11860 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB652] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 

Construction of the Multifunctional 

Expansion of Dry Dock 1 at 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, 

Maine 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

incidental to construction activities 

associated with the multifunctional 

expansion of Dry Dock 1 at Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. 

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 will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 31, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Egger@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 

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: 

Stephanie Egger, 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 such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

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 (IHA 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 NMFS has 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. 

NMFS 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 September 2, 2021, NMFS 

received a request from the Navy for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to construction activities associated 

with the multifunctional expansion of 

Dry Dock 1 project (also referred to as 

P–831) at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 

Kittery, Maine. The Navy submitted a 

revised version of the application on 

December 21, 2021. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on 

February 10, 2022. The Navy’s request 

is for take of harbor porpoises, harbor 

seals, gray seals, harp seals, and hooded 

seals by Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment. Neither the Navy nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity; 

therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

NMFS previously issued IHAs and 

renewals to the Navy for waterfront 

improvement work in Portsmouth, in 

2017 (81 FR 85525; November 28, 2016), 

2018 (83 FR 3318; January 24, 2018), 

2019 (84 FR 24476, May 28, 2019), a 

renewal of the 2019 IHA (86 FR 14598; 

March 17, 2021), and a 2021 IHA (86 FR 

30418; June 8, 2021) As required, the 

applicant provided monitoring reports 

(available at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities) which confirm that the 

applicant has implemented the required 

mitigation and monitoring, and which 

also shows that no impacts of a scale or 

nature not previously analyzed or 

authorized have occurred as a result of 

the activities conducted. 

This proposed IHA would cover 1 

year of a larger project for which the 

Navy intends to request a take 

authorization for subsequent facets of 

the project. The larger overall expansion 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11861 

and modification of Dry Dock 1 project 

involves modification of the super flood 

basin to create two additional dry 

docking positions (Dry Dock 1 North 

and Dry Dock 1 West) in front of the 

existing Dry Dock 1 East. Year 1 

construction activities will focus on the 

preparation of the walls and floors of 

the super flood basin to support the 

placement of the monoliths and the 

construction of the two dry dock 

positions. The Navy complied with all 

the requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHAs they provided for other 

preparatory work related to the Dry 

Dock 1 project and information 

regarding their monitoring results may 

be found in the Estimated Take section. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Multifunctional Expansion of Dry 

Dock 1 (P–381) is one of three projects 

that support the overall expansion and 

modification of Dry Dock 1, located in 

the western extent of the shipyard. The 

previous two projects, construction of a 

super flood basin (P–310) and extension 

of portal crane rail and utilities (P–1074) 

are currently under construction. Work 

associated with P–310 and P–1074 has 

been and/or is being completed under 

the separate IHAs issued by NMFS. The 

projects have been phased to support 

Navy mission schedules. P–381 will be 

constructed within the same footprint of 

the super flood basin over an 

approximated 7-year period. In-water 

activities are expected to occur within 

the first 5 years, between April 2022 and 

April 2027. This IHA request is for the 

first year of in-water construction for P– 

381 occurring from April 2022 through 

April 2023. All work beyond year 1 is 

anticipated to be requested in a 

rulemaking/Letter of Authorization 

(LOA) application submission to NMFS. 

The purpose of the proposed project, 

Multifunctional Expansion of Dry Dock 

1 (P–381), is to modify the super flood 

basin to create two additional dry 

docking positions (Dry Dock 1 North 

and Dry Dock 1 West) in front of the 

existing Dry Dock 1 East. The super 

flood basin provides the starting point 

for the P–381 work (see Figure 1–2 of 

the application). 

Year 1 construction activities will 

focus on the preparation of the walls 

and floors of the super flood basin to 

support the placement of the monoliths 

and the construction of the two dry 

dock positions. The primary work 

needed to prepare the super flood basin 

involves structural reinforcement of the 

existing berths and floor within the 

super flood basin, bedrock removal, and 

demolition of portions of the super 

flood basin walls. Most of the 

preparatory work will occur behind the 

existing super flood basin walls that 

would act as a barrier to sound and 

would contain underwater noise to 

within a small portion of the Piscataqua 

River (see Figure 1–3 of the application). 

Construction activities that could affect 

marine mammals are limited to in-water 

pile driving and removal activities, rock 

hammering, rotary drilling, and downthe-hole (DTH) hammering. 

Dates and Duration 

The construction activities are 

anticipated to begin in March 2022 and 

proceed to March 2023. In-water 

construction activities would occur for 

365 days over a period of approximately 

12 consecutive months. All in-water 

work capable of producing noise 

harmful to marine mammals will be 

limited to daylight hours. Pile driving 

days are not necessarily consecutive and 

certain activities may occur at the same 

time, decreasing the total number of inwater construction days. The contractor 

could be working in more than one area 

of the berths at a time. It is not possible 

to predict if and/or how often work will 

occur simultaneously, but it is estimated 

that overlapping activities would permit 

the work described in Table 1 to be 

completed within one calendar year. 

Table 1 provides the estimated 

construction schedule and production 

rates for P–381 Year 1 construction 

activities. Table 1 reflects the current 

pile driving, hammering, and drilling 

durations for activities occurring in Year 

1 included in this request for incidental 

take authorization. Vibratory pile 

driving and extraction is assumed to 

occur during 84 days of Year 1. Impact 

pile driving will occur during 24 days 

in Year 1. DTH activities would occur 

for 919 days and rotary drilling would 

occur for 282 days. Rock hammering 

would occur for 252 days. Overlapping 

activities are estimated to reduce the 

number of construction days by 1,172 

days for a total of 365 construction days. 

TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING DURATIONS

[March 2022–March 2023] 

Activity Total amount and estimated dates Activity component Method Daily production 

rate 

Total 

production 

days 

Center Wall—Install Foundation 

Support Piles.

38 drilled shafts, Mar-22 to Mar-23 Install 102-inch diameter outer 

casing.

Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 1 

hour/day.

38 

Pre-drill 102-inch diameter socket Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 9 

hours/day.

38 

Remove 102-inch outer casing ..... Rotary Drill ........... 1 casing/day, 15 

minutes/casing.

38 

Drill 78-inch diameter shaft ........... Cluster drill DTH ... 6.5 days/shaft, 10 

hours/day.

247 

Center Wall—Install Diving Board 

Shafts.

18 drilled shafts, Mar-22 to Mar-23 Install 102-inch diameter outer 

casing.

Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 1 

hour/day.

18 

Pre-drill 102-inch diameter socket Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 9 

hours/day.

18 

Remove 102-inch outer casing ..... Rotary Drill ........... 1 casing/day, 15 

minutes/casing.

18 

Drill 78-inch diameter shaft ........... Cluster drill DTH ... 6.5 days/shaft, 10 

hours/day.

117 

Center Wall—Access Platform 

Support.

38 drilled shafts, Mar-22 to Mar-23 Install 102-inch diameter outer 

casing.

Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 1 

hour/day.

38 

Pre-drill 102-inch diameter socket Rotary Drill ........... 1 shaft/day, 9 

hours/day.

38 

Remove 102-inch outer casing ..... Rotary Drill ........... 1 casing/day, 15 

minutes/casing.

38 

Drill 78-inch diameter shaft ........... Cluster drill DTH ... 3.5 days/shaft, 10 

hours/day.

133 

Center Wall—Temporary Launching Piles.6 drilled shafts, Mar-22 to Apr-22 42-inch diameter shaft ................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

1 shaft/day, 10 

hours/day.

6 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11862 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING DURATIONS—Continued 

[March 2022–March 2023] 

Activity Total amount and estimated dates Activity component Method Daily production 

rate 

Total 

production 

days 

Center Wall Tie Downs ................. Install 36 rock anchors, Mar-22 to 

Mar-23.

9-inch diameter holes .................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

2 holes/day, 5 

hours/hole.

18 

Center Wall—Access Platform Tie 

Downs.

Install 18 rock anchors, Mar-22 to 

Mar-23.

9-inch diameter holes .................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

2 holes/day, 5 

hours/hole.

9 

Center Wall—Install Tie-In to Existing West Closure Wall.16 sheet piles, Mar-22 to Mar-23+ 28-inch wide Z-shaped sheets ...... Impact with initial 

vibratory set.

4 piles/day, 5 minutes and 300 

blows/pile.

* 4 

Berth 11 End Wall—Install Secant 

Pile Guide Wall.

60 sheet piles, Feb-22 to Mar-23 .. 28-inch wide Z-shaped sheets ...... Impact with initial 

vibratory set.

8 piles/day, 5 minutes and 300 

blows/pile.

8 

Berth 1—Remove Granite Block 

Quay Wall.

610 cy, May-22 to Mar-23+ ........... Granite block demolition ................ Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

2.5 hours/day ....... * 10 

P–310 West Closure Wall—Remove Closure Wall.238 sheet piles, Aug-22 to Oct-22 18-inch wide flat- sheets ............... Vibratory extraction.4 piles/day, 5 minutes/pile.60 

P–310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation.985 cy, Nov-22 to Feb-23 ............. Excavate bedrock .......................... Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

9 hours/day .......... 77 

P–310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation.Drill 500 relief holes, Nov-22 to 

Feb-23.

4–6 inch holes ............................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

25 holes/day, 24 

minutes/hole.

20 

Drill 46 rock borings (50 cy), May22 to Jun-22.42-inch diameter casing ................ Mono-hammer 

DTH.

2 borings/day, 5 

hours/boring.

1 24 

West closure wall—Berth 11 Abutment—Install Piles.Drill 28 shafts, Aug-22 to Mar-23 .. 42-inch diameter casing ................ Mono-hammer 

DTH.

1 shaft/day, 10 

hours/day.

28 

Berth 11—Remove Shutter Panels 112 panels, Oct-22 to Mar-23+ ..... Demolish shutter panels ................ Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

5 hours/day .......... * 56 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock 

Removal at Basin Floor.

3,500 cy, Oct-22 to Mar-23+ ......... Excavate Bedrock ......................... Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

12 hours/day ........ * 100 

Drill 2,201 relief holes, Oct-22 to 

Mar-23+.

4–6 inch holes ............................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

27 holes/day, 22.2 

minutes/hole.

* 82 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock 

at Abutment.

Drill 365 rock borings (1,220 cy), 

Jul-22 to Jan-23.

42-inch diameter casing ................ Mono-hammer 

DTH.

2 borings/day, 5 

hours/boring.

183 

Dry Dock 1 North Entrance—Drill 

Tremie Tie Downs.

Drill 100 rock anchors, Jan-23 to 

Mar-23.

9-inch holes ................................... Mono-hammer 

DTH.

2 holes/day, 2 

hours/hole.

1 52 

Dry Dock 1 North Entrance—Install Temporary Cofferdam.Install 96 sheet piles, Dec-22 to 

Mar-23.

28-inch wide Z-shaped sheets ...... Impact with initial 

vibratory set.

8 sheets/day, 5 

minutes and 300 

blows/pile.

12 

Berth 1—Remove Sheet Piles ...... Remove 12 sheet piles, Mar-23 + .. 25-inch wide Z-shaped sheets ...... Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

6 hours/day .......... * 3 

Berth 1 Top of Wall—Demolition 

For Waler Installation.

30 lf+, Mar-23 + .............................. Mechanical concrete demolition .... Hydraulic rock 

hammering.

10 hours/day ........ * 6 

Totals ...................................... 539 shafts/borings, 2,855 holes/ 

anchors,422 sheet piles.

........................................................ ............................... ............................... 1,537 

+These activities may continue into subsequent construction years pursuant to a proposed authorization. 

* These activities will begin in year 1 of this IHA request and may continue into following construction years pursuant to a proposed authorization. Only the number 

of production days occurring in year 1 are presented. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The shipyard is located in the 

Piscataqua River in Kittery, Maine. The 

Piscataqua River originates at the 

boundary of Dover, New Hampshire, 

and Eliot, Maine (see Figure 1 below). 

The river flows in a southeasterly 

direction for 2,093 meters (m) (13 miles 

(mi)) before entering Portsmouth Harbor 

and emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. 

The lower Piscataqua River is part of the 

Great Bay Estuary system and varies in 

width and depth. Many large and small 

islands break up the straight-line flow of 

the river as it continues toward the 

Atlantic Ocean. Seavey Island, the 

location of the proposed activities, is 

located in the lower Piscataqua River 

approximately 500 m from its southwest 

bank, 200 m from its north bank, and 

approximately 4,000 m (2.5 mi) from the 

mouth of the river. 

Water depths in the proposed project 

area range from 6.4 m (21 feet (ft) to 11.9 

m (39 ft) at Berths 11, 12, and 13. Water 

depths in the lower Piscataqua River 

near the proposed project area range 

from 15 ft in the shallowest areas to 69 

ft in the deepest areas. The river is 

approximately 914 m (3,300 ft) wide 

near the proposed project area, 

measured from the Kittery shoreline 

north of Wattlebury Island to the 

Portsmouth shoreline west of Peirce 

Island. The furthest direct line of sight 

from the proposed project area would be 

1,287 m (0.8 mi) to the southeast and 

418 m (0.26 mi) to the northwest. 

Much of the shoreline in the proposed 

project area is composed of hard shores 

(rocky intertidal). In general, rocky 

intertidal areas consist of bedrock that 

alternates between marine and 

terrestrial habitats, depending on the 

tide (Department of the Navy 2013). 

Rocky intertidal areas consist of 

‘‘bedrock, stones, or boulders that singly 

or in combination cover 75 percent or 

more of an area that is covered less than 

30 percent by vegetation’’ (Navy 2013). 

The lower Piscataqua River is home to 

Portsmouth Harbor and is used by 

commercial, recreational, and military 

vessels. Between 150 and 250 

commercial shipping vessels transit the 

lower Piscataqua River each year 

(Magnusson et al. June 2012). 

Commercial fishing vessels are also very 

common in the river year-round, as are 

recreational vessels, which are more 

common in the warmer summer 

months. The shipyard is a dynamic 

industrial facility situated on an island 

with a narrow separation of waterways 

between the installation and the 

communities of Kittery and Portsmouth 

(see Figure 2). The predominant noise 

sources from Shipyard industrial 

operations consist of dry dock cranes; 

passing vessels; and industrial 

equipment (e.g., forklifts, loaders, rigs, 

vacuums, fans, dust collectors, blower 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11863 

belts, heating, air conditioning, and 

ventilation (HVAC) units, water pumps, 

and exhaust tubes and lids). Other 

components such as construction, vessel 

ground support equipment for 

maintenance purposes, vessel traffic 

across the Piscataqua River, and vehicle 

traffic on the shipyard’s bridges and on 

local roads in Kittery and Portsmouth 

produce noise, but such noise generally 

represents a transitory contribution to 

the average noise level environment 

(Blue Ridge Research and Consulting 

(BRRC) 2015; ESS Group 2015). 

Ambient sound levels recorded at the 

shipyard are considered typical of a 

large outdoor industrial facility and vary 

widely in space and time (ESS Group 

2015). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11864 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2EN02MR22.048</GPH>

• Cities c::J State Boundary 

- lnferstate,Highway - .Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 

-- US Highway 

--State Hlghwayand Route 

0 0,25 N o,5A 

Miles · Other State and Local Roads 

Figure 1--Site Location Map of the Project Area 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11865 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2EN02MR22.049</GPH>

Legend 

o Notional Source Point for Pile Driving 

N 

A 

D Region of Influence for p.;3s1 Construction Activities 

South Closure wan 

0 1,200 f800 ----c::::====:::::1---•' Feet 

Figure 2--Region of Influence for Underwater Noise for P-381 Year 1 In-water 

Construction Activities 
11866 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Preparatory work for P–381 in Year 1 

as proposed for this IHA can be 

generally grouped into four categories: 

center wall support and tie-in, structural 

reinforcement of super flood basin 

sidewalls and entrance, mechanical 

bedrock removal, and demolition of 

super flood basin wall components. 

Each category involves one or more 

activities expected to result in 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Center wall support and tie-in—The 

location of the future center wall 

requires reinforcement to allow 

placement of the large pre-cast monolith 

structures forming the separation 

between the two new dry docking 

positions. Specifically, the floor of the 

existing basin must be able to provide 

an adequate foundation for the pre-cast 

monoliths that will make up the dry 

dock interiors and center wall. The 

basin floor will be reinforced by 38, 84- 

inch (in) diameter shafts throughout the 

footprint of the center wall that will be 

filled with concrete to create the 

structural support piles for the center 

wall. The shafts will be installed using 

a cluster drill consisting of multiple 

down-the-hole (DTH) hammers. 

Preparations for the center wall also 

require the installation of a relatively 

short length of sheet pile wall to create 

a connection between the existing west 

closure wall and the center wall. In 

construction year 1, 16, 28-in wide, Zshaped sheet piles would be installed 

for the tie-in on the westerly end of the 

center wall footprint where it will 

connect to the west closure wall 

structure. The sheet piles will be 

installed using an initial vibratory set 

followed by driving with impact 

hammers. The remaining sheet piles 

will be proposed for installation in the 

following construction years and 

described in the subsequent 

rulemaking/LOA application. 

Structural reinforcement of super 

flood basin sidewalls and entrance— 

The existing super flood basin walls 

must be reinforced to allow adjacent 

bedrock removal and to provide support 

for the future dry dock walls. Bedrock 

removal is required to establish the 

deeper floor elevations needed for the 

project. The existing walls must be 

reinforced to prevent undermining 

during rock removal which could cause 

the walls to collapse. 

Wall reinforcement activities will 

include the installation of a sheet pile 

guide wall along the Berth 11 end wall. 

The guide wall will support the 

installation of an adjacent secant pile 

structural support wall that will be 

installed landside. In construction year 

1, 24, 28-in, Z-shaped sheet piles will be 

installed for the guide wall. The guide 

wall sheet piles will be placed using an 

initial vibratory set followed by driving 

with impact hammers. The remaining 

guide wall sheet piles will be proposed 

for installation in the following 

construction years and described in the 

subsequent rulemaking/LOA 

application. 

The conversion of the existing west 

closure wall to the Dry Dock 1 North 

entrance requires reinforcement of the 

section of the west closure wall that will 

become the new dry dock entrance. The 

existing structure will be reinforced by 

drilling shafts through its interior into 

the underlying bedrock. The shafts will 

be filled with concrete to create 

structural piles. This activity will not 

occur in the water and will not create 

underwater noise impacts. The structure 

will then be surrounded by a temporary 

cofferdam. In construction Year 1, the 

cofferdam base will be constructed with 

24, 28-in wide, Z-shaped sheet piles. 

The sheet piles will be installed using 

an initial vibratory set followed by 

driving with impact hammers. The 

remainder of cofferdam construction 

will be proposed in the following 

construction years and described in the 

subsequent rulemaking/LOA 

application. 

Additional preparatory work in the 

west closure wall area involves the 

installation of support tie downs for 

future tremie concrete work. The tie 

downs require the placement of an 

estimated 51 rock anchors requiring 9- 

in diameter holes. The rock anchors will 

be installed using a rotary drill. 

Along the northern section of the west 

closure wall, at its junction with Berth 

11, reinforcement piles will be installed 

to strengthen the abutment area. The 

reinforcement piles will be constructed 

by drilling 28, 42-in diameter shafts that 

will be filled with concrete to create a 

pile wall. The shafts will be constructed 

using a DTH cluster drill. 

Mechanical bedrock removal— 

Bedrock will be mechanically excavated 

using various methods appropriate for 

the removal location and as needed to 

avoid damage to adjacent structures. 

Bedrock removal is required in several 

locations throughout the basin area. 

Three methods of rock removal will be 

employed that may result in injury or 

harassment of marine mammals: 

D Bedrock excavation with a hydraulic 

rock hammer (i.e., hoe ram or breaker) 

D Installation of relief holes (4- to 6-in 

diameter) using a DTH drill 

D Removal of rock using DTH drilling 

with 36-in cluster drill 

Two primary areas of mechanical rock 

removal are scheduled for Year 1 of the 

project: The west closure wall footprint 

and the Berth 11 face. Both sites require 

the use of the three methods presented 

in the bulleted list above. 

Preparation of the west closure wall 

area requires the removal of bedrock 

with a hydraulic hammer along with the 

DTH drilling 500, 4–6 in diameter relief 

holes and the drilling of 19 rock borings 

with a 36-in diameter DTH cluster drill. 

Approximately 905 cubic yards (cy) of 

bedrock are anticipated to be removed 

from the west closure wall area. 

Bedrock removal is also required 

along the Berth 11 face. Again, the rock 

will be removed with a hydraulic 

hammer: By drilling 351, 4–6-in 

diameter relief holes plus drilling 8 rock 

borings with 36-in diameter DTH cluster 

drill. Approximately 415 cy of bedrock 

are anticipated to be removed during 

construction Year 1. The remaining 

bedrock will be proposed for removal in 

the following construction years and 

described in the rulemaking/subsequent 

LOA application. 

Demolition of super flood basin wall 

components—Demolition of existing 

wall structures includes the removal of 

shutter panels, granite quay walls, sheet 

piles, and concrete making up the super 

flood basin. Demolition of existing wall 

structures would largely be conducted 

using a rock hammer but some features 

would be removed by torch cutting. 

Torch cutting would not generate noise 

that would be harmful to marine 

mammals and therefore not discussed 

further. 

Portions of the basin west closure 

wall will be demolished by extracting 

the sheet piles with a vibratory hammer. 

238, 18-in wide, flat sheet piles will be 

removed. 

Sections of the existing concrete 

shutter panels making up the face of 

Berth 11 will be removed with a 

hydraulic rock hammer. 

Approximately112 panels would be 

removed in construction Year 1. The 

remaining shutter panels will be 

proposed for removal in the following 

construction years and described in the 

rulemaking/subsequent LOA that 

application. 

Berth 1 demolition includes removal 

of the existing sheet pile wall and 

portions of the underlying granite block 

quay wall. In construction year 1, 12, 

25-in wide, Z-shaped sheet piles and 

approximately 610 cy of granite would 

be removed. The sheet piles and the 

granite block quay wall will be removed 

with a hydraulic rock hammer with the 

remaining sheet piles and granite blocks 

proposed for removal in the following 

construction years and described in the 

subsequent rulemaking/LOA 

application. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11867 

A section of Berth 1 requires the 

installation of a waler (steel beam) for 

structural support. To accommodate the 

waler, about 9.144 m (30 linear ft) of 

concrete wall will be removed using a 

hydraulic rock hammer in construction 

Year 1 with the remaining concrete wall 

proposed for removal in the following 

construction years and described in the 

subsequent rulemaking/LOA 

application. 

Overall Noise Producing Activities 

Two types of piles will be installed or 

removed with pile driving equipment 

during construction Year 1: 28-in wide, 

Z-shaped sheet piles and 18-in wide, 

flat sheet piles. The installation of 28- 

in wide, Z-shaped steel sheets would 

use a combination of vibratory and 

impact hammers, whereas the removal 

of 18-in wide, flat sheet piles would use 

only vibratory hammers. 

Pile installation/removal would occur 

using barge mounted cranes equipped 

with both vibratory and impact 

hammers. Piles would be installed 

initially using vibratory means and then 

finished with impact hammers, if 

necessary. Impact hammers would also 

be used to push obstructions out of the 

way and where sediment conditions do 

not permit the efficient use of vibratory 

hammers. To the extent practicable, it is 

assumed that the piles installed for this 

project would be set with a vibratory 

hammer and then finished with an 

impact hammer in order to reach 

bearing depth or to have the required 

load-bearing capacity if installed using 

vibratory methods only. Pile removal 

activities would use vibratory hammers 

exclusively. 

The removal of bedrock and the 

demolition of concrete shutter panels 

and granite blocks during construction 

Year 1 would be by mechanical means. 

These features would be demolished 

using a hydraulic rock hammer or hoe 

ram (a portion of bedrock removal 

would also use DTH mono hammers 

and cluster drilling). 

Two methods of rock excavation 

would be used during construction Year 

1: rotary drill and DTH excavation. DTH 

excavation using mono-hammers would 

be used for bedrock removal, to create 

shafts for support piles and tie downs, 

and for the excavation of relief holes 

during mechanical bedrock removal. For 

the largest shafts (greater than 42-in in 

diameter) DTH excavation would use a 

cluster drill. A cluster drill uses 

multiple mono-hammers within a single 

bit to efficiently break up bedrock and 

create large diameter holes. Rotary 

drilling is considered an intermittent, 

non-impulsive noise source, similar to 

vibratory pile-driving. 

Concurrent Activities 

In order to maintain project 

schedules, it is likely that multiple 

pieces of equipment would operate at 

the same time within the basin. Given 

the spatial constraints of the project 

area, a maximum of five pieces of 

equipment could potentially operate in 

the project area at a single time. Table 

2 provides a summary of possible 

equipment combinations that could be 

used simultaneously over the course of 

the construction year. An analysis of 

concurrent activities with respect to 

noise generation from multiple sources 

is provided in the Estimated Take 

section. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE

EQUIPMENT SCENARIOS

Quantity Equipment 

2 .......... Rotary Drill (2). 

2 .......... Cluster Drill (1), Rotary Drill (1). 

2 .......... Cluster Drill (2). 

3 .......... Cluster Drill (2), Vibratory Hammer (1). 

5 .......... Cluster Drill (2), Vibratory Hammer (1), 

Mono-hammer DTH(1), Rotary Drill (1). 

4 .......... Cluster Drill (1), Rock Hammering (1), 

Mono-hammer DTH (1), Rotary Drill (1). 

2 .......... Mono-hammer DTH (1), Rock Hammer 

(1). 

3 .......... Mono-hammer DTH (1), Rock Hammer 

(2). 

Source: 381 Constructors 2021. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https:// 

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

Table 3 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the 

Piscataqua River in Kittery, Maine, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, 

NMFS follows 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’ 

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’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal 

SARs. All values presented in Table 3 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

final 2020 SARs (Hayes et al., 2021) and 

draft 2021 SARs, available online at: 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports. 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED 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 Odontoceti (toothed whales) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2

I I I I 
11868 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Harbor porpoise .................... Phocoena phocoena ......... Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

-;N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) ........ 851 164 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Harbor seal ........................... Phoca vitulina .................... Western North Atlantic ...... -;N 61,336 (0.08, 57,637; 2018) ........ 1,729 339 

Gray seal ............................... Halichoerus grypus ........... Western North Atlantic ...... -;N 27,300 4 (0.22; 22,785; 2016) ...... 1,389 4,453 

Harp seal ............................... Pagophilus groenlandicus Western North Atlantic ...... -;N 7,600,000 (unk,7,100.000, 2019) 426,000 178,573 

Hooded seal .......................... Cystophora cristata ........... Western North Atlantic ...... -;N 593,500 ........................................ Unknown 1,680 

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-assessmentreports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4This abundance value and the associated PBR value reflect the US population only. Estimated abundance for the entire Western North Atlantic stock, including 

animals in Canada, is 451,600. The annual M/SI estimate is for the entire stock. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed action area are 

included in Table 2. More detailed 

descriptions of marine mammals in the 

PNSY project area are provided below. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises occur from the 

coastline to deep waters (≤1800 m); 

Westgate et al. 1998), although the 

majority of the population is found over 

the continental shelf (Hayes et al., 

2020). In the project area, only the Gulf 

of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor 

porpoise may be present. This stock is 

found in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic 

waters and is concentrated in the 

northern Gulf of Maine and southern 

Bay of Fundy region, generally in waters 

less than 150 m deep (Waring et al., 

2016). 

The Navy has been collecting data on 

marine mammals in the Piscataqua 

River since 2017 through construction 

monitoring and non-construction 

related monthly surveys (2017–2018). 

Three harbor porpoises were observed 

travelling quickly through the river 

channel during marine mammal 

monitoring conducted between April 

and December 2017 in support of the 

Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements 

Project (Cianbro 2018a). Two harbor 

porpoises were observed during 

construction monitoring that occurred 

between January 2018 and January 2019 

(Cianbro 2018b; Navy 2019). One harbor 

porpoise was observed in March 2017 

during non-construction related surveys 

conducted on 12 days (one per month) 

in 2017, and two harbor porpoises (one 

in August and one in November) were 

observed in monthly surveys conducted 

in 2018 (Naval Facilities Engineering 

Systems Command (NAVFAC) MidAtlantic 2018, 2019b). There was one 

sighting of harbor porpoise during P– 

310 year 1 monitoring events (May 

through December 2020) (NAVFAC 

2021). To date, no harbor porpoise have 

been sighted in calendar year 2021 

(Stantec 2021). 

Harbor Seal 

The harbor seal is found in all 

nearshore waters of the North Atlantic 

and North Pacific Oceans and adjoining 

seas above about 30ß N (Burns, 2009). In 

the western North Atlantic, harbor seals 

are distributed from the eastern 

Canadian Arctic and Greenland south to 

southern New England and New York, 

and occasionally to the Carolinas (Hayes 

et al., 2020). Haulout and pupping sites 

are located off Manomet, MA and the 

Isles of Shoals, ME (Waring et al., 2016). 

Harbor seals are the most abundant 

pinniped in the Piscataqua River. The 

majority of harbor seals occur along the 

Maine coast with a large portion of them 

hauling out at the Isles of Shoals (see 

Figure 4–1 of the application). Pupping 

season for harbor seals is May to June. 

No harbor seal pups were observed 

during the surveys (Cianbro 2018a, b) as 

pupping sites are north of the MaineNew Hampshire border (Waring et al. 

2016). During construction monitoring 

between the months of April and 

December 2017, 199 harbor seals were 

observed (Cianbro 2018a) in the project 

area. A total of 249 harbor seals were 

observed during construction 

monitoring between the months of 

January 2018 and January 2019 (Navy 

2019). The primary behaviors observed 

during monitoring were milling that 

occurred almost 60 percent of the time 

followed by swimming and traveling by 

the proposed project area at 29 percent 

and 12 percent, respectively (Cianbro 

2018a). A total of 17 and 83 harbor seals 

were observed during the one-day 

monthly surveys conducted in 2017 and 

2018, respectively (NAVFAC MidAtlantic 2018, 2019b). Between May and 

December of 2020 (NAVFAC 2021), 721 

harbor seals were sighted during 

construction monitoring (NAVFAC 

2021). A total of 302 harbor seals have 

been observed during construction 

monitoring of the project area between 

January 2021 and November 2021 

(Stantec 2021). 

Gray Seal 

There are three major populations of 

gray seals found in the world; eastern 

Canada (western North Atlantic stock), 

northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea. 

Gray seals in the project area belong to 

the western North Atlantic stock. The 

range for this stock is from New Jersey 

to Labrador. Current population trends 

show that gray seal abundance is likely 

increasing in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) (Hayes et al., 

2020). Although the rate of increase is 

unknown, surveys conducted since their 

arrival in the 1980s indicate a steady 

increase in abundance in both Maine 

and Massachusetts (Hayes et al., 2018). 

It is believed that recolonization by 

Canadian gray seals is the source of the 

U.S. population (Hayes et al., 2018). 

There were 24 gray seals observed 

within the proposed project area 

between the months of April and 

December 2017 (Cianbro 2018a) and a 

total of 12 observed during the January 

2018 to January 2019 construction 

monitoring period (Navy 2019). Ten of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11869 

the 12 observation occurred during the 

winter months. (Navy 2019). The 

primary behavior observed during 

surveys was milling at just over 60 

percent of the time followed by 

swimming within and traveling through 

the proposed project area. Gray seals 

were observed foraging approximately 5 

percent of the time (Cianbro 2018a). The 

one-day monthly marine mammal 

surveys during 2017 and 2018 recorded 

six and three sightings, respectively, of 

gray seal (NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 

2019b). A total of 47 gray seals were 

observed during P–310 Year 1 

monitoring events from May through 

December 2020 (NAVFAC 2021). 

Pupping season for gray seals is 

December through February. No gray 

seal pups were observed during the 

surveys (Cianbro 2018a, b) as pupping 

sites for gray seals (like harbor seals) are 

north of Maine-New Hampshire border 

(Waring et al. 2016). In 2021, monitoring 

activities have sighted 9 gray seals thus 

far (Stantec 2021). 

Hooded Seal 

Hooded seals are also members of the 

true seal family (Phocidae) and are 

generally found in deeper waters or on 

drifting pack ice. The world population 

of hooded seals has been divided into 

three stocks, which coincide with 

specific breeding areas, as follows: 1) 

Northwest Atlantic, 2) Greenland Sea, 

and 3) White Sea (Waring et al., 2020). 

The hooded seal is a highly migratory 

species, and its range can extend from 

the Canadian arctic to Puerto Rico. In 

U.S. waters, the species has an 

increasing presence in the coastal 

waters between Maine and Florida 

(Waring et al., 2019). In the U.S., they 

are considered members of the western 

North Atlantic stock and generally occur 

in New England waters from January 

through May and further south in the 

summer and fall seasons (Waring et al., 

2019). 

Hooded seals are known to occur in 

the Piscataqua River; however, they are 

not as abundant as the more commonly 

observed harbor seal. Anecdotal sighting 

information indicates that two hooded 

seals were observed from the Shipyard 

in August 2009, but no other 

observations have been recorded (Trefry 

November 20, 2015). Hooded seals were 

not observed during marine mammal 

monitoring or survey events that took 

place in 2017, 2018, and 2020 (Cianbro 

2018a, b; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 

2019b; Navy 2019; NAVFAC 2021). To 

date no hooded seals have been sighted 

in 2021 (Stantec 2021). 

Harp Seal 

The harp seal is a highly migratory 

species, its range extending throughout 

the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans. 

The world’s harp seal population is 

separated into three stocks, based on 

associations with specific locations of 

pagophilic breeding activities: (1) Off 

eastern Canada, (2) on the West Ice off 

eastern Greenland, and (3) in the White 

Sea off the coast of Russia. The largest 

stock, which includes two herds that 

breed either off the coast of 

Newfoundland/Labrador or near the 

Magdelan Islands in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence, is equivalent to the western 

North Atlantic stock. Harp seals that 

occur in the United States are 

considered members of the western 

North Atlantic stock and generally occur 

in New England waters from January 

through May (Waring et al., 2020). 

Harp seals are known to occur in the 

Piscataqua River; however, they are not 

as abundant as the more commonly 

observed harbor seal and were last 

documented in the river in May of 2020 

(Stantec 2020). Two harp seals were 

sighted on two separate occasions (on 

May 12 and May 14, 2020) during 

construction monitoring for P–310 

(NAVFAC 2021). No pile driving was 

occurring at the time of the sighting. 

Previous to that, the last harp seal 

sighting was in 2016 (NAVFAC MidAtlantic 2016; NMFS 2016b). Harp seals 

were not observed during marine 

mammal monitoring or survey events 

that took place in 2017 and 2018 

(Cianbro 2018a, b; NAVFAC MidAtlantic 2018, 2019b; Navy 2019). To 

date no harp seals have been sighted in 

2021 (Stantec 2021). 

Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) 

Since July 2018, elevated numbers of 

harbor seal and gray seal mortalities 

have occurred across Maine, New 

Hampshire and Massachusetts. This 

event was declared a UME, but it is now 

considered non-active and pending 

closing. Information on this UME is 

available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018- 

2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong. 

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 4. 

TABLE 4—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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11870 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS—Continued 

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Five marine 

mammal species (one cetacean and four 

pinniped (all phocid) species) have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the proposed survey activities. Please 

refer to Table 3. The only cetacean 

species that may be present, the harbor 

porpoise, is classified as a highfrequency cetacean. 

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 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks of a 

sound wave; lower frequency sounds 

have longer wavelengths than higher 

frequency sounds. Amplitude is the 

height of the sound pressure wave or the 

‘loudness’ of a sound and is typically 

measured using the dB scale. A dB is 

the ratio between a measured pressure 

(with sound) and a reference pressure 

(sound at a constant pressure, 

established by scientific standards). It is 

a logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, 

relatively small changes in dB ratings 

correspond to large changes in sound 

pressure. When referring to sound 

pressure levels (SPLs) (the sound force 

per unit area), sound is referenced in the 

context of underwater sound pressure to 

one microPascal (mPa). One pascal is the 

pressure resulting from a force of one 

newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. The source level (SL) 

represents the sound level at a distance 

of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 

mPa). The received level is the sound 

level at the listener’s position. Note that 

all underwater sound levels in this 

document are referenced to a pressure of 

1 mPa and all airborne sound levels in 

this document are referenced to a 

pressure of 20 mPa. 

Root mean square (RMS) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. RMS is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick 1983). RMS accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in all directions 

away from the source (similar to ripples 

on the surface of a pond), except in 

cases where the source is directional. 

The compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound 

(e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, 

construction). A number of sources 

contribute to ambient sound, including 

the following (Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient noise for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson 

1995). In general, ambient sound levels 

tend to increase with increasing wind 

speed and wave height. Surf noise 

becomes important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions; 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times; 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient noise 

levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The 

frequency band for biological 

contributions is from approximately 12 

Hz to over 100 kHz; and 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

noise related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels and 

aircraft), dredging and construction, oil 

and gas drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Shipping noise 

typically dominates the total ambient 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11871 

noise for frequencies between 20 and 

300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Sound from 

identifiable anthropogenic sources other 

than the activity of interest (e.g., a 

passing vessel) is sometimes termed 

background sound, as opposed to 

ambient sound. 

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. 

Description of Sounds Sources 

In-water construction activities 

associated with the project would 

include impact and vibratory pile 

installation and removal, rotary drilling, 

DTH, and rock hammering. The sounds 

produced by these activities fall into 

one of two general sound types: 

Impulsive and non-impulsive (defined 

below). 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). Please see Southall et al. 

(2007) for an in-depth discussion of 

these concepts. 

Impulsive sound sources (e.g., 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (American National 

Standards Institute standards (ANSI) 

1986; Harris 1998; National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) 1998; International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

2003; ANSI 2005) and occur either as 

isolated events or repeated in some 

succession. Impulsive sounds are all 

characterized by a relatively rapid rise 

from ambient pressure to a maximal 

pressure value followed by a rapid 

decay period that may include a period 

of diminishing, oscillating maximal and 

minimal pressures, and generally have 

an increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 

1995; NIOSH 1998). Some of these nonimpulsive sounds can be transient 

signals of short duration but without the 

essential properties of impulses (e.g., 

rapid rise time). Examples of nonimpulsive sounds include those 

produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery 

operations such as drilling or dredging, 

vibratory pile driving, and active sonar 

systems. The duration of such sounds, 

as received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

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 

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 nonimpulsive), 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11872 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

(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 

(Tursiops truncatus), 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 (e.g., 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 

(Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 

2012a) and harbor porpoises (Lucke et 

al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) 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. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012) and 

Finneran (2015). 

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 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11873 

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, we 

believe that incidents of take resulting 

solely from airborne sound are unlikely 

due to the sheltered proximity between 

the proposed project area and the 

haulout sites (on the opposite side of the 

island where activities are occuring). 

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. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

Water quality—Temporary and 

localized reduction in water quality will 

occur as a result of in-water 

construction activities. Most of this 

effect will occur during the installation 

of piles and bedrock removal when 

bottom sediments are disturbed. The 

installation of piles and bedrock 

removal an will disturb bottom 

sediments and may cause a temporary 

increase in suspended sediment in the 

project area. Using available information 

collected from a project in the Hudson 

River, pile driving activities are 

anticipated to produce total suspended 

sediment (TSS) concentrations of 

approximately 5.0 to 10.0 mg/L above 

background levels within approximately 

300 feet (91 meters) of the pile being 

driven (Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) 2012). During 

pile extraction, sediment attached to the 

pile moves vertically through the water 

column until gravitational forces cause 

it to slough off under its own weight. 

The small resulting sediment plume is 

expected to settle out of the water 

column within a few hours. Studies of 

the effects of turbid water on fish 

(marine mammal prey) suggest that 

concentrations of suspended sediment 

can reach thousands of milligrams per 

liter before an acute toxic reaction is 

expected (Burton 1993). The TSS levels 

expected for pile driving or removal (5.0 

to 10.0 mg/L) are below those shown to 

have adverse effects on fish (580.0 mg/ 

L for the most sensitive species, with 

1,000.0 mg/L more typical) and benthic 

communities (390.0 mg/L 

(Environmental Protection Agency 

1986)). 

Impacts to water quality from DTH 

mono-hammers are expected to be 

similar to those described for pile 

driving. Impacts to water quality would 

be localized and temporary and would 

have negligible impacts on marine 

mammal habitat. The cluster drill 

system and rotary drilling of shafts 

would have negligible impacts on water 

quality from sediment resuspension 

because the system would operate 

within a casing set into the bedrock. The 

cluster drill would collect excavated 

material inside of the apparatus where 

it would be lifted to the surface and 

placed onto a barge for subsequent 

disposal. 

Turbidity within the water column 

has the potential to reduce the level of 

oxygen in the water and irritate the gills 

of prey fish species in the proposed 

project area. However, turbidity plumes 

associated with the project would be 

temporary and localized, and fish in the 

proposed project area would be able to 

move away from and avoid the areas 

where plumes may occur. Therefore, it 

is expected that the impacts on prey fish 

species from turbidity, and therefore on 

marine mammals, would be minimal 

and temporary. 

Overall effects of turbidity and 

sedimentation are expected to be shortterm, minor, and localized. Currents are 

strong in the area and, therefore, 

suspended sediments in the water 

column should dissipate and quickly 

return to background levels. Following 

the completion of sediment-disturbing 

activities, the turbidity levels are 

expected to return to normal ambient 

levels following the end of construction. 

In general, the area likely impacted by 

the project is relatively small compared 

to the available habitat in Great Bay 

Estuary. 

Effects on Potential Prey—Sound may 

affect marine mammals through impacts 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11874 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

on the abundance, behavior, or 

distribution of prey species (e.g., 

crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton). Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location 

and, for some, is not well documented. 

Studies regarding the effects of noise on 

known marine mammal prey are 

described here. 

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). More 

commonly, though, the impacts of noise 

on fish are temporary. 

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 greatest potential impact to fish 

during construction would occur during 

impact pile driving, rock hammering, 

and DTH excavation (DTH monohammer and cluster drill). However, the 

duration of impact pile driving would 

be limited to the final stage of 

installation (‘‘proofing’’) after the pile 

has been driven as close as practicable 

to the design depth with a vibratory 

driver. Vibratory pile driving and rock 

hammering would possibly elicit 

behavioral reactions from fish such as 

temporary avoidance of the area but is 

unlikely to cause injuries to fish or have 

persistent effects on local fish 

populations. In addition, it should be 

noted that the area in question is lowquality habitat since it is already highly 

developed and experiences a high level 

of anthropogenic noise from normal 

shipyard operations and other vessel 

traffic. In general, impacts on marine 

mammal prey species are expected to be 

minor and temporary. 

In-Water Construction Effects on 

Potential Foraging Habitat 

The proposed activities would not 

result in permanent impacts to habitats 

used directly by marine mammals. 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 outside 

this project area. Construction may have 

temporary impacts on benthic 

invertebrate species, another marine 

mammal prey source. Direct benthic 

habitat loss would result with the 

permanent loss of approximately 3.5 

acres (14,164 square m) of benthic 

habitat from construction of the super 

flood basin. The water surface of Great 

Bay Estuary extends approximately 4.45 

square miles (124,000,000 sf) at low tide 

(Mills No date). Therefore, the loss of 

152,000 sf would represent 

approximately one-tenth of one percent 

of the benthic habitat in the estuary at 

low tide. However, the areas to be 

permanently removed are beneath and 

adjacent to the existing berths along the 

Shipyard’s industrial waterfront and are 

regularly disturbed as part of the 

construction dredging to maintain safe 

navigational depths at the berths. 

Further, vessel activity at the berths 

creates minor disturbances of benthic 

habitats (e.g., vessel propeller wakes) 

during waterfront operations. Therefore, 

impacts of the project are not likely to 

have adverse effects on marine mammal 

foraging habitat in the proposed project 

area. The impacts will be temporary and 

highly localized, and no habitat will be 

permanently impacted by construction. 

Therefore, it is expected that impacts on 

foraging opportunities for marine 

mammals due to the project would be 

minimal. 

The area impacted by the project is 

relatively small compared to the 

available habitat just outside the project 

area, 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); 

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, in the form of 

behavioral disturbance, masking, and 

potential TTS, with a smaller amount of 

Level A harassment in the form of PTS. 

As described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11875 

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) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (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 mPa (RMS) for continuous (e.g., 

vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (RMS) for 

impulsive and/or intermittent (e.g., 

impact pile driving, DTH) sources. The 

Navy’s construction includes the use of 

continuous and impulsive sources, and 

therefore the level of 120 and 160 dB re 

1 mPa (RMS) is applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise. The technical 

guidance identifies the received levels, 

or thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources, and 

reflects the best available science on the 

potential for noise to affect auditory 

sensitivity. The technical guidance does 

this by identifying threshholds in the 

follow manner: 

• Dividing sound sources into two 

groups (i.e., impulsive and nonimpulsive) based on their potential to 

affect hearing sensitivity; 

• Choosing metrics that best address 

the impacts of noise on hearing 

sensitivity, i.e., sound pressure level 

(peak SPL) and sound exposure level 

(SEL) (also accounting for duration of 

exposure); and 

• Dividing marine mammals into 

hearing groups and developing auditory 

weighting functions based on the 

science supporting the fact that not all 

marine mammals hear and use sound in 

the same manner. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and are provided in 

Table 5 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. 

As mentioned previously, the Navy’s 

modification and expansion of Dry Dock 

1 includes the use of impulsive (i.e., 

impact pile driving, DTH) and nonimpulsive (i.e., drilling, vibratory pile 

driving) sources. 

TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT FOR HIGH FREQUENCY CETEACEANS

AND PINNIPEDS

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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. 

* 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 (HF cetaceans and PW 

pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a 

multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

transmission loss coefficient. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11876 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

where 

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to 

be 15) 

R1 = the distance of the modeled SPL from 

the driven pile, and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions, including in-water 

structures and sediments. Spherical 

spreading occurs in a perfectly 

unobstructed (free-field) environment 

not limited by depth or water surface, 

resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound 

level for each doubling of distance from 

the source (20*log(range)). Cylindrical 

spreading occurs in an environment in 

which sound propagation is bounded by 

the water surface and sea bottom, 

resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound 

level for each doubling of distance from 

the source (10*log(range)). As is 

common practice in coastal waters, here 

we assume practical spreading (4.5 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance). Practical 

spreading is a compromise that is often 

used under conditions where water 

depth increases as the receiver moves 

away from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 

Practical spreading was used to 

determine sound propagation for this 

project. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. There are sound source level 

(SSL) measurements available for 

certain pile types and sizes from the 

similar environments from other Navy 

pile driving projects that were evaluated 

and used as proxy sound source levels 

to determine reasonable sound source 

levels likely to result from the pile 

driving and removal activities (Table 6). 

Some of the proxy source levels are 

expected to be more conservative, as the 

values are from larger pile sizes. 

Acoustic monitoring results and 

associated monitoring reports from past 

projects conducted at the shipyard and 

elsewhere were reviewed. Projects 

reviewed were those most similar to the 

specified activity in terms of drilling 

and rock hammering activities, type and 

size of piles installed, method of pile 

installation, and substrate conditions. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS (AT 10 M FROM SOURCE) 

Pile type Installation method Pile diameter Peak 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

RMS 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

SEL 

(dB re 1 μPa2 sec) 

Casing/Socket ........................... Rotary Drill ............................... 102-inch 1 ....... NA 154 m ..................... NA 

Shaft ......................................... DTH Cluster Drill ...................... 78-inch 2 ......... NA 195.2 (Level A) ......

167 dB (Level B) 

181 

Casing ....................................... DTH mono-hammer ................. 42-inch 1 ......... 194 167 ......................... 164 

Rock anchor ............................. DTH mono-hammer ................. 9-inch 1 ........... 172 167 ......................... 146 

Relief hole ................................. DTH mono-hammer ................. 4 to 6-inch 1 ... 170 167 ......................... 144 

Z-shaped Sheet ........................ Impact ...................................... 28-inch 3 ......... 211 196 ......................... 181 

Vibratory .................................. 28-inch 4 ......... NA 167 ......................... 167 

Flat sheet .................................. Vibratory .................................. 18-inch 5 ......... NA 163 ......................... 163 

Bedrock and concrete demolition.Rock Hammer 6 thnsp;7 ......... NA .................. 197 184 ......................... 175 

1Egger 2021a. 

2Egger 2021b. 

3A proxy value for impact pile driving 28-inch steel sheet piles could not be found so the proxy for a 30-inch steel pipe pile has been used 

(NAVFAC SW 2020 [p. A–4]). 4A proxy value for vibratory pile driving 28-inch steel sheet piles could not be found so a proxy for a 30-inch steel pipe pile has been used 

(Navy 2015 [p. 14]). 5 NMFS 2019 (p. 24484, Table 5). 

6 Reyff 2018a. 

7 Reyff 2018b. 

Notes: All SPLs are unattenuated; dB = decibels; NA = Not applicable; single strike SEL are the proxy sources levels presented for impact pile 

driving and were used to calculate distances to PTS. 

dB re 1 μPa = dB referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, measures underwater SPL. dB re 1 μPa2-sec = dB referenced to a pressure of 1 

microPascal squared per second, measures underwater SEL. 

All recordings were made at 10 meters unless noted otherwise. 

With regards to the proxy values 

summarized in Table 6, very little 

information is available regarding 

source levels for in-water rotary drilling 

activities. As a conservative measure 

and to be consistent with previously 

issued IHAs for similar projects in the 

region (Egger 2021a; Dazey 2012), a 

proxy of 154 dB RMS is proposed for all 

rotary drilling activities. 

Rock hammering is analyzed as an 

impulsive noise source. For purposes of 

this analysis, it is assumed that the 

hammer would have a maximum strike 

rate of 460 strikes per minute and would 

operate for a maximum duration of 15 

minutes before needing to reposition or 

stop to check progress. Therefore, noise 

impacts for rock hammering activities 

are assessed using the number of blows 

per 15-minute interval (6,900 blows) 

and the number of 15-minute intervals 

anticipated over the course of the day 

based on the durations provided in 

Table 2–1 and Table 6–5. As with rotary 

drilling, very little information is 

available regarding source levels 

associated with nearshore rock 

hammering. Measurements taken for 

this activity as part of the Tappan Zee 

Bridge replacement project recorded 

sound levels as follows: 

• 197 dBpk, 184 dB RMS, 175 dB SEL 

(Reyff 2108a, 2018b) 

Since no other comparable proxy 

values were identified in the literature, 

the Navy is proposing to use the same 

proxy values for rock hammering 

activities associated with P–381. 

The Navy consulted with NMFS to 

obtain the appropriate proxy values for 

DTH mono-hammers. With regards to 

DTH mono-hammers, NMFS provided 

proxy values of 170 dBpk, 167 RMS, 

and 144 dB single strike SEL for holes 

8-inches in diameter or less (Reyff 

2020); 172 dBpk, 167 RMS, and 146 dB 

single strike SEL for holes 8- to 18 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11877 

inches in diameter (Guan and Miner 

2020); and 194 dBpk, 167 RMS, and 164 

dB single strike SEL for holes 24- to 42- 

inches in diameter (Reyff 2020, Denes et 

al 2019 as cited in NMFS 2021a). For 

the 78-inch DTH cluster drill, NMFS 

provided an RMS value of 195.2 based 

off of regression and extrapolation 

calculations of existing data. Because of 

the high number of hammers and strikes 

for this system, cluster drills were 

treated as a continuous sound source for 

the time component of Level A 

harassment but still used the impulsive 

thresholds. The Level B harassment 

sound source level at 10 m remained at 

167 dB RMS (Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021 

as cited in NMFS 2021b). 

In conjunction with the NMFS 

Technical Guidance (2018), 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, NMFS 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 overestimation 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 

(such as from impact and vibratory pile 

driving), the NMFS User Spreadsheet 

(2020) predicts the closest distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet can be 

found in Appendix A of the Navy’s 

application and the resulting isopleths 

are reported below (Tables 7 and 8). 

Calculated distances to Level A 

harassment (PTS Onset) and Level B 

harassment thresholds are large, 

especially for DTH and rock hammering 

activities. However, the full distance of 

sound propagation would not be 

reached due to the presence of land 

masses and anthropogenic structures 

that would prevent the noise from 

reaching nearly the full extent of the 

larger harassment isopleths. Refer to 

Figure 2 for the region of influence, 

which illustrates that the land masses 

preclude the sound from traveling more 

than approximately 870 m (3,000 ft) 

from the source, at most. 

Maximum distances are provided for 

the behavioral thresholds for in-water 

construction activities. Areas 

encompassed within the threshold 

(harassment zones) were calculated by 

using a Geographical Information 

System to clip the maximum calculated 

distances to the extent of the region of 

influence (ROI) (refer to Figure 2 for the 

ROI). 

Table 7 summarizes the calculated 

maximum distances corresponding to 

the underwater marine mammal 

harassment zones from impulsive 

(impact pile driving, rock hammering, 

DTH) and Table 8 for non-impulsive 

noise (vibratory pile driving, rotary 

drilling, etc.) and the area of the 

harassment zone within the ROI. The 

distances do not take the land masses 

into consideration, but the ensonified 

areas do. Neither consider the reduction 

that will be achieved by the required 

use of a bubble curtain and therefore all 

take estimates are considered 

conservative. Refer to Figures 6–9 

through 6–11 of the application for the 

calculated maximum distances 

corresponding to the underwater marine 

mammal harassment zones from 

impulsive (impact pile driving, rock 

hammering, DTH) and non-impulsive 

noise (vibratory pile driving, rotary 

drilling) and the corresponding area of 

the harassment zone within the ROI. 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCE AND AREAS OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR IMPULSIVE NOISE

[DTH, impact pile driving, hydraulic rock hammering] 

Activity Purpose Count and size/ 

duration 

Total 

production 

days 

Level A harassment 

(PTS onset) * 

Level B harassment * 

High frequency 

cetaceans 

(harbor porpoise) 

Phocid pinnipeds 

Harbor porpoise and 

phocids 

DTH Cluster Drill ........ Foundation Support Piles for 

Center Wall.

38, 78-inch shafts .... 247 84,380.4 m/0.417 

km2.

37,909.7 m/0.417 

km2.

13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Cluster Drill ........ Foundation Leveling Piles for 

Center Wall.

18, 78-inch shafts .... 117 84,380.4 m/0.417 

km2.

37,909.7 m/0.417 

km2.

13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Cluster Drill ........ Center Wall—Access Support 

Platform.

38, 78-inch shafts .... 133 84,380.4 m/0.417 

km2.

37,909.7 m/0.417 

km2.

13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Center Wall—Temporary 

Launching Piles.

6, 42-inch shafts ...... 6 3,880.3 m/0.417 km2 1,743.3 m/0417km2 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Center Wall Tie-Downs ............ 36, 9-inch holes ....... 18 244.8 m/0.074 km2 .. 110 m/0.0229 km2 ... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Center Wall—Access Platform 

Tie-Downs.

18, 9-inch holes ....... 9 244.8 m/0.0741 km2 110 m/0.0229 km2 ... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

Impact Pile Driving ..... West Closure Wall Tie-In to Existing Wall.16, ** 28-inch Zshaped sheets.** 4 988.2 m/0.4034 km2 444.0 m/0.2012 km2 2,512 m/0.417 km2. 

Impact Pile Driving ..... Berth 11 End Wall Secant Pile 

Guide Wall.

60, 28-inch Zshaped sheets.7 1,568.6 m/0.417 km2 704.7 m/0.365 km2 .. 2,512 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Relief Holes Under West Closure Cell.500, 4–6 inch holes 20 180.1 m/0.0481 km2 80.9 m/0.015 km2 .... 13,594 m/0. 417 

km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Mechanical Rock Removal 

Along Face of Existing Abutment.

46, 42-inch casing 

advancements.

24 3,880.3 m/0.417 km2 1,743.3 m/0.417 km2 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Install Piles for Dry Dock 1 

North Entrance Abutment.

28, 42-inch shafts .... 28 3,880.3 m/0.417 km2 1,743.3 m/0.417 km2 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Relief Holes Under West Closure Cell.2,201, ** 4–6 inch 

holes.

** 82 180.1 m/0.0481km2 80.9 m/0.015 km2 .... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Mechanical Rock Removal 

Along Face of Existing Abutment.

365, 42-inch casing 

advancements.

183 3,880.3 m/0.417 km2 1,743.3 m/0.417 km2 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer .... Dry Dock 1 Entrance Tremie 

Tie Downs.

100, 9-inch holes ..... 52 132.9 m/0.0303 km2 59.7 m/0.009km2 ..... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11878 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED DISTANCE AND AREAS OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR IMPULSIVE NOISE— 

Continued 

[DTH, impact pile driving, hydraulic rock hammering] 

Activity Purpose Count and size/ 

duration 

Total 

production 

days 

Level A harassment 

(PTS onset) * 

Level B harassment * 

High frequency 

cetaceans 

(harbor porpoise) 

Phocid pinnipeds 

Harbor porpoise and 

phocids 

Impact Pile Driving ..... Install Sheet Piles for Dry Dock 

1 North Entrance and Temporary Cofferdam.

96, 28-inch Zshaped sheets.12 1,568.6 m/0.417 km2 704.7 m/0.365km2 ... 2,512 m/0.417 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.Removal of Sheetpile and 

Granite Quay Wall (610 cy).

2.5 hours ................. ** 10 5,860.0 m/0.417 km2 2,633 m/0.4174km2 398 m/0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.Mechanical Rock Removal 

(985 cy) Under West Closure 

Cell.

9 hours .................... 77 13,766 m/0.417 km2 6,184.7 m/0.417 km2 398 m/0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.Shutter Panel Demolition ......... 5 hours .................... ** 56 9,303.1 m/0.417 km2 4,179.6 m/0.417 km2 398 m/0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.Mechanical Rock Removal 

(3,500 cy) Along Face of Existing Berth 11 at Basin Floor.

12 hours .................. ** 100 16,676.3 m/0.417 

km2.

7,492.2 m/0.417 km2 398 m/0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.P–310 Sheet Pile Removal— 

Berth 1.

12, 25-inch Zshaped sheets, 6 

hours.

** 3 10,505.4 m/0.417 

km2.

4,719.8 m/0.417 km2 398 m/0.1652 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer.Berth 1 Top of Wall Demolition 

for Waler Install.

10 hours .................. ** 6 14,767.7 m/0.417 

km2.

6,634.7 m/0.417 km2 398 m/0.165km2. 

Source: Kiewit 2021. 

Notes: 

* To determine underwater harassment zones, ensonified areas from the source were clipped along the shoreline using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). 

** These activities will continue into the following construction years and the remaining construction days and activities will be included in a subsequent LOA. The 

construction days and activities represented in this table account ONLY for year 1 activities. 

lf = linear feet; N/A = Not Applicable. 

Proxy sources used were unattenuated SPLs. 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED DISTANCE AND AREAS OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR NON-IMPULSIVE NOISE

[Vibratory pile driving, rotary drilling] 

Activity Purpose Count and size 

Total 

production 

days 

Level A harassment 

(PTS onset) 

Level B harassment 

High frequency 

cetaceans harbor 

porpoise 

Phocid pinnipeds 

Harbor porpoise and 

phocids 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Foundation Pile— 

Install Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 2.1 m/0.000014 km2 1.3 m/0.000005 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Foundation Pile— 

Pre-Drill Socket.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 8.9 m/0.000248 km2 5.4 m/0.000091 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Foundation Pile— 

Remove Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 0.8 m/0.000002 km2 0.5 m/0.000001 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Leveling Piles—Install Outer Casing.18, 102-inch Borings 18 2.1 m/0.000014 km2 1.3 m/0.000005 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Leveling Piles— 

Pre-Drill Socket.

18, 102-inch Borings 18 8.9 m/0.000248 km2 5.4 m/0.000091 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Leveling Piles— 

Remove Outer Casing.

18, 102-inch Borings 18 0.8 m/0.000002 km2 0.5 m/0.000001 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Access Platform 

Support—Install Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 2.1 m/0.000014 km2 1.3 m/0.000005 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Access Platform 

Support—Pre-Drill Socket.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 8.9 m/0.000248 km2 5.4 m/0.000091 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Rotary Drill .................. Center Wall Access Platform 

Support —Remove Outer 

Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings 38 0.8 m/0.000002 km2 0.5 m/0.000001 km2 1,848 m/0.417 km2. 

Vibratory Pile Driving .. Tie-In to Existing West Closure 

Wall.

16, ** 28-inch ZShaped Sheets.** 4 12.2 m/0.000454 

km2.

5.0 m/0.000078 km2 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

Vibratory Pile Driving .. Berth 11 End Wall Secant Pile 

Guide Wall.

60, 28-inch ZShaped Sheets.7 19.4 m/0.001041 

km2.

8.0 m/0.0002 km2 .... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

Vibratory Extraction .... Remove P–310 West Closure 

Wall.

238, 18-inch Flat 

Sheets.

60 6.6 m/0.000136 km2 2.7 m/0.000023 km2 7,356 m/0.417 km2. 

Vibratory Pile Driving .. Install Sheet Piles for Dry Dock 

1 North Entrance and Temporary Cofferdam.

96, 28-inch ZShaped Sheets.12 19.4 m/0.001041 

km2.

8.0 m/0.0002 km2 .... 13,594 m/0.417 km2. 

** These activities will continue into the following construction years and the remaining construction days and activities will be included in a subsequent LOA. The 

construction days and activities represented in this table account ONLY for year 1 activities. 

lf = linear feet; N/A = Not Applicable. 

Proxy sources used were unattenuated SPLs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11879 

Concurrent Activities 

Simultaneous use of pile drivers, 

hammers, and drills could result in 

increased SPLs and harassment zone 

sizes given the proximity of the 

component sites and the rules of decibel 

addition (see Table 9 below). Due to the 

relatively small size of the ROI, the use 

of a single DTH cluster drill or rock 

hammer would ensonify the entire ROI 

to the Level A harassment thresholds 

(PTS Onset) (refer to Table 7). Therefore, 

when this equipment is operated in 

conjunction with other noise generating 

equipment, there would be no change in 

the size of the harassment zone. The 

entire ROI would remain ensonified to 

the Level A harassment thresholds for 

the duration of the activity and there 

would be no Level B harassment zone. 

However, when DTH cluster drills or 

rock hammers are not in use, increased 

SPLs and harassment zone sizes within 

the ROI could result. Due to the large 

amount of bedrock excavation required 

for the construction of the 

multifunctional expansion of Dry Dock 

1, the only scenario identified in which 

DTH cluster drills and/or rock hammers 

would not be in operation would be at 

the beginning of the project when two 

rotary drills could be used 

simultaneously (refer to Table 2). 

According to recent, project specific, 

guidance provided by NMFS to the 

Navy, when two noise sources have 

overlapping sound fields, there is 

potential for higher sound levels than 

for non-overlapping sources because the 

isopleth of one sound source 

encompasses the sound source of 

another isopleth. In such instances, the 

sources are considered additive and 

combined using the rules of decibel 

addition, presented in Table 9 below. 

TABLE 9—ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL CRITERION

Source types 

Difference in 

sound level 

(at specified 

meters) 

Adjustments to specifications for Level A harassment RMS/ 

SELss* calculations 

Non-impulsive, continuous/Non-impulsive, continuous OR Impulsive source (multiple strikes per second)/Impulsive 

source (multiple strikes per second.

0 or 1 dB .......... Add 3 dB to the highest sound level (at specified meters) 

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

2 or 3 dB .......... Add 2 dB to the highest sound level (at specified meters) 

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

4 to 9 dB ........... Add 1 dB to the highest sound level (at specified meters) 

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

10 dB or more Add 0 dB to the highest sound level (at specified meters) 

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

* RMS level for vibratory pile driving/rotary hammer and single strike SEL (SELss) level for DTH/rock hammer. 

For simultaneous usage of three or 

more continuous sound sources, the 

three overlapping sources with the 

highest sound source levels are 

identified. Of the three highest sound 

source levels, the lower two are 

combined using the above rules, then 

the combination of the lower two is 

combined with the highest of the three. 

For example, with overlapping isopleths 

from 24-, 36-, and 42-inch diameter steel 

pipe piles with sound source levels of 

161, 167, and 168 dB RMS respectively, 

the 24- and 36-inch would be added 

together; given that 167¥161 = 6 dB, 

then 1 dB is added to the highest of the 

two sound source levels (167 dB), for a 

combined noise level of 168 dB. Next, 

the newly calculated 168 dB is added to 

the 42-inch steel pile with sound source 

levels of 168 dB. Since 168¥168 = 0 dB, 

3 dB is added to the highest value, or 

171 dB in total for the combination of 

24-, 36-, and 42-inch steel pipe piles 

(NMFS, 2021 unpublished). By using 

this method, a revised proxy source for 

Level A and Level B analysis was 

determined for the use of two, 102-inch 

diameter rotary drills. The revised proxy 

value is presented in Table 10 and the 

resulting harassment zones are 

summarized in Table 11 (depicted in 

Figure 6–13 in the Navy’s application). 

TABLE 10—REVISED PROXY VALUES FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF NON-IMPULSIVE SOURCES

Equipment Rotary drill 

RMS 154 

Rotary Drill ................................................................................................................................................... 154 157 

TABLE 11—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES RESULTING FROM THE SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO, 102-in 

DIAMETER ROTARY DRILL

Multiple source 

scenario 

Level A harassment 

(PTS Onset) 

Level B harassment 

Harbor porpoise distance to 155 

dB SELcum threshold/area of harassment zone 

Phocids distance to 185 dB 

SELcum threshold/area of harassment zone 

Harbor porpoise and phocids distance to 120 dB (DTH) threshold/ 

area of harassment zone 

2 Rotary Drills ................................ 23.6 m/0.002 km2 ......................... 9.7 m/0.0002 km2 ......................... 2,929 m/0.417 km2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11880 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Potential exposures to impact pile and 

vibratory pile driving, rotary drilling, 

DTH, and rock hammering noise for 

each acoustic threshold were estimated 

using marine mammal density estimates 

(N) from the Navy Marine Species 

Density Database (NMSDD) (Navy 2017) 

or from monitoring reports from the 

Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements and 

P–310 construction projects. 

Specifically, where monitoring data 

specific to the project area were 

available, they were used, and the 

NMSDD data were used when there 

were no monitoring data available. The 

take estimate was determined using the 

following equation take estimate = N * 

days of activity * area of harassment. 

The pile type, size, and installation 

method that produce the largest zone of 

influence (ZOI) were used to estimate 

exposure of marine mammals to noise 

impacts. We describe how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate in the species sections below. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises may be present in 

the proposed project area during spring, 

summer, and fall, from April to 

December. Based on density data from 

the Navy Marine Species Density 

Database, their presence is highest in 

spring, decreases in summer, and 

slightly increases in fall. During 

previous monitoring of construction 

projects in the area, three harbor 

porpoise were sighted between April 

and December of 2017; two harbor 

porpoise were sighted in early August of 

2018; and one harbor porpoise was 

sighted in 2020 (Cianbro 2018a, b; Navy 

2019; NAVFAC 2021). Using the 2017 

and 2018 data from construction 

monitoring for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements project, the density of 

harbor porpoise for the largest 

harassment zone was determined to be 

0.04/km2. 

Estimated take was calculated by 

density * harassment zone * days for 

each activity (see Table 12). Note that 

where the Level A harassment zone is 

as large as the Level B harassment zone 

and fills the entire ensonified area, the 

enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. 

TABLE 12—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT OF HARBOR PORPOISE BY PROJECT

ACTIVITY

Project activity Density 

Level A 

harassment zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment zone 

(km2) 

Take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78- 

inch diameter casing ..................................................................................... 0.04 0.417 247 4 0.417 0 

Center Wall—Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch diameter socket ...................................................................... 0.04 0.417 117 2 0.417 0 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster Drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch outer casing ............................................................................ 0.04 0.417 133 2 0.417 0 

Mechanical Rock Excavation, Hydraulic rock hammering (985 cy) ................. 0.04 0.417 77 1 0.165 0 

Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, Demolish shutter panels, Hydraulic 

rock hammering ............................................................................................. 0.04 0.417 56 1 0.165 0 

Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Excavate Bedrock, Hydraulic rock 

hammering ..................................................................................................... 0.04 0.417 100 2 0.165 0 

Mechanical Rock at Abutment: Drill 365 rock borings (1,220 cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH .............................................................. 0.04 0.417 183 3 0.417 0 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Install) 102- 

inch diameter outer casing ............................................................................ 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Pre-drill) 102- 

inch diameter socket, .................................................................................... 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Remove) 

102-inch outer casing .................................................................................... 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Install) 

102-inch diameter outer casing ..................................................................... 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Predrill) 102-inch diameter socket ...................................................................... 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill (Remove) 102-inch outer casing, ........................................................................ 0.04 0.0000002 38 0 0.417 1

Remove Wall: 238 sheet piles, 18-inch wide flatwebbed, Vibratory Extraction 0.04 0.000136 60 0 0.417 1 

Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Drill 2,201 relief holes, 4–6 holes, 

Mono-hammer DTH, ...................................................................................... 0.04 0.048109 82 0 0.417 1 

Drill Tremie Ties Downs: Drill 100 rock anchors, 9-inch holes, Mono-hammer 

DTH ............................................................................................................... 0.04 0.0303 52 0 0.417 1 

Total Estimated Take ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... 15 .................... 9 

In summary, we estimate that up to 15 

takes in the form of Level A harassment 

and/or Level B harassment could occur 

during DTH excavation (DTH monohammer and cluster drill), impact pile 

driving, and rock hammering activities. 

In addition, DTH mono-hammer 

excavation could result in 2 takes by 

Level B harassment and vibratory 

installing/extracting and rotary drilling 

activities could result in 7 takes by 

Level B harassment (Table 12). 

Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals may be present yearround in the project vicinity, with 

constant densities throughout the year. 

Harbor seals are the most common 

pinniped in the Piscataqua River near 

the Shipyard. Harbor seal sightings were 

recorded during monthly surveys 

conducted in 2017 and 2018 (NAVFAC 

Mid-Atlantic 2018, 2019b) as well as 

during Berth 11 and P–310 construction 

monitoring in 2017, 2018, 2020 and 

2021 (Cianbro 2018a, b; Navy 2019; 

Stantec 2020, Stantec 2021). Estimated 

take by Level B harassment has been 

calculated by multiplying the average 

number of harbor seals sighted per day 

from May 2020 through October 2021 by 

the number of actual in-water 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11881 

construction days (375 days (159 during 

P–310 year 1 and 216 during P–310 year 

2). Over the course of this time period, 

there have been 1,023 harbor seal 

observations equating to equating to 3 

harbor seal sightings per day. Initially, 

takes were calculated for Level A and 

Level B harassment for harbor seals 

where the density of animals (2.48 

harbor seals/km2, rounded to 3) was 

multiplied by the harassment zone and 

the number of days per construction 

activity. However, using that method 

produced take numbers for Level B 

harassment that were lower than the 

number of harbor seals that has been 

previously observed in the Navy’s 

monitoring reports. Therefore, NMFS is 

proposing (and the Navy agrees), to 

increase the take by Level B harassment 

to more accurately reflect harbor seal 

observations in the monitoring reports, 

by using the value of three harbor seals 

a day multiplied by the total number of 

construction days resulting in 1,125 

takes by Level B harassment proposed 

for authorization. Take by Level A 

harassment of 1,269 harbor seals is 

shown in Table 13 below. Note that 

where the Level A harassment zone is 

as large as the Level B harassment zone 

and fills the entire ensonified area, the 

enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. The proposed takes by 

Level B harassment were not included 

in Table 13 as they were calculated by 

a different method. 

TABLE 13—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT OF HARBOR SEAL BY PROJECT ACTIVITY

Project activity Harbor seals 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by Level 

A harassment 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 

78-inch diameter casing ............................................................................... 3 0.417 247 309 

Center Wall—Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch diameter socket ..................................................................... 3 0.417 117 146 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster Drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch outer casing ........................................................................... 3 0.417 133 166 

Center Wall—Temp Launching Piles: 6 drilled shafts: 42-inch diameter 

shaft, Mono-hammer DTH ........................................................................... 3 0.417 6 8 

Center Wall Tie Downs: 36 Rock Anchors (Install): 9-inch diameter holes, 

Mono-hammer DTH ...................................................................................... 3 0.023 18 1 

Center Wall—Access Platform Tie Downs: 18 Rock Anchors (Install): 9-inch 

diameter holes, Mono-hammer DTH ............................................................ 3 0.023 9 1 

Center Wall-Install Tie-In to Existing West Closure Wall: 16 sheet piles: 28- 

inch wide Z-shaped sheets—IMPACT Install .............................................. 3 0.201 4 2 

Berth 11 End Wall—Install Secant Pile Guide Wall: 60 sheets piles: 28-inch 

wide Z-shaped sheets—IMPACT Install ...................................................... 3 0.417 7 8 

Berth 1—Remove Granite Block Quay Wall: 610 cy, Granite block demo, 

Hydraulic Rock hammering .......................................................................... 3 0.417 10 13 

P310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation: 985 cy, Excavated 

bedrock, Hydraulic rock hammering ............................................................ 3 0.417 77 96 

P310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation: Drill 500 relief 

holes, 4–6 inch holes, Mono-hammer DTH ................................................. 3 0.015 20 1 

P310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation: Drill 46 rock borings (50 cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH ........................ 3 0.417 24 30 

West Closure well—Berth 11 Abutment- Install Piles: Drill 28 shafts, 42-inch 

diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH .......................................................... 3 0.417 28 35 

Berth 11—Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, Demolish shutter panels, 

Hydraulic rock hammering ........................................................................... 3 0.417 56 70 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: 3,500 cy, Excavate Bedrock, Hydraulic rock hammering .................................................... 3 0.417 100 125 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Drill 2,201 relief 

holes, 4–6 holes, Mono-hammer DTH ......................................................... 3 0.015 82 4 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock at Abutment: Drill 365 rock borings 

(1,220 cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH .......................... 3 0.417 183 229 

Dry Dock 1 North Entrances—Install Temporary Cofferdam: Install 96 sheet 

piles, 28-inch wide Z-shaped sheets, IMPACT Install ................................. 3 0.365 12 13 

Berth 1—Remove sheet piles: Remove 12 sheet piles, 25-inch wide Zshaped sheets, Hydraulic rock hammering .................................................. 3 0.417 3 4 

Berth 1 Top of Wall—Demolition for Waler Installation: 30 lf, Mechanical 

concrete demolition, Hydraulic rock hammering .......................................... 3 0.417 6 8 

Total Estimated Take ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,269 

Gray Seal 

Gray seals may be present year-round 

in the project vicinity, with constant 

densities throughout the year. Gray seals 

are less common in the Piscataqua River 

than the harbor seal. Sightings of gray 

seals were recorded during P–310 

construction monitoring in 2020 and 

2021 (Stantec 2020; Stantec 2021). 

Estimated take by Level B harassment 

has been calculated by multiplying the 

average number of gray seal 

observations per day from May 2020 

through October 2021 (47 during year 1 

P–310 monitoring and 9 during year 2 

P–310 monitoring (to date)) over the 

course of 337 monitoring days (Stantec 

2020; 2021). Over the course of this time 

period, there have been 56 gray seal 

observations equating to equating to 0.2 

gray seal sightings per day. Initially, 

takes were calculated for Level A and 

Level B harassment for gray seals where 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11882 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

the density was multiplied by the 

harassment zone and the number of 

days per construction activity. However, 

using that method produced take 

numbers for Level B harassment that 

were fewer than the number of gray 

seals that has been previously observed 

in the Navy’s monitoring reports. 

Therefore, NMFS is proposing (and the 

Navy agrees), to increase the take by 

Level B harassment to more accurately 

reflect gray seal observations in the 

monitoring reports, by using the value 

of 0.2 gray seals multiplied by the total 

number of construction days resulting 

in 75 takes by Level B harassment 

proposed for authorization. Initially 

takes were calculated for Level A and 

Level B harassment for gray seals in a 

similar manner where takes were 

determined by individual activity. 

However, NMFS is proposing (and Navy 

agrees) to increase the take by Level B 

harassment by using the value of 0.2 

gray seals which were then multiplied 

by the number of total construction days 

resulting in 75 takes by Level B 

harassment proposed for authorization. 

Take by Level A harassment of 85 gray 

seals is shown in Table 14 below. Note 

that where the Level A harassment zone 

is as large as the Level B harassment 

zone and fills the entire ensonified area, 

the enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. The proposed takes by 

Level B harassment were not included 

in Table 14 as they were calculated by 

a different method. 

TABLE 14—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT OF GRAY SEAL BY PROJECT ACTIVITY

Project activity Gray seal 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by Level 

A harassment 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 

78-inch diameter casing ............................................................................... 0.2 0.417 247 21 

Center Wall—Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch diameter socket ..................................................................... 0.2 0.417 117 10 

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster Drill DTH 

(Drill) 78-inch outer casing ........................................................................... 0.2 0.417 133 11 

Center Wall—Temp Launching Piles: 6 drilled shafts: 42-inch diameter 

shaft, Mono-hammer DTH ........................................................................... 0.2 0.417 6 1 

Berth 11 End Wall—Install Secant Pile Guide Wall: 60 sheets piles: 28-inch 

wide Z-shaped sheets—IMPACT Install ...................................................... 0.2 0.417 7 1 

Berth 1—Remove Granite Block Quay Wall: 610 cy, Granite block demo, 

Hydraulic Rock hammering .......................................................................... 0.2 0.417 10 1 

P310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation: 985 cy, Excavated 

bedrock, Hydraulic rock hammering ............................................................ 0.2 0.417 77 6 

P310 West Closure Wall—Mechanical Rock Excavation: Drill 19 rock borings (50 cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH ........................ 0.2 0.417 24 2 

West Closure well—Berth 11 Abutment- Install Piles: Drill 28 shafts, 42-inch 

diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH .......................................................... 0.2 0.417 28 2 

Berth 11—Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, Demolish shutter panels, 

Hydraulic rock hammering ........................................................................... 0.2 0.417 56 5 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: 1,020 cy, Excavate Bedrock, Hydraulic rock hammering .................................................... 0.2 0.417 3 8 

Berth 11 Face—Mechanical Rock at Abutment: Drill 192 rock borings (610 

cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH ...................................... 0.2 0.417 24 15 

Dry Dock 1 North Entrances—Install Temporary Cofferdam: Install 96 sheet 

piles, 28-inch wide Z-shaped sheets, IMPACT Install ................................. 0.2 0.365 12 1 

Berth 1 Top of Wall—Demolition for Waler Installation: 30 lf, Mechanical 

concrete demolition, Hydraulic rock hammering .......................................... 0.2 0.417 6 1 

Total Estimated Take ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 85 

Hooded Seal 

Hooded seals may be present in the 

project vicinity from January through 

May, though their exact seasonal 

densities are unknown. In general, 

hooded seals are much rarer than the 

harbor seal and gray seal in the 

Piscataqua River. One take per month 

from January to May from Level B 

harassment of a hooded seal for the 

Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements 

Construction project (NMFS 2018b) and 

for Year 1 construction activities for Dry 

Dock 1 (NMFS, 2019) was previously 

authorized. To date, the monitoring for 

that project and for the density surveys 

have not recorded a sighting of hooded 

seal in the project area (Cianbro 2018a, 

b; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 2019b; 

Navy 2019; Stantec 2020; Stantec 2021). 

In order to guard against unauthorized 

take, the Navy is requesting and NMFS 

is proposing one take by Level B 

harassment of hooded seal per month 

(between the months of January and 

May) resulting in five total takes of 

Level B harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. 

Harp Seal 

Harp seals may be present in the 

project vicinity January through May. In 

general, harp seals are much rarer than 

the harbor seal and gray seal in the 

Piscataqua River. As discussed above for 

hooded seals, one take by Level B 

harassment during each month of 

construction for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements Project (NMFS 2018b) 

and for year 1 construction activities for 

Dry Dock 1 (NMFS, 2019) was 

previously authorized. The monitoring 

for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements Construction and P–310 

projects did not record any sightings of 

harp seal in the project area (Cianbro 

2018a, b; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 

2019b; Navy 2019; Stantec 2020; Stantec 

2021). However, it should be noted that 

two harp seals (one on 5/12/2020 and 

one on 5/14/2020) were observed when 

pile driving activities were not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11883 

occurring (Stantec 2020). In order to 

guard against unauthorized take, the 

Navy is requesting and NMFS is 

proposing one take by Level B 

harassment of harp seal per month 

(between the months of January and 

May) resulting in five total takes of 

Level B harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or proposed 

for authorization. 

Table 15 below summarizes the 

authorized take for all the species 

described above as a percentage of stock 

abundance. 

TABLE 15—PROPOSED TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock (NEST) 

Proposed 

Level A 

harassment 

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

Percent of stock 

Harbor porpoise ...................................... Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy (95,543) .... 15 9 Less than 1 percent. 

Harbor seal ............................................. Western North Atlantic (61,336) ............ 1,269 1,125 Less than 3 percent. 

Gray seal ................................................ Western North Atlantic (451,600) .......... 85 75 Less than 1 percent. 

Hooded seal ........................................... Western North Atlantic (593,500) .......... 0 5 Less than 1 percent. 

Harp seal ................................................ Western North Atlantic (7.6 million) ....... 0 5 Less than 1 percent. 

Proposed Mitigation 

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, 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, we 

carefully consider two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

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. 

General 

The Navy shall follow mitigation 

procedures as described below. In 

general, if poor environmental 

conditions restrict full visibility of the 

shutdown zone, pile driving activities 

would be delayed. 

Training 

The Navy shall ensure that 

construction supervisors and crews, the 

monitoring team, and relevant Navy 

staff are trained and prior to the start of 

construction activity, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project shall be trained prior 

to commencing work. 

Avoiding Direct Physical Interaction 

The Navy shall avoid direct physical 

interaction with marine mammals 

during construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations shall cease and 

vessels will reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. 

Shutdown Zones 

The Navy will establish shutdown 

zones for all pile driving 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 16). 

TABLE 16—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONE AND MONITORING ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

P–381 Year 1 activity description 

Shutdown zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 1

monitoring zone 

Harbor porpoise Phocids (m) 

78-inch cluster drill ........................................................................................................... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

DTH monohammer—42-inch ........................................................................................... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

DTH monohammer—9-inch Center wall tie downs ......................................................... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

DTH monohammer—9-inch tremie tie-downs ................................................................. 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

DTH monohammer—4–6-inch (500) ............................................................................... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

Impact install of sheet piles (16) West Closure Wall Tie-in ............................................ 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

Impact install of sheet piles (60) Secant pile guide wall; (96) temporary coffer dam .... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11884 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 16—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONE AND MONITORING ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES—Continued 

P–381 Year 1 activity description 

Shutdown zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 1

monitoring zone 

Harbor porpoise Phocids (m) 

Rock hammering—all durations ...................................................................................... 2 200 2 50 ROI. 

Rotary drilling—Install 102-inch casing ........................................................................... 10 10 ROI. 

Rotary drilling—Predrill 102-inch socket ......................................................................... 10 10 ROI. 

Rotary drilling—Remove 102-inch casing ....................................................................... 10 10 ROI. 

Vibratory pile driving (16) 28-inch sheets ........................................................................ 20 10 ROI. 

Vibratory pile driving (60) and (96) 28-inch sheets ......................................................... 20 10 ROI. 

Vibratory extraction (238) 28-inch sheets ....................................................................... 10 10 ROI. 

Notes: 

1 In instances where the harassment zone is larger than the ROI, the entire ROI is indicated as the limit of monitoring. 

2 Reduced Monitoring area distance negotiated with NMFS. 

Key: ROI—region of influence. 

Soft Start 

The Navy shall use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors 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 

would occur. A soft start will be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. Soft start is not required during 

vibratory pile driving activities. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain shall be installed 

across any openings at the entrance of 

super flood basin to attenuate sound for 

the sound sources that encompass the 

entire ROI. The Navy will record 

hydroacoustic measurements inside and 

outside of the bubble curtain. Should 

the results of the recordings inside the 

bubble curtain show that thresholds are 

not being exceeded by the activity 

occurring, that upon review of the data 

by NMFS, Navy may discontinue use of 

the bubble curtain for those activities 

that are not actually exceeding 

thresholds. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the 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. 

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 action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as for 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: 

D Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

D 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); 

D Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

D How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

D Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

D Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The Navy shall submit a Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan to NMFS for 

approval in advance of the start of 

construction. 

Monitoring Zones 

The Navy shall conduct monitoring to 

include the area within the Level B 

harassment zones (areas where SPLs are 

equal to or exceed the 160 dB RMS 

threshold for impact driving and the 120 

dB RMS threshold during vibratory pile 

driving) (see Table 16 above). These 

monitoring zones provide utility for 

monitoring conducted for mitigation 

purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 

monitoring) by establishing monitoring 

protocols for areas adjacent to the 

shutdown zones. Monitoring of the 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area, but outside the shutdown 

zone, and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring shall take place from 30 

minutes (min) prior to initiation of pile 

driving activity (i.e., pre-start clearance 

monitoring) through 30 min postcompletion of pile driving activity. If a 

marine mammal is observed entering or 

within the shutdown zones, pile driving 

shall be delayed or halted. If pile 

driving is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zone or 15 min 

have passed without re-detection of the 

animal. Pile driving activity shall 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11885 

met, entering or within the disturbance 

zone. 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

Monitoring Requirements and Locations 

PSOs shall be responsible for 

monitoring, the shutdown zones, the 

disturbance zones and the pre-clearance 

zones, as well as effectively 

documenting Level A and B harassment 

take. As described in more detail in the 

Reporting section below, they shall also 

(1) document the frequency at which 

marine mammals are present in the 

project area, (2) document behavior and 

group composition, (3) record all 

construction activities, and (4) 

document observed reactions (changes 

in behavior or movement) of marine 

mammals during each sighting. The 

PSOs shall monitor for marine mammals 

during all in-water pile activities 

associated with the project. The Navy 

shall monitor the project area to the 

extent possible based on the required 

number of PSOs, required monitoring 

locations, and environmental 

conditions. Visual monitoring shall be 

conducted by three PSOs. It is assumed 

that three PSOs shall be located on 

boats, docks, or piers sufficient to 

monitor the respective ROIs given the 

abundance of suitable vantage points 

(see Figure 11–1 of the application). The 

PSOs must record all observations of 

marine mammals, regardless of distance 

from the pile being driven. 

In addition, PSOs shall work in shifts 

lasting no longer than 4 hrs with at least 

a 1-hr break between shifts and will not 

perform duties as a PSO for more than 

12 hrs in a 24-hr period (to reduce PSO 

fatigue). 

Monitoring of pile driving shall be 

conducted by qualified, PSOs. The Navy 

shall adhere to the following conditions 

when selecting PSOs: 

D PSOs must be independent (i.e., not 

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods; 

D At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activities 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

D Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field), or 

training; 

D Where a team of three PSOs are 

required, a lead observer or monitoring 

coordinator shall be designated. The 

lead observer must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; and 

D PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 

this rule. 

The Navy will ensure that the PSOs 

have the following additional 

qualifications: 

D Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

D Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols; 

D Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

D Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

D 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 

D 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. 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

The Navy shall conduct a sound 

source verification (SSV) study for all 

pile types and will follow accepted 

methodological standards to achieve 

their objectives. The Navy shall submit 

an acoustic monitoring plan to NMFS 

for approval prior to the start of 

construction. The Navy will collect and 

evaluate acoustic sound record levels 

for 10 percent of the new rotary drilling, 

DTH excavation (DTH mono-hammer 

and cluster drill), and rock hammering 

activities conducted as part of P–381 

(Table 15). Hydrophones would be 

placed at locations 10 m (33 ft) from the 

noise source and, where the potential 

for Level A harassment exists, at a 

second representative monitoring 

location at an intermediate distance 

between the cetacean and phocid 

shutdown zones. For the 10 percent of 

rotary drilling, DTH excavation (DTH 

mono-hammer and cluster drill), and 

rock hammering events acoustically 

measured, 100 percent of the data will 

be analyzed. 

At a minimum, the methodology 

includes: 

D For underwater recordings, a 

stationary hydrophone system with the 

ability to measure SPLs will be placed 

in accordance with NMFS most recent 

guidance for the collection of source 

levels. 

D Hydroacoustic monitoring will be 

conducted for 10 percent of each 

different type of activity not previously 

monitored as part of P–310 (Table 15). 

Monitoring will occur from the same 

locations approved by NMFS for P–310 

construction activities. The resulting 

data set will be analyzed to examine and 

confirm sound pressure levels and rates 

of transmission loss for each separate inwater construction activity. With NMFS 

concurrence, these metrics will be used 

to recalculate the limits of shutdown 

and Level B (Behavioral) harassment 

zones, and to make corresponding 

adjustments in marine mammal 

monitoring of these zones for use in the 

forthcoming rulemaking/LOA 

application. Hydrophones will be 

placed in the same manner as for P–310 

construction activities. Locations of 

hydroacoustic recordings will be 

collected via GPS. A depth sounder 

and/or weighted tape measure will be 

used to determine the depth of the 

water. The hydrophone will be attached 

to a-weighted nylon cord to maintain a 

constant depth and distance from the 

pile/drill/hammer location. The nylon 

cord or chain will be attached to a float 

or tied to a static line. 

D Each hydrophone (underwater) will 

be calibrated at the start of each action 

and will be checked frequently to the 

applicable standards of the hydrophone 

manufacturer. 

D For each monitored location, a 

single hydrophone will be suspended 

midway in the water column in order to 

evaluate site-specific attenuation and 

propagation characteristics that may be 

present throughout the water column. 

D Environmental data will 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 the airborne and underwater 

sound levels (e.g., aircraft, boats, etc.). 

D The chief inspector will supply the 

acoustics specialist with the substrate 

composition, hammer/drill model and 

size, hammer/drill energy settings, 

depth of drilling, and boring rates and 

any changes to those settings during the 

monitoring. 

D For acoustically monitored 

construction activities, data from the 

continuous monitoring locations will be 

post-processed to obtain the following 

sound measures: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11886 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

Æ Maximum peak pressure level 

recorded for all activities, expressed in 

dB re 1 mPa. This maximum value will 

originate from the phase of drilling/ 

hammering during which drill/hammer 

energy was also at maximum (referred to 

as Level 4). 

Æ From all activities occurring during 

the Level 4 phase these additional 

measures will be made, as appropriate: 

D Mean, median, minimum, and 

maximum RMS pressure level in (dB 

re 1 mPa) 

D mean duration of a pile strike (based 

on the 90 percent energy criterion) 

D number of hammer strikes 

D mean, median, minimum, and 

maximum single strike SEL (dB re 

mPa2 sec) 

Æ Cumulative SEL as defined by the 

mean single strike SEL + 10*log 

(number of hammer strikes) (dB re mPa2

sec). 

Æ Median integration time used to 

calculate SPL RMS. 

Æ A frequency spectrum (pressure 

spectral density) (dB re mPa2 per Hz) 

based on the average of up to eight 

successive strikes with similar sound. 

Spectral resolution will be 1 Hz, and the 

spectrum will cover nominal range from 

7 Hz to 20 kHz. 

Æ Finally, the cumulative SEL will be 

computed from all the strikes associated 

with each pile occurring during all 

phases, i.e., soft start, Level 1 to Level 

4. This measure is defined as the sum 

of all single strike SEL values. The sum 

is taken of the antilog, with log10 taken 

of result to express (dB re mPa2 sec). 

TABLE 17—HYDROACOUSTIC MONITORING SUMMARY

Size Count Activity Number 

monitored 

102-inch ............ 94 ................... Rotary Drill ................................................................................................................................ 9 

78-inch .............. 94 ................... DTH Cluster Drill ...................................................................................................................... 9 

42-inch .............. 445 ................. DTH Mono-hammer .................................................................................................................. 10 

9-inch ................ 154 ................. DTH Mono-hammer .................................................................................................................. 10 

4 to 6-inch ......... 2,701 .............. DTH Mono-hammer .................................................................................................................. 10 

NA ..................... 252 days ........ Rock Hammering ...................................................................................................................... 10 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Reporting 

The Navy shall submit a draft report 

to NMFS within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of monitoring or 60 calendar 

days prior to the requested issuance of 

any subsequent IHA for construction 

activity at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The report will detail the 

monitoring protocol and summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring. The 

final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of any NMFS comments on 

the draft report. If no comments are 

received from NMFS within 30 days of 

receipt of the draft report, the report 

shall be considered final. If comments 

are received, a final report addressing 

NMFS comments must be submitted 

within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All draft and final marine 

mammal monitoring reports must be 

submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Egger@noaa.gov. The report 

must contain the following 

informational elements, at minimum, 

(and be included in the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan), including: 

D Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

D Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: 

Æ How many and what type of piles 

were driven and by what method (e.g., 

impact or vibratory); and 

Æ Total duration of driving time for 

each pile (vibratory driving) and 

number of strikes for each pile (impact 

driving); 

D PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

D 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; 

D Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Æ PSO who sighted the animal and 

PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; 

Æ Time of sighting; 

Æ Identification of the animal (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; 

Æ Distance and bearing of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); 

Æ Estimated number of animals 

(minimum/maximum/best); 

Æ Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.; 

Æ Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; and 

Æ Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses to the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

D Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal, if any; and 

D All PSO datasheets and/or raw 

sightings data. 

Reporting of Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

The Navy shall also submit a draft 

hydroacoustic monitoring report to 

NMFS within 60 workdays of the 

completion of required monitoring at 

the end of the project. The report will 

detail the hydroacoustic monitoring 

protocol and summarize the data 

recorded during monitoring. The final 

report must be prepared and submitted 

within 30 days following resolution of 

any NMFS comments on the draft 

report. If no comments are received 

from NMFS within 30 days of receipt of 

the draft report, the report shall be 

considered final. If comments are 

received, a final report addressing 

NMFS comments must be submitted 

within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All draft and final 

hydroacoustic monitoring reports must 

be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Egger@noaa.gov. The 

hydroacoustic monitoring report will 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Hydroacoustic 

Monitoring Plan and, at minimum, will 

include: 

D Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11887 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of water 

and recording device(s); 

D 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; 

D 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; 

D For impact pile driving and/or DTH 

excavation (DTH mono-hammer and 

cluster drill) (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); 

D For vibratory driving/removal and/ 

or DTH excavation (DTH mono-hammer 

and cluster drill) (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); and 

D One-third octave band spectrum 

and power spectral density plot. 

D General Daily Site Conditions. 

Æ Date and time of activities. 

Æ Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tidal state). 

Æ Weather conditions (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility). 

Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Navy shall report the incident to NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS (301–427–8401) and to the 

Greater Atlantic Region New England/ 

Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator 

(866–755–6622) 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 OPR is able to 

review the circumstances of the incident 

and determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this rule. 

The Navy shal not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

D Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

D Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

D Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

D If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

D General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be taken 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ 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). 

To avoid repetition, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

of the species listed in Table 3, given 

that many of the anticipated effects of 

this project on different marine mammal 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impacts of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, they are described 

independently in the analysis below. 

Construction activities associated 

with the project, as outlined previously, 

have the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated by pile driving activities, 

rotary drilling, rock hammering, and 

DTH. Potential takes could occur if 

marine mammals are present in zones 

ensonified above the thresholds for 

Level A and Level B harassment, 

identified above, while activities are 

underway. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected even in the absence of the 

proposed mitigation measures. A bubble 

curtain shall be installed across any 

openings at the entrance of super flood 

basin to attenuate sound for the sound 

sources that encompass the entire ROI 

(Figure 2). During all impact driving, 

implementation of soft start procedures 

and monitoring of established shutdown 

zones will be required, significantly 

reducing the possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient notice through use of soft start 

(for impact driving), marine mammals 

are expected to move away from an 

irritating sound source prior to it 

becoming potentially injurious. In 

addition, PSOs will be stationed within 

the action area whenever pile driving, 

rotary drilling, rock hammering and 

DTH activities are underway. The Navy 

shall employ the use of three PSOs to 

ensure all monitoring and shutdown 

zones are properly observed. For 

hooded and harp seals which are a rare 

species in within the project area, we do 

not anticipate any take by Level A 

harassment. 

The Navy’s proposed activities and 

associated impacts will occur within a 

limited area. Most of the work will 

occur behind the existing super flood 

basin walls that would act as a barrier 

to sound and would contain underwater 

noise to within a small portion of the 

Piscataqua River. Exposures to elevated 

sound levels produced during pile 

driving activities may cause behavioral 

disturbance of some individuals, but 

they are expected to be mild and 

temporary and further minimized by the 

use of a bubble curtain and soft starts. 

As described previously, the mitigation 

and monitoring measures are expected 

to further reduce the likelihood of injury 

as well as reduce behavioral 

disturbances. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, as enumerated 

in the Estimated Take section, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
11888 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 

2006). Most likely, individual animals 

will simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the area, although even this 

reaction has been observed primarily 

only in association with impact pile 

driving. The activities analyzed here are 

similar to 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. These reactions and 

behavioral changes are expected to 

subside quickly when the exposures 

cease. Level B harassment will be 

minimized through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. including 

the soft starts and the use of the bubble 

curtain, which was not quantitatively 

factored into the take estimates. 

Regarding Level A harassment 

particularly for harbor seals and gray 

seals, monitoring and shutdown 

protocols, and a bubble curtain 

implemented during DTH excavation 

(DTH mono-hammer and cluster drill) 

and hydraulic rock hammering would 

minimize potential for take by Level A 

harassment. For pinnipeds, the 

calculated Level A harassment likely 

overestimates PTS exposure because: (1) 

Seals are unlikely to remain in the Level 

A harassment zone underwater long 

enough to accumulate sufficient 

exposure to noise resulting in PTS, and 

(2) the estimate assumes that new seals 

are in the Level A harassment zone 

every day during pile driving. Further as 

discussed above, take by Level A 

harassment would be minimized due to 

implementation of monitoring, 

shutdown procedures and a bubble 

curtain. Nonetheless, we have 

considered the potential impacts of 

these PTS takes occurring in this 

analysis. The degree of PTS that may 

incur from the Navy’s activities are not 

expected to impact marine mammals 

such that their reproduction or survival 

could be affected. Similarly, data do not 

suggest that a single instance in which 

an animal accrues PTS (or TTS) and is 

subject to behavioral disturbance would 

result in impacts to reproduction or 

survival. If PTS were to occur, it would 

be at a lower level likely to accrue to a 

relatively small portion of the 

population by being a stationary activity 

in one particular location. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on any 

marine mammal habitat. The project 

activities will not modify existing 

marine mammal habitat since the 

project will occur within the same 

footprint as existing marine 

infrastructure. Impacts to the immediate 

substrate are anticipated, but these 

would be limited to minor, temporary 

suspension of sediments, which could 

impact water quality and visibility for a 

short amount of time but which would 

not be expected to have any effects on 

individual marine mammals. The 

nearshore and intertidal habitat where 

the project will occur is an area of 

consistent vessel traffic from Navy and 

non-Navy vessels, and some local 

individuals would likely be somewhat 

habituated to the level of activity in the 

area, further reducing the likelihood of 

more severe impacts. The closest 

pinniped haulout used by harbor and 

gray seals is 2,414 m (1.5 mi) away on 

the opposite side of the island and not 

within the ensonified area. There are no 

other biologically important areas for 

marine mammals near the project area. 

In addition, impacts to marine 

mammal prey species are expected to be 

minor and temporary. Overall, the area 

impacted by the project is very small 

compared to the available surrounding 

habitat. The most likely impact to prey 

will be temporary behavioral avoidance 

of the immediate area. During 

construction activities, it is expected 

that some fish and marine mammals 

would temporarily leave the area of 

disturbance, thus impacting marine 

mammals’ foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range. 

But, because of the relatively small area 

of the habitat that may be affected, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

D No mortality is anticipated or 

proposed for authorization; 

D No Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization for hooded seals and harp 

seals; 

D Level A harassment proposed for 

authorization for harbor and gray seals 

will be minimized with a bubble curtain 

and shutdown zones and is expected to 

be of a lower degree that would not 

impact the fitness of any animals; 

D Anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

D The required mitigation measures 

(i.e., bubble curtain, shutdown zones) 

are expected to be effective in reducing 

the effects of the specified activity; 

D Minimal impacts to marine 

mammal habitat/prey are expected; 

D The action area is located within an 

active marine shipyard area, 

D There is one pinniped haulouts in 

the vicinity of the project area, but it is 

on the opposite side of Seavey Island 

and not within the ensonified area; and 

D There are no known biologically 

important areas in the vicinity of the 

project, based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat and, taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the 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) of the 

MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers, 

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. 

Take of five of the marine mammal 

stocks proposed for authorization will 

comprise at most approximately 3 

percent or less of the stock abundance 

(Table 16). The number of animals 

proposed for authorization to be taken 

from these stocks would be considered 

small relative to the relevant stock’s 

abundances even if each estimated take 

occurred to a new individual, which is 

an unlikely scenario. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

proposed activity (including the 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2022 / Notices 11889 

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 (ESA) 

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 Navy for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to 

modification and expansion of the 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 

in Kittery, Maine, effective for one year 

from the date of issuance, 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 

NMFS requests comment on these 

analyses, the proposed authorization, 

and any other aspect of this Notice of 

Proposed IHA for the proposed issuance 

of an IHA to the Navy for the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to 

modification and expansion of the 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Dry Dock 1 

in Kittery, Maine, effective for one year 

from the date of issuance. NMFS also 

requests comment on the potential for a 

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 NMFS’ final decision on the 

request for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, 1-year IHA renewal 

with an expedited public comment 

period (15 days) when: (1) Another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and a second IHA would 

allow for completion of the activities 

beyond that described in the Dates and 

Duration section, provided all of the 

following conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA; 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the proposed 

renewal 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 

because only a subset of the initially 

analyzed activities remain to be 

completed under the renewal); and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

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: February 25, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04406 Filed 3–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES2