 

avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., 

Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). 

Depending on their hearing anatomy 

and peripheral sensory structures, 

which vary among species, fishes hear 

sounds using pressure and particle 

motion sensitivity capabilities and 

detect the motion of surrounding water 

(Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects 

of noise on fishes depends on the 

overlapping frequency range, distance 

from the sound source, water depth of 

exposure, and species-specific hearing 

sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. 

Key impacts to fishes may include 

behavioral responses, hearing damage, 

barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), 

and mortality. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds, and behavioral 

responses such as flight or avoidance 

are the most likely effects. Short 

duration, sharp sounds can cause overt 

or subtle changes in fish behavior and 

local distribution. The reaction of fish to 

noise depends on the physiological state 

of the fish, past exposures, motivation 

(e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and 

other environmental factors. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) identified several 

studies that suggest fish may relocate to 

avoid certain areas of sound energy. 

Additional studies have documented 

effects of pile driving on fish, although 

several are based on studies in support 

of large, multiyear bridge construction 

projects (e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 

2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). 

Several studies have demonstrated that 

impulse sounds might affect the 

distribution and behavior of some 

fishes, potentially impacting foraging 

opportunities or increasing energetic 

costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 

1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 

2017). However, some studies have 

shown no or slight reaction to impulse 

sounds (e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle 

et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 

2009; Cott et al., 2012). 

SPLs of sufficient strength have been 

known to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. However, in most fish 

species, hair cells in the ear 

continuously regenerate and loss of 

auditory function likely is restored 

when damaged cells are replaced with 

new cells. Halvorsen et al., (2012a) 

showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was 

recoverable within 24 hours for one 

species. Impacts would be most severe 

when the individual fish is close to the 

source and when the duration of 

exposure is long. Injury caused by 

barotrauma can range from slight to 

severe and can cause death, and is most 

likely for fish with swim bladders. 

Barotrauma injuries have been 

documented during controlled exposure 

to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 

2012b; Casper et al., 2013). 

The most likely impact to fish from 

pile driving activities at the project 

areas would be temporary behavioral 

avoidance of the area. The duration of 

fish avoidance of an area after pile 

driving stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is anticipated. 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat in the remainder of the 

project area and the lower Chesapeake 

Bay, and there are no areas of particular 

importance that would be impacted by 

this project. Any behavioral avoidance 

by fish of the disturbed area would still 

leave significantly large areas of fish and 

marine mammal foraging habitat in the 

nearby vicinity. As described in the 

preceding, the potential for the Navy’s 

construction to affect the availability of 

prey to marine mammals or to 

meaningfully impact the quality of 

physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform 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); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as noise 

generated from in-water pile driving 

(vibratory and impact) and drilling has 

the potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. There is also some 

potential for auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to result, primarily for 

high- and low-frequency species and 

phocids because predicted auditory 

injury zones are larger than for midfrequency species. However, auditory 

injury is unlikely to occur for midfrequency species due to the proposed 

shutdown zones (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). Additionally, the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of the taking to the extent 

practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the proposed 

take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment 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., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal, root mean square (mPa 

(rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory 

pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive 

impulsive (e.g., impact pile driving) or 

intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 

sources. 

The Navy’s construction includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving, drilling) 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 (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). As previously noted, the 

Navy’s proposed activity include the 

use of impulsive (impact pile driving) 

and non-impulsive (vibratory pile 

driving/removal, drilling) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 4—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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3991 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

In order to calculate the distances to 

the Level A harassment and the Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

proxy source levels for the various pile 

types, sizes and methods (Table 5). 

Generally we choose source levels from 

similar pile types from locations (e.g., 

geology, bathymetry) similar to the 

project. At this time, NMFS is not aware 

of reliable source levels available for 

polymeric piles using vibratory pile 

installation, therefore source levels for 

timber pile driving were used as a 

proxy. Similarly, the following proxies 

were used as source levels for piles 

where no data was available: Source 

levels for the 66-inch steel pile was used 

as a proxy for 42-inch steel pipe piles 

(vibratory); the 30-inch steel pile was 

used as a proxy for the 28-inch sheet 

piles (impact); and 18-inch octagonal 

pile was used as a proxy for 18-inch 

concrete piles (impact). Additionally, 

data on vibratory extraction of concrete 

piles are not available, therefore the 

Navy followed previous guidance 

suggesting that timber piles be used as 

a proxy for sound source levels (see 84 

FR 28474; June 19, 2019). 

Very little information is available 

regarding source levels for in-water 

drilling activities associated with 

nearshore pile installation. 

Measurements made during a pile 

drilling project in 1–5 m (3–16 ft) 

depths at Santa Rosa Island, CA, by 

Dazey et al., (2012) appear to provide 

the best available proxy source levels for 

the proposed activities. Dazey et al. 

(2012) reported average rms source 

levels ranging from 151 to 157 dB re 

1mPa, normalized to a distance of 1 m 

(3 ft) from the pile, during activities that 

included casing removal and 

installation as well as drilling, with an 

average of 154 dB re 1mPa during 62 

days that spanned all related drilling 

activities during a single season. The 

sound field in the project area is the 

existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

proposed project. Marine mammals are 

expected to be affected via sound 

generated by the primary components of 

the project (i.e., impact pile driving, 

vibratory pile driving, and drilling). 

TABLE 5—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS NORMALIZED TO 10 METERS

Pile type Pile size 

(inch) Method Peak SPL (re 1 μPa (rms)) 

RMS SPL 

(re 1 μPa (rms)) 

SEL 

(re 1 μPa (rms)) Source 

Steel Pipe Pile ...... 42 ............................................ Impact .................

Vibratory ..............

213 

............................

168 

190 

168 

177 

168 

Navy 2015. 

Sitka 2017. 

Steel Sheet ........... 28 ............................................ Impact .................

Vibratory ..............

211 

............................

196 

167 

181 

167 

NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Navy 2015. 

Concrete Pile ........ 24 ............................................ Impact .................

Vibratory ..............

189 

185 

176 

162 

163 

157 

Illingworth and Rodkin 2017. 

Caltrans 2020. 

Concrete Pile ........ 18 ............................................ Impact .................

Vibratory ..............

185 

185 

166 

162 

154 

157 

Caltrans 2020. 

Caltrans 2020. 

Polymeric Pile ....... 13 ............................................ Impact .................

Vibratory ..............

177 

185 

153 

162 

............................

157 

Denes et al., 2016. 

Caltrans 2020. 

Timber Pile ............ 14 ............................................ Vibratory .............. 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020. 

NA ......................... ‘‘Multiple pile sizes’’ 1 2 ............ Drilling ................. ............................ 2 154 154 Dazey et al., 2012. 

1Pile sizes being installed using the drilling method might include 24-inch precast concrete square, 13-inch polymeric and 24-inch precast concrete square. 

2Source levels were normalized to a distance of 1 m (3 ft) from the pile during activities that included casing removal and installation as well as drilling, with an average of 154 dB re 1μPa during the course of the project. 

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources in-water pile driving/removal 

and drilling activities from the Navy’s 

proposed project, NMFS User 

Spreadsheet predicts the distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet are 

reported in Table 1 and sources levels 

used in the User Spread are reported in 

Table 5, and the resulting isopleths are 

reported in Table 6 (Impact) and Table 

7 (Vibratory and Drilling) below. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Distance to 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km2) 1

Pier 4 .......................... 24′′ Concrete Fender ............................... 143 5 170 76 117 <0.1 

CEP–175 ..................... 13′′ Polymeric .......................................... 22 1 26 12 3 <0.1 

Pier 3 .......................... 24′′ Concrete Bearing .............................. 160 6 190 86 117 <0.1 

CEP–176 ..................... 42′′ Steel Pipe Bearing ............................ 934 33 1,112 500 1,000 0.4 

28′′ Steel Sheet ....................................... 773 28 921 414 2,512 2.4 

CEP–102 ..................... 42′′ Steel Pipe .......................................... 1,002 36 1,193 536 1,000 1.4 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING—Continued 

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Distance to 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km2) 1

28′′ Steel Sheet ....................................... 773 28 921 414 2,512 8.0 

24′′ Concrete Pile .................................... 143 5 170 76 117 <0.1 

18′′ Concrete Pile .................................... 36 1 43 19 25 <0.1 

1Area within the Level B threshold was calculated using geographic information system (GIS) data as determined by transmission loss modeling, accounting for 

land. 

TABLE 7—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL, AND PREDRILLING

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Level B— 

Radius to 

isopleth 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km2) 1

Pier 4 .......................... 14′′ Timber (demolition) ........................... 20 2 30 12 6,310 49.9 

24′′ Concrete (vibratory) .......................... 5 <1 4 <1 6,310 97.8 

24′′ Concrete (drilling) .............................. 1 0 1 <1 1,848 4.4 

Pier 3T ........................ 16′′ and 18′′ Concrete (demolition) .......... 20 2 30 12 6,310 49.9 

14′′ Timber (demolition) ........................... 20 2 30 12 6,310 49.9 

CEP–175 ..................... 13′′ Polymeric (vibratory) ......................... 18 2 27 11 6,310 11.1 

13′′ Polymeric (drilling) ............................ 1 <1 1 <1 1,848 4.4 

CEP–176 ..................... 42′′ Steel Pipe .......................................... 80 7 118 49 2 15,849 46.0 

28′′ Steel Sheet ....................................... 43 4 64 26 13,594 39.9 

CEP–102 ..................... 42′′ Steel Pipe .......................................... 80 7 118 49 15,849 98.9 

28′′ Steel Sheet ....................................... 43 4 64 26 13,594 90.6 

24′′ Concrete (drilling) .............................. 1 0 1 <1 1,848 4.4 

14′′ Timber ............................................... 20 2 30 12 6,310 49.9 

13′′ Polymeric .......................................... 20 2 30 12 6,310 49.9 

18′′ Concrete ............................................ 20 2 29.7 12 6,310 49.9 

1Area within the Level B threshold was calculated using geographic information system (GIS) data as determined by transmission loss modeling. 

2 Note: This value is different than that listed in the application, due to a typographic error in the application. The correct maximum distance to 120 dB RMS threshold is 15,849 m as seen here. 

The maximum distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold during 

construction would be during the 

impact driving of 42-inch steel pipe 

piles at CEP–102 (1,193 m for harbor 

porpoise; 1,001 m for humpback whale; 

35.6 m for bottlenose dolphin; and 536 

m for pinnipeds). The largest calculated 

Level B harassment zone extends out to 

15,849 m, which would result from the 

vibratory installation of the 42-inch 

steel pipe pile. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

We describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate for 

each species. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales occur in the mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay and nearshore 

waters of Virginia during winter and 

spring months. Most detections during 

shipboard surveys were one or two 

juveniles per sightings. Although two 

individuals were detected in the 

vicinity of proposed project activities, 

there is no evidence that they linger for 

multiple days. Because no density 

estimates are available for the species in 

this area, the Navy estimated two takes 

for every 60 days of pile driving and 

drilling activities. Based on this 

information, NMFS has similarly 

estimated that two humpback whales 

may be taken by Level B harassment for 

every 60 days of pile driving and predrilling activities, which equates to 9 

takes over 280 project days (Table 1). To 

be conservative, the Navy has requested 

3 additional Level B harassment takes of 

humpback whales. Therefore, the Navy 

is requesting, and NMFS is proposing to 

authorize 12 takes by Level B 

harassment of humpback whale (Table 

9). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for low-frequency cetaceans extends 

approximately 1,002 m from the source 

during impact driving of a 48 inch steel 

pipe pile (Table 6). The Navy is 

planning to implement a 1,010 m 

shutdown zone for humpback whales 

during impact pile driving of the 48 

inch steel pipe piles, and shutdown 

zones that include the entire Level A 

harassment isopleth for all activities, as 

indicated in Table 10. Therefore, the 

Navy did not request, and NMFS does 

not propose to authorize Level A 

harassment take of humpback whale. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The expected number of bottlenose 

dolphins in the project area was 

estimated using inshore seasonal 

densities provided in Engelhaupt et al. 

(2016) from vessel line-transect surveys 

near NAVSTA Norfolk and adjacent 

areas near Virginia Beach, Virginia, from 

August 2012 through August 2015 

(Engelhaupt et al., 2016). This density 

includes sightings inshore of the 

Chesapeake Bay from NAVSTA Norfolk 

west to the Thimble Shoals Bridge, and 

is the most representative density for 

the project area. NMFS multiplied the 

density of 1.38 dolphins/km2 by the 

Level B harassment zone area for each 

activity for the project, and then by the 

number of days associated with that 

activity (see Table 8), which resulted in 

14,989 takes by Level B harassment of 

bottlenose dolphins (see Table 9). There 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3993 

is insufficient information on relative 

abundance to apportion the takes 

precisely to the three stocks present in 

the area. We use the same approach to 

estimating the apportionment of takes to 

stock used in the previous IHAs in the 

area including the HRBT project (86 FR 

17458; April 2, 2021), and the U.S. Navy 

Norfolk Rule (86 FR 24340; May 6, 

2021). Given that most of the NNCES 

stock are found in the Pamlico Sound 

Estuarine, over 160 kilometers to 

Norfolk, the project will assume that no 

more than 200 of the requested takes 

will be from this stock. Since members 

of the northern migratory coastal and 

southern migratory coastal stocks are 

thought to occur in or near the Bay in 

greater numbers, we will conservatively 

assume that no more than half of the 

remaining takes will accrue to either of 

these stocks. Additionally, a subset of 

these takes would likely be comprised 

of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, 

although the size of that population is 

unknown. 

The largest Level A harassment area 

for mid-frequency cetaceans is less than 

40 m, which is associated with impact 

pile driving of the 42 inch steel pipe. 

The Navy is planning on implementing 

a shutdown zone of 200 m during this 

activity as well as when pile driving the 

24 inch concrete piles and 28 inch steel 

sheet piles. The Level A harassment 

zones for all other activities extend less 

than 10 m for mid-frequency cetaceans 

(see Table 6 and Table 7), and the Navy 

is planning to implement a minimum of 

a 10 m shutdown for all other activities 

not included in the list above (Table 10). 

Given the generally small size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

Navy’s shutdown plan, which includes 

the entire Level A harassment zone for 

all pile driving and drilling activities, 

we do not expect Level A harassment 

take of bottlenose dolphins. Therefore, 

the Navy did not request, and NMFS 

does not propose to authorize Level A 

harassment take of bottlenose dolphins 

(Table 9). 

TABLE 8—BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN CALCULATED EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Location Activity Production 

days 

Level A 

harassment 

area 

(km2) 

Level B 

harassment 

area 

(km2) 

Level A 

takes 

Level B 

takes 1

Pier 4 .............. Vibratory Removal Timber Fender Piles .................................................. 9 0.00001 49.9 0 620

Pre-Drilling Concrete Fender Piles ........................................................... 6 0.000001 4.38 0 36 

Impact Drive Concrete Fender Piles ........................................................ 3 0.0000813 0.04 0 0 

CEP–175 ........ Impact Drive Polymeric Fender Piles ....................................................... 2 0.000001 0.000014 0 0 

Pre-Drilling Polymeric Fender Piles ......................................................... 2 0.000004 4.38 0 * 12 

Vibratory Drive Polymeric Fender Piles ................................................... 2 0.000004 11.1 0 31 

Pier 3 .............. Impact Drive Concrete Bearing Piles ....................................................... 150 0.00010155 0.04 0 8 

CEP–176 ........ Impact Drive Steel Bearing Piles ............................................................. 55 0.00174582 0.41 0 * 31 

Impact Drive Sheet Piles .......................................................................... 55 0.00119976 2.43 0 * 184 

Vibratory Drive Steel Bearing Piles .......................................................... 55 0.00008 45.97 0 3,489 

Vibratory Drive Sheet Piles ...................................................................... 56 0.000025 39.9 0 3,083 

CEP–102 ........ Impact Drive Steel Bearing Piles ............................................................. 2 0.00245817 1.37 0 * 4 

Impact Drive Sheet Piles .......................................................................... 2 0.00154729 7.96 0 * 22 

Impact Drive Concrete Bearing Piles ....................................................... 6 0.0000813 0.02 0 0 

Pre-Drilling Concrete Bearing Piles .......................................................... 6 0.000001 4.38 0 36 

Vibratory Extraction Timber Fender Piles ................................................ 3 0.00001 49.9 0 207 

Vibratory Extraction Concrete Fender Piles ............................................. 6 0.00001 49.9 0 413 

Vibratory Extraction Polymeric Fender Piles ............................................ 1 0.00001 49.9 0 69 

Vibratory Drive Steel Bearing Piles .......................................................... 2 0.000156 98.91 0 273 

Vibratory Drive Sheet Piles ...................................................................... 2 0.000045 90.6 0 250 

Pier 3T ........... Vibratory Extraction Concrete Bearing Piles ............................................ 72 0.00001 49.9 0 4,958 

Vibratory Extraction Timber Fender Piles ................................................ 22 0.00001 49.9 0 1,515 

Total Bottlenose Dolphin Take Estimate ................................................................................................................................................... 2 0 3 14,989 

1All Level and Level B harassment exposure estimates were calculated using a density estimate of 1.38 Engelhaupt et al. (2016). 2The maximum distance to the Level A harassment threshold is 35.6 m resulting from impact driving 42-inch steel pipe piles. This falls within the proposed shutdown zones (see Table 10). Therefore, no Level A harassment take was requested nor proposed to be authorized for bottlenose dolphins. 3Some piles for a few projects are listed twice, due to the contractor choosing the installation method. However only the method resulting in the most takes was 

counted in the take totals. In all cases, vibratory driving resulted in the most takes. Numbers with an asterisk indicate calculated takes that were excluded from the 

total due to duplication. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are known to occur 

in the coastal waters near Virginia 

Beach (Hayes et al., 2019). Density data 

for this species in the project vicinity do 

not exist as harbor porpoise sighting 

data collected by the U.S. Navy near 

NAVSTA Norfolk and Virginia Beach 

from 2012 to 2015 (Engelhaupt et al., 

2014; 2015; 2016) did not produce 

enough sightings to calculate densities. 

One group of two harbor porpoises was 

seen during spring 2015 (Engelhaupt et 

al., 2016). Elsewhere in their range, 

harbor porpoises typically occur in 

groups of two to three individuals 

(Carretta et al., 2001; Smultea et al., 

2017). Given the lack of density 

estimates for harbor porpoises in the 

proposed construction area, this 

exposure analysis (similar to the 

methods used in previous IHAs) 

assumes that there is a porpoise sighting 

once every 60 days of pile driving or 

drilling, which would equate to 6 

sightings per year over 280 days of 

activity. Assuming an average group 

size of two (Hansen et al., 2018; Elliser 

et al., 2018), NMFS proposes to 

authorize 12 takes by Level B 

harassment of harbor porpoises (Table 

9). 

Harbor porpoises are members of the 

high-frequency hearing group which 

have Level A harassment isopleths as 

large as 1,193 m during the 42 inch steel 

pipe pile installation using impact pile 

driving. The Navy has proposed a 500 

meter shutdown zone for harbor 

porpoises during the aforementioned 

activity in addition to impact pile 

driving the 24 inch concrete piles and 

28 inch steel sheets, as a reasonable area 

to observe and implement shutdowns 

for this small and cryptic species while 

avoiding an impracticable number of 

shutdowns. Consequently, the Navy has 

requested authorization of take by Level 

A harassment for harbor porpoises 

during the project. While NMFS 

believes that take by Level A harassment 

is not likely, due to the duration of time 

a harbor porpoise would be required to 

remain within the Level A harassment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

zone to accumulate enough energy to 

experience PTS, we propose to 

authorize 10 takes by Level A 

harassment as requested by the Navy 

(Table 9). 

Harbor Seal 

The expected number of harbor seals 

in the project area was estimated using 

systematic land- and vessel-based 

survey data for in-water and hauled-out 

seals collected by the U.S. Navy at the 

CBBT rock armor and portal islands 

from 2014 through 2019 (Jones et al., 

2020). The average daily seal count from 

the field season ranged from 8 to 23 

seals, with an average of 13.6 harbor 

seals across all the field seasons. 

The Navy expects, and NMFS 

concurs, that harbor seals are likely to 

be present from November to April. 

Consistent with previous nearby 

projects, NMFS calculated take by Level 

B harassment by multiplying 13.6 seals 

by 183, which is the number of pile 

driving/drilling days expected to occur 

from November to April, which results 

in 2,489 harbor seal takes. However, 

NMFS believes this may be an 

overestimate of take as recent 

monitoring reports from a nearbycompleted project observed 0 harbor 

seals during the course of their project 

(HRCP, Unpublished). With these new 

data in hand, we propose to alter our 

estimation method for this species and 

propose to authorize half of the take 

estimated above to achieve a more 

realistic number of seals that may be 

encountered, while still conservatively 

estimating noise exposures. Therefore, 

NMFS proposes to authorize 1,244 takes 

of harbor seals. 

The largest Level A harassment 

isopleth for phocid species is less than 

550 m, which would occur during the 

installation of the 42 inch steel pipe pile 

by impact pile driving. We are 

proposing to implement a 200 m 

shutdown zone for this activity in 

addition to the installation of the 24 

inch concrete piles and 28 inch steel 

sheet piles by impact pile driving (Table 

10). Given the area of the Level A 

harassment zone that would exceed the 

implemented shutdown zone for these 

activities, and the cryptic nature of the 

species, the Navy is requesting 16 takes 

by Level A harassment of harbor seals. 

For all other activities, the proposed 

shutdown zones exceed the calculated 

Level A harassment isopleth for phocid 

species. Therefore, NMFS proposes to 

authorize 1,228 takes by Level B 

harassment, and 16 takes by Level A 

harassment of harbor seals (Table 9). 

Gray Seal 

Very little information is available 

about the occurrence of gray seals in the 

Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters. 

Survey data collected by the U.S. Navy 

at the CBBT portal islands from 2014 

through 2018 (Rees et al., 2016; Jones et 

al., 2018) observed one gray seal in 

February 2015 and one seal in February 

of 2016, while no seals were observed 

at any other time. Maintaining the 

assumption that gray seals may utilize 

the Chesapeake Bay waters, the Navy 

conservatively estimates that one gray 

seal may be exposed to noise levels 

above the Level B harassment threshold 

for every 60 days of vibratory pile 

driving during the six month period 

when they are most likely to be present. 

The Level A harassment isopleth for 

phocids is noted above for harbor seals, 

while the largest Level B harassment 

zone area is anticipated during drilling 

for installation of the 42 inch steel pipes 

(∼16 km2). The Navy calculated a total 

of 3 exposures for gray seals during the 

course of the project and they are 

expected to be very uncommon in the 

Project area. It is anticipated that up to 

20 percent of gray seal exposures would 

be at or above the Level A harassment 

threshold based on the proportion of the 

project’s pile driving and drilling 

activities that could exceed the Level A 

harassment threshold. Therefore, the 

Navy is requesting, and NMFS is 

proposing to authorize, 1 take by Level 

A harassment and 2 takes by Level B 

harassment of gray seals (Table 9). 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING, BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY

SPECIES AND STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Common name Stock Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment Total Percent of stock 

Humpback whale ........... Gulf of Maine b ..................................................... 0 12 12 1 

Bottlenose dolphin ......... WNA Coastal, Northern Migratory acd ................ 0 19,327 19,327 111 

WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory a d .................. 0 19,327 19,327 197 

Northern NC Estuarine acd .................................. 0 200 200 24 

Harbor porpoise ............. Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ................................ 10 12 22 <0.01 

Harbor seal .................... WNA .................................................................... 16 1,228 1,244 2 

Gray seal ....................... WNA .................................................................... 1 2 3 <0.01 

aTake estimates are weighted based on calculated percentages of population for each distinct stock, assuming animals present would follow 

same probability of presence in the project area. Please see the Small Numbers section for additional information. bWest Indies DPS. Please see the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section for further discussion. cAssumes multiple repeated takes of same individuals from small portion of each stock as well as repeated takes of Chesapeake Bay resident 

population (size unknown). Please see the Small Numbers section for additional information. dThe sum of authorized take for the three stocks of bottlenose dolphins does not add up to the total authorized number (14989) due to 

rounding. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3995 

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 

proposed in the IHA: 

• Avoid direct physical interactions 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 meters of 

such activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction; 

• The Navy will conduct trainings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews and the marine mammal 

monitoring team prior to the start of all 

activities subject to this IHA and when 

new personnel join the work, to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures; 

and 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone. 

The following mitigation measures 

apply to the Navy’s in-water 

construction activities: 

Establishment of Shutdown Zones— 

The Navy will establish shutdown zones 

for all pile driving and removal and 

drilling activities. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is generally to define an 

area within which shutdown of the 

activity would occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Shutdown zones will vary based on the 

activity type and marine mammal 

hearing group (Table 9). 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs)— 

The placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving and removal and drilling 

activities (described in the Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting section) will 

ensure that the entire shutdown zone is 

visible. Should environmental 

conditions deteriorate such that the 

entire shutdown zone would not be 

visible (e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile 

driving and removal and drilling must 

be delayed until the PSO is confident 

marine mammals within the shutdown 

zone could be detected. 

Monitoring for Level A and B 

Harassment—The Navy will monitor 

the Level B harassment zones to the 

extent practicable, and all of the Level 

A harassment zones. The Navy will 

monitor at least a portion of the Level 

B harassment zone on all pile driving, 

removal or drilling days. Monitoring 

zones provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zones listed in Table 10, pile 

driving and drilling activity must be 

delayed or halted. If pile driving and/or 

drilling is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zones or 15 

minutes have passed without redetection of the animal. When a marine 

mammal for which Level B harassment 

take is authorized is present in the Level 

B harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If work ceases for more than 

30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring 

of the shutdown zones will commence. 

A determination that the shutdown zone 

is clear must be made during a period 

of good visibility (i.e., the entire 

shutdown zone and surrounding waters 

must be visible to the naked eye). 

Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

used to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals by providing warning 

and/or giving marine mammals a chance 

to leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors will be required 

to provide an initial set of three strikes 

from the hammer at reduced energy, 

followed by a 30-second waiting period, 

then two subsequent reduced-energy 

strike sets. Soft start will be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. 

TABLE 10—SHUTDOWN ZONES (m) DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Pile type, size, and driving method Humpback 

whales Porpoises All other species 

Vibratory drive 14-inch timber piles ............................................................................................. 30 30 30 

Vibratory drive 13-inch polymeric piles ....................................................................................... 30 30 30 

Impact drive 13-inch polymeric piles ........................................................................................... 30 30 30 

Vibratory drive 16-inch and 18-inch concrete piles ..................................................................... 30 30 30

Impact drive 16-inch and 18-inch concrete piles ........................................................................ 50 45 45

Vibratory drive 24-inch concrete piles ......................................................................................... 10 10 10 

Impact drive 24-inch concrete piles ............................................................................................. 160 500 200 

Vibratory drive 28-inch steel sheet piles ..................................................................................... 70 65 65 

Impact drive 28-inch steel sheet piles ......................................................................................... 780 500 200 

Vibratory drive 42-inch steel pipe piles ....................................................................................... 80 120 50 

Impact drive 42-inch steel pipe piles ........................................................................................... 1,010 500 200 

Pre-Drilling ................................................................................................................................... 20 500 200 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed 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. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed 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. 

The Navy has submitted a Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan to NMFS that 

has been approved for this project. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities must be conducted by PSOs 

meeting NMFS’ standards and in a 

manner consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction. 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

The Navy must establish the 

following monitoring locations. For all 

pile driving activities, a minimum of 

one PSO must be assigned to the active 

pile driving or drilling location to 

monitor the shutdown zones and as 

much of the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones as possible. If the 

active project location includes 

demolition activities, then the next 

adjacent pier may be used as an 

appropriate monitoring location 

ensuring that the aforementioned 

criteria is met. Monitoring must be 

conducted by a minimum of two PSOs 

for impact driving, and a minimum of 

three PSOs for vibratory and drilling 

activities. For activities in Table 7 with 

Level B harassment zones larger than 

3000 m, at least one PSO must be 

stationed on either Pier 14 or the North 

Jetty to monitor the part of the zone 

exceeding the edge of the Norfolk Naval 

Station (see Figure 3). The third PSO for 

vibratory and drilling activities would 

be located on Pier 1. PSOs will be 

placed at the best vantage point(s) 

practicable to monitor for marine 

mammals and implement shutdown/ 

delay procedures (See Figure 3 for 

representative monitoring locations). If 

changes are necessary to ensure full 

coverage of the Level A harassment 

zones, the Navy shall contact NMFS to 

alter observer locations (e.g., vessel 

blocking view from pier location). 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from drilling or piles being 

driven or removed. 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 30 minutes. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3997 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Acoustic Monitoring 

The Navy intends to conduct a sound 

source verification (SSV) study for 

various types of pile driving, extraction, 

and drilling associated with this 

proposed project. Monitoring shall 

include two underwater positions and 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

NMFS guidance (NMFS 2012). One 

underwater location shall be at the 

standard 10 meters from the sound 

source, while the other positions shall 

be located at a distance of at least 20 

times water depth at the pile. If the 

contractor determines that this distance 

interferes with shipping lanes for vessel 

traffic, or if there is no other reasons 

why this criteria cannot be achieved 

(e.g., creates an unsafe scenario for 

crew), the Navy’s Acoustic Monitoring 

Plan must offer an alternate site as close 

to the criteria as possible for NMFS’ 

approval. Measurements shall be 

collected as detailed in the Navy’s 

application (Table 13–1) for each pile 

type during the entire pile-driving/ 

extraction/drilling event. Monitoring 

shall be conducted for 10 percent of 

each type of activity that has not 

previously been monitored at NAVSTA 

Norfolk (See Table 11 for complete list). 

TABLE 11—ACOUSTIC MONITORING SUMMARY

Pile type 1 Count 2 Method of install/removal 2 Number 

monitored 2

13-inch polymeric ......................................................... 14 Vibratory ....................................................................... 5 

13-inch polymeric ......................................................... 14 Impact ........................................................................... 5 

13-inch polymeric ......................................................... 14 Drilling ........................................................................... 5 

16- or 18-inch concrete ................................................ 308 Vibratory ....................................................................... 10 

24-inch concrete ........................................................... 47 Impact ........................................................................... 10 

42-inch steel pipe ......................................................... 113 Vibratory ....................................................................... 10 

42-inch steel pipe ......................................................... 113 Impact ........................................................................... 10 

28-inch steel sheet ....................................................... 229 Vibratory ....................................................................... 10 

28-inch steel sheet ....................................................... 229 Impact ........................................................................... 10 

1 Data has previously been collected on the impact driving of 24-inch concrete piles and timber piles at NAVSTA Norfolk; therefore, no additional data collection is required for these pile types. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN26JA22.004</GPH>

Legend 

O Potential Protected Species Observer Locations- N 0 0.2!> 0-5 1 

A Miles 

0 025,0,5 1 

- Kilometers 

Figure 3. Protected Species Observer Locations at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, 

Virginia. 
3998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

2Some piles may be either vibratory or impact pile driving, or a combination of both. The acoustic monitoring report at the end of Year 1 construction shall clarify which installation method was utilized and monitored for each pile type. 

Environmental data shall be collected, 

including but not limited to, the 

following: Wind speed and direction, air 

temperature, humidity, surface water 

temperature, water depth, wave height, 

weather conditions, and other factors 

that could contribute to influencing 

underwater sound levels (e.g., aircraft, 

boats, etc.). 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report and a draft acoustic monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities, or 60 days prior to a requested 

date of issuance of any future IHAs or 

LOAs for the project, or other projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. If the Navy goes ahead with their 

plan to request incidental take 

authorization for future phases of this 

project, the future LOA will be 

requested for coverage beginning on 

April 1, 2023; the draft reports under 

this proposed IHA must be submitted to 

NMFS by January 31, 2023. The marine 

mammal report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (a) How many and what type 

of piles were driven or removed and the 

method (i.e., impact or vibratory); and 

(b) the total duration of time for each 

pile (vibratory driving) or hole (drilling) 

and number of strikes for each pule 

(impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; and 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

Upon observation of a marine 

mammal the following information must 

be reported: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Identification of the animal(s) (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

pile being driven or hole being drilled 

for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specified actions that ensured, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

The acoustic monitoring report must 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Acoustic Monitoring 

Plan and, at minimum, must include: 

• Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of water 

and recording device(s); 

• Type and size of pile being driven, 

substrate type, method of driving during 

recordings (e.g., hammer model and 

energy), and total pile driving duration; 

• Whether a sound attenuation device 

is used and, if so, a detailed description 

of the device used and the duration of 

its use per pile; 

• For impact pile driving and/or 

drilling (per pile): Number of strikes and 

strike rate; depth of substrate to 

penetrate; pulse duration and mean, 

median, and maximum sound levels (dB 

re: 1 mPa): Root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms); cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum), peak 

sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and 

single-strike sound exposure level 

(SELs-s); and 

• For vibratory driving/removal and/ 

or drilling (per pile): Duration of driving 

per pile; mean, median, and maximum 

sound levels (dB re: 1 mPa): Root mean 

square sound pressure level (SPLrms), 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) (and timeframe over which the 

sound is averaged). 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports 

will constitute the final reports. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS’ comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data must be submitted 

with the draft marine mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Navy must immediately cease the 

specified activities and shall report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov) 

NMFS and to the Greater Atlantic 

Region New England/Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon 

as feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the Navy must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

authorization. The Navy must not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

i. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

ii. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

iii. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

iv. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

v. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

vi. General circumstances under 

which the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 3999 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities have the potential to disturb or 

displace marine mammals. Specifically, 

the project activities may result in take, 

in the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and removal 

and drilling. Potential takes could occur 

if individuals are present in the 

ensonified zone when these activities 

are underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Proposed 

Mitigation section). 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Tables 6 and 7 are based 

upon an animal exposed to pile driving 

or drilling multiple piles per day. 

Considering the short duration to 

impact drive each pile and breaks 

between pile installations (to reset 

equipment and move pile into place), 

means an animal would have to remain 

within the area estimated to be 

ensonified above the Level A 

harassment threshold for multiple 

hours. This is highly unlikely given 

marine mammal movement throughout 

the area, especially for small, fast 

moving species such as small cetaceans 

and pinnipeds. Additionally, no Level A 

harassment is anticipated for humpback 

whales due to the proposed mitigation 

measures, which we expect the Navy 

will be able to effectively implement 

given the small Level A harassment 

zone sizes and high visibility of 

humpback whales. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

(e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies 

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated, and unlikely to result in 

impacts to individual fitness, 

reproduction, or survival. 

The Navy’s proposed pile driving 

project precludes the likelihood of 

serious injury or mortality. For all 

species and stocks, take would occur 

within a limited, confined area 

(immediately surrounding NAVSTA 

Norfolk in the Chesapeake Bay area) of 

the stock’s range. Level A and Level B 

harassment will be reduced to the level 

of least practicable adverse impact 

through use of mitigation measures 

described herein. Furthermore, the 

amount of take proposed to be 

authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

(e.g., Thorson and Reyff 2006). 

Individual animals, even if taken 

multiple times, will most likely move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving or drilling, although even 

this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. The pile driving 

and drilling activities analyzed here are 

similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous other construction activities 

conducted along both Atlantic and 

Pacific coasts, which have taken place 

with no known long-term adverse 

consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Furthermore, many projects 

similar to this one are also believed to 

result in multiple takes of individual 

animals without any documented longterm adverse effects. Level B harassment 

will be minimized through use of 

mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

area while the activity is occurring, 

particularly as the project is located on 

a busy waterfront with high amounts of 

vessel traffic. 

As previously described, UMEs have 

been declared for Northeast pinnipeds 

(including harbor seal and gray seal) 

and Atlantic humpback whales. 

However, we do not expect takes 

proposed for authorization in this action 

to exacerbate or compound upon these 

ongoing UMEs. As noted previously, no 

injury, serious injury, or mortality is 

expect or proposed for authorization, 

and Level B harassment takes of 

humpback whale, harbor seal and gray 

seal will be reduced to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact through the 

incorporation of the proposed 

mitigation measures. For the WNA stock 

of gray seal, the estimated stock 

abundance is 451,600 animals. Given 

that only 1 to 3 takes by Level B 

harassment are proposed for this stock 

annually, we do not expect this 

proposed authorization to exacerbate or 

compound upon the ongoing UME. 

For the WNA stock of harbor seals, 

the estimated abundance is 61,336 

individuals. The estimated M/SI for this 

stock (339) is well below the PBR 

(1,729). As such, the proposed Level B 

harassment takes of harbor seal are not 

expected to exacerbate or compound 

upon the ongoing UMEs. 

With regard to humpback whales, the 

UME does not yet provide cause for 

concern regarding population-level 

impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant 

population of humpback whales (the 

Gulf of Maine stock and the West Indies 

breeding population, or distinct 

population segment (DPS)) remains 

healthy. The Gulf of Marine stock of 

humpback whales was listed as strategic 

under the MMPA from 1995 through the 

2018 SARs but has since been removed 

from this list. Annual SARs have also 

indicated an increasing population 

trend for the stock, with a current 

abundance estimate of 1369 whales 

(Hayes et al., 2021). 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The West Indies DPS, which consists of 

the whales whose breeding range 

includes the Atlantic margin of the 

Antilles from Cuba to northern 

Venezuela, and whose feeding range 

primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, 

eastern Canada, and western Greenland, 

was delisted. The status review 

identified harmful algal blooms, vessel 

collisions, and fishing gear 

entanglements as relevant threats for 

this DPS, but noted that all other threats 

are considered likely to have no or 

minor impact on population size or the 

growth rate of this DPS (Bettridge et al., 

2015). As described in Bettridge et al., 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
4000 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 

(2015), the West Indies DPS has a 

substantial population size (i.e., 12,312 

(95 percent CI 8,688–15,954) whales in 

2004–05 (Bettridge et al., 2003)), and 

appears to be experiencing consistent 

growth. This trend is consistent with 

that in 2021 draft SARs as mentioned 

above. Further, NMFS is proposing to 

authorize no more than eight takes by 

Level B harassment annually of 

humpback whale. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected (with no known 

particular importance to marine 

mammals), the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Authorized Level A harassment 

would be very small amounts and of 

low degree; 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is relatively low 

for all stocks; 

• The number of anticipated takes is 

very low for humpback whale, harbor 

porpoise, and gray seal; 

• The specified activity and 

associated ensonifed areas are very 

small relative to the overall habitat 

ranges of all species and do not include 

habitat areas of special significance 

(Biologically Important Areas or ESAdesignated critical habitat); 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; 

• The presumed efficacy of the 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in the Chesapeake Bay have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance for 

humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray 

seal, the Northern North Carolina 

Estuarine Stock of bottlenose dolphin 

and harbor seal (in fact, take of 

individuals is less than 5 percent of the 

abundance of the affected stocks, see 

Table 9). This is likely a conservative 

estimate because they assume all takes 

are of different individual animals 

which is likely not the case. Some 

individuals may return multiple times 

in a day, but PSOs would count them as 

separate takes if they cannot be 

individually identified. 

There are three bottlenose dolphin 

stocks that could occur in the project 

area. Therefore, the estimated 14,989 

dolphin takes by Level B harassment 

would likely be split among the western 

North Atlantic northern migratory 

coastal stock, the western North Atlantic 

southern migratory coastal stock, and 

the northern North Carolina Estuarine 

stock (NNCES). Based on the stocks’ 

respective occurrence in the area, NMFS 

estimates that there would be no more 

than 200 takes from the NNCES stock, 

representing 24 percent of that 

population, with the remaining takes 

split evenly between the northern and 

southern migratory coastal stocks. Based 

on the consideration of various factors 

as described below, we have determined 

the number of individuals taken would 

comprise less than one-third of the best 

available population abundance 

estimate of either coastal migratory 

stocks. Detailed descriptions of the 

stocks’ ranges have been provided in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section. 

Both the northern migratory coastal 

and southern migratory coastal stocks 

have expansive ranges and they are the 

only dolphin stocks thought to make 

broad-scale, seasonal migrations in 

coastal waters of the western North 

Atlantic. Given the large ranges 

associated with these two stocks it is 

unlikely that large segments of either 

stock would approach the project area 

and enter into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

majority of both stocks are likely to be 

found widely dispersed across their 

respective habitat ranges and unlikely to 

be concentrated in or near the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and 

nearby offshore waters represent the 

boundaries of the ranges of each of the 

two coastal stocks during migration. The 

northern migratory coastal stock is 

found during warm water months from 

coastal Virginia, including the 

Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New 

York. The stock migrates south in late 

summer and fall. During cold water 

months, dolphins may be found in 

coastal waters from Cape Lookout, 

North Carolina, to the North Carolina/ 

Virginia border. During January–March, 

the southern Migratory coastal stock 

appears to move as far south as northern 

Florida. From April–June, the stock 

moves back north to North Carolina. 

During the warm water months of July– 

August, the stock is presumed to occupy 

the coastal waters north of Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, 

Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. 

There is likely some overlap between 

the northern and southern migratory 

stocks during spring and fall migrations, 

but the extent of overlap is unknown. 

The Chesapeake Bay and waters 

offshore of the mouth are located on the 

periphery of the migratory ranges of 

both coastal stocks (although during 

different seasons). Additionally, each of 

the migratory coastal stocks are likely to 

be located in the vicinity of the Bay for 

relatively short timeframes. Given the 

limited number of animals from each 

migratory coastal stock likely to be 

found at the seasonal migratory 

boundaries of their respective ranges, in 

combination with the short time periods 

(∼2 months) animals might remain at 

these boundaries, it is reasonable to 

assume that takes are likely to occur 

only within some small portion of either 

of the migratory coastal stocks. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 4001 

Many of the dolphin observations in 

the Bay are likely repeated sightings of 

the same individuals. The PotomacChesapeake Dolphin Project has 

observed over 1,200 unique animals 

since observations began in 2015. Resightings of the same individual can be 

highly variable. Some dolphins are 

observed once per year, while others are 

highly regular with greater than 10 

sightings per year (Mann, Personal 

Communication). Similarly, using 

available photo-identification data, 

Engelhaupt et al. (2016) determined that 

specified individuals were often 

observed in close proximity to their 

original sighting locations and were 

observed multiple times in the same 

season or same year. Ninety-one percent 

of re-sighted individuals (100 of 110) in 

the study area were recorded less than 

30 km from the initial sighting location. 

Multiple sightings of the same 

individual would considerably reduce 

the number of individual animals that 

are taken by harassment. Furthermore, 

the existence of a resident dolphin 

population in the Bay would increase 

the percentage of dolphin takes that are 

actually re-sightings of the same 

individuals. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination regarding the 

incidental take of small numbers of the 

affected stocks of a species or stock: 

• The take of marine mammal stocks 

authorized for take comprises less than 

5 percent of any stock abundance (with 

the exception of the Northern and 

Southern Migratory stocks of bottlenose 

dolphin); 

• Potential bottlenose dolphin takes 

in the project area are likely to be 

allocated among three distinct stocks; 

• Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the 

project area have extensive ranges and 

it would be unlikely to find a high 

percentage of the individuals of any one 

stock concentrated in a relatively small 

area such as the project area or the 

Chesapeake Bay; 

• The Chesapeake Bay represents the 

migratory boundary for each of the 

specified dolphin stocks and it would 

be unlikely to find a high percentage of 

any stock concentrated at such 

boundaries; and 

• Many of the takes would likely be 

repeats of the same animals and likely 

from a resident population of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals 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. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the U.S. Navy for conducting 

pile driving and drilling activities 

associated with the demolition and 

reconstruction of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk, in Norfolk, Virginia from April 

1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. A draft 

of the proposed IHA can be found at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed Pier 3 project. We 

also request at this time comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year Renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical, or nearly 

identical, activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice is planned or (2) 

the activities as described in the 

Description of Proposed Activities 

section of this notice would not be 

completed by the time the IHA expires 

and a renewal would allow for 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section of this notice, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the Renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

Renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: January 20, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01474 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES