Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15945 

Management Alternatives 

6. 2022 Management Measures—Final 

Action 

E. Coastal Pelagic Species Management 

1. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Report 

2. Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs) 

for 2022–2023—Final Action 

3. Pacific Sardine Assessment, 

Harvest Specifications, and 

Management Measures—Final 

Action 

4. Fishery Management Plan 

Management Categories—Final 

Action 

F. Groundfish Management 

1. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Report 

2. Trawl Cost Recovery Report 

3. Biennial Harvest Specifications for 

2023–2024 Fisheries—Final Action 

4. Preliminary Preferred Management 

Measure Alternatives for 2023–2024 

Fisheries 

5. Implementation of the 2022 Pacific 

Whiting Fishery Under the U.S./ 

Canada Agreement 

6. Non-trawl Sector Area Management 

Measures 

7. Electronic Monitoring Update 

8. Inseason Adjustments—Final 

Action 

G. Pacific Halibut Management 

1. Incidental Catch Limits for the 

Salmon Troll Fishery—Final Action 

H. Administrative Matters 

1. Final West Coast Regional 

Framework for Determining the 

Best Scientific Information 

Available 

2. Membership Appointments and 

Council Operating Procedures 

3. Future Council Meeting Agenda 

and Workload Planning 

I. Enforcement 

1. Annual U.S. Coast Guard West 

Coast Fishery Enforcement Report 

Advisory Body Agendas 

Advisory body agendas will include 

discussions of relevant issues that are 

on the Pacific Council agenda for this 

meeting and may also include issues 

that may be relevant to future Council 

meetings. Proposed advisory body 

agendas for this meeting will be 

available on the Pacific Council website, 

www.pcouncil.org, no later than Friday, 

March 25, 2022. 

Schedule of Ancillary Meetings 

Day 1—Thursday, April 7, 2022 

Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory 

Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Coastal Pelagic Species Management 

Team 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Habitat Committee 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 

a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants 9 a.m. 

Model Evaluation Workgroup 10 a.m. 

Day 2—Friday, April 8, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory 

Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Coastal Pelagic Species Management 

Team 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Habitat Committee 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 8 

a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants As Necessary 

Day 3—Saturday, April 9, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory 

Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Coastal Pelagic Species Management 

Team 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants As Necessary 

Day 4—Sunday, April 10, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants As Necessary 

Day 5—Monday, April 11, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants As Necessary 

Day 6—Tuesday, April 12, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Groundfish Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Groundfish Management Team 8 a.m. 

Salmon Advisory Subpanel 8 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Enforcement Consultants As Necessary 

Day 7—Wednesday, April 13, 2022 

California State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Oregon State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Washington State Delegation 7 a.m. 

Salmon Technical Team 8 a.m. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during these 

meetings. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

business days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: March 16, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05921 Filed 3–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB867] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the 

Replacement of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

United States Department of the Navy 

(Navy) to incidentally harass marine 

mammals during pile driving activities 

associated with the replacement of Pier 

3 at Naval Station Norfolk, in Norfolk, 

Virginia. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from April 1, 2022 through March 31, 

2023. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15946 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On July 15, 2021 NMFS received a 

request from the Navy for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to the 

reconstruction of Pier 3 at Naval Station 

Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on October 27, 2021. 

Subsequently, the Navy provided a 

revised and updated version of the 

application, which was determined to 

be adequate and complete on January 

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

of a small number of five species by 

Level B harassment and Level A 

harassment. Neither the Navy nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and, therefore, 

an IHA is appropriate. NMFS previously 

issued IHAs to the Navy for similar 

work (86 FR 48986; September 1, 2021; 

85 FR 33139; June 01, 2020; 83 FR 

30406; June 28, 2018). This IHA will 

cover one year of a larger project for 

which the Navy plans to submit a 

request for a Letter of Authorization 

(LOA) for additional work occurring 

from April 1, 2023 through December 

30, 2026. The larger 4-year project 

involves the demolition and 

reconstruction of a submarine pier at 

Naval Station Norfolk. 

Description of Activity 

Overview 

The purpose of this project is to 

replace Pier 3 at Naval Station 

(NAVSTA) Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. The 

existing Pier 3 will be completely 

demolished and a new Pier 3 will be 

constructed immediately north of the 

existing location (See Figure 1). Work at 

Pier 4, Pier 3T and the bulkheads 

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

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

(See Figure 1). The project includes 

impact and vibratory pile driving and 

vibratory pile removal and drilling. 

Drilling is considered a continuous 

noise source, similar to vibratory pile 

driving. Sounds resulting from pile 

driving and removal may result in the 

incidental take of marine mammals by 

Level A and Level B harassment in the 

form of auditory injury or behavioral 

harassment. The in-water construction 

period for the action will occur over 12 

months. 

Dates and Duration 

The IHA is effective from April 1, 

2022 to March 31, 2023. Approximately 

280 days will be required for the project. 

The Navy plans to conduct all work 

during daylight hours. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Pier 3 at NAVSTA Norfolk is located 

at the confluence of the Elizabeth River, 

James River, Nansemond River, 

LaFeyette, Willoughby Bay, and 

Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2). 

Human generated sound is a 

significant contributor to the ambient 

acoustic environment surrounding 

NAVSTA Norfolk, as it is located in 

close proximity to shipping channels as 

well as several Port of Virginia facilities 

with frequent, noise-producing vessel 

traffic that, altogether, have an annual 

average of 1,788 vessel calls (Port of 

Virginia, 2021). Other sources of 

human-generated underwater sound not 

specific to naval installations include 

sounds from echo sounders on 

commercial and recreational vessels, 

industrial ship noise, and noise from 

recreational boat engines. Additionally, 

on average, maintenance dredging of the 

navigation channel occurs every 2 years 

(USACE and Port of Virginia, 2018). 

BILLING CODE 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15947 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN21MR22.003</GPH>

Legend 

. ~ 

~Oh 

~ Md Ollmolilkln 

.Dlimdltcn 

c:J ~-· lnstttietton Boun<.W/ · 

N 

A 

Figure 1. Project Site Map, location of existing and planned Pier 3. 
15948 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The project involves the replacement 

of Pier 3 at the NAVSTA waterfront. The 

existing Pier 3 will be completely 

demolished and a new Pier 3 will be 

constructed immediately north of the 

existing location. Additional work 

associated with the replacement of Pier 

3 includes the outfitting of Pier 4 for 

temporary submarine berthing, 

demolition of Pier 3T, construction at 

the CEP–176 and the CEP–175 

bulkheads, and beginning of 

construction of the CEP–102 bulkhead 

and relieving platform. The project 

includes six phases that will be 

completed under this IHA and the 

future requested LOA. A preliminary 

work schedule and activity details for 

the work under this IHA are provided in 

Table 1. Piles are anticipated to be 

removed with a vibratory hammer, 

however direct pull or clamshell 

removal may be used depending on site 

conditions. Since vibratory removal is 

the loudest activity, to be precautionary, 

we assume all piles will be removed 

with a vibratory hammer. Pile 

installation/removal will occur using 

land-based or barge-mounted cranes and 

vary in method based on pile type. 

Table 1 outlines a preliminary work 

schedule for the demolition and 

reconstruction of Pier 3 at NAVSTA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN21MR22.004</GPH>

Figure 2. Project location Map, Naval Station Norfolk. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15949 

Some project elements will use only one 

method of pile installation (e.g., 

vibratory OR drilling/impact OR impact 

only), but all methods have been 

analyzed. The method of installation 

will be determined by the construction 

crew once demolition and installation 

has begun. Therefore, the total take 

estimate reflects the worst case scenario 

for the project. 

A detailed description of the planned 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 

FR 3976; January 26, 2022). Since that 

time, no additional changes have been 

made to the planned activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

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

Location Activity Amount and schedule Type and size Method 1

Daily 

production 

rate 

(piles/day) 

Strikes/duration 

per pile 

Total 

production 

days 

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

Fender Piles.

36 fender piles June 

2022–September 

2022.

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

Installation of Fender 

Piles.

36 fender piles June 

2022–September 

2022.

24-inch precast 

concrete square.

Drilling with Impact 

Hammer OR.

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

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

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

Pier 3T.

286 bearing piles August 2022–November 

2022.

18-inch precast 

concrete square.

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

87 fender piles August 

2022–November 

2022.

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

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

2022–November 

2022.

13-inch polymeric Drilling with Impact 

Hammer OR.

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

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

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

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

2022–November 

2022.

18-inch concrete 

square.

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

9 fender piles October 

2022–November 

2022.

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

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

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

New Pier 3.

300 bearing piles October 2022–March 

2023.

24-inch precast 

concrete square.

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

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

New Bulkhead.

109 bearing piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

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

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

221 sheet piles December 2022–30 March 

2023.

28-inch steel sheet Impact Hammer OR ..... 4 270 strikes ......... 56 

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

CEP–102 ......... Construction of a Portion of the New Bulkhead.4 bearing piles December 2022–30 March 

2023.

42-inch steel pipe Impact Hammer OR ..... 2 2,000 strikes ...... 2 

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

8 bulkhead sheet piles 

December 2022–30 

March 2023.

28-inch steel sheet Impact Hammer OR ..... 4 270 strikes ......... 2 

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

11 bearing piles December 2022–30 

March 2023.

24-inch precast 

concrete square.

Pre-drilling with Impact 

Hammer OR.

2 6 hours .............. 6 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15950 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

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

Location Activity Amount and schedule Type and size Method 1

Daily 

production 

rate 

(piles/day) 

Strikes/duration 

per pile 

Total 

production 

days 

Total piles installed, extracted, or 

drilled.

1,142 

Total days pile driving/extraction/drilling....................................... ............................... ...................................... .................... ........................... 234 280 

days 

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

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

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

be no simultaneous activities associated with this project. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Navy was published in 

the Federal Register on January 26, 

2022 (87 FR 3976). That notice 

described, in detail, the Navy’s activity, 

the marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received no public 

comments. There have been no changes 

from the proposed to the final IHA. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the Navy’s 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’s 

Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s website (https://

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

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

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

All values presented in Table 2 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

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

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

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

novaeangliae.

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

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

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

Coastal, Northern Migratory.

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

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

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

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15951 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

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

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case] 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury (M/SI) from all sources combined (e.g., commercial 

fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4This stock abundance estimate for only the U.S. portion of this stock. The actual stock abundance, including the Canadian portion of the population, is estimated 

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

As indicated above, all five species 

(with seven managed stocks) in Table 2 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

authorized it. While North Atlantic right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis), minke 

whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

acutorostrata), and fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) have been 

documented in the area, the temporal 

and/or spatial occurrence of these 

whales is far outside the project area for 

this project and take is not expected to 

occur. Therefore, they are not discussed 

further beyond the explanation 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (87 FR 3976; 

January 26, 2022). 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the Navy’s 

project, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (87 FR 

3976; January 26, 2022); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Pease also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

the Navy’s construction activities have 

the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (87 FR 3976; January 

26, 2022) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the Navy’s 

activity on marine mammals and their 

habitat. That information and analysis is 

incorporated by reference into this final 

IHA determination and is not repeated 

here; please refer to the notice of 

proposed IHA (87 FR 3976; January 26, 

2022). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 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 will primarily be by 

Level B harassment, as noise generated 

from in-water pile driving (vibratory 

and impact) and drilling has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. There is also some 

potential for auditory injury (Level A 

harassment) to result, primarily for 

high- and low-frequency species and 

phocids because predicted auditory 

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

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

zones (see Mitigation section). 

Additionally, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of the taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
15952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal, root mean square (mPa 

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

pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive 

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

intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) 

sources. 

The Navy’s construction includes the 

use of continuous (vibratory pile 

driving, drilling) and impulsive (impact 

pile driving) sources, and therefore the 

120 and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) are 

applicable. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

Navy’s activity include the use of 

impulsive (impact pile driving) and 

non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving/ 

removal, drilling) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1 ................................................................................

Lpk,flat: 219 dB ..................................................................

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ..............................................................

Cell 2 

LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3 ...............................................................................

Lpk,flat: 230 dB ..................................................................

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .............................................................

Cell 4 

LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5 ................................................................................

Lpk,flat: 202 dB ..................................................................

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .............................................................

Cell 6 

LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) ....................................................

(Underwater) ....................................................................

Cell 7 ................................................................................

Lpk,flat: 218 dB ..................................................................

LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .............................................................

Cell 8 

LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ....................................................

(Underwater) ....................................................................

Cell 9 ...............................................................................

Lpk,flat: 232 dB ..................................................................

LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ............................................................

Cell 10 

LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

In order to calculate the distances to 

the Level A harassment and the Level B 

harassment sound thresholds for the 

methods and piles being used in this 

project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring 

data from other locations to develop 

proxy source levels for the various pile 

types, sizes and methods (Table 4). 

Generally we choose source levels from 

similar pile types from locations (e.g., 

geology, bathymetry) similar to the 

project. At this time, NMFS is not aware 

of reliable source levels available for 

polymeric piles using vibratory pile 

installation, therefore source levels for 

timber pile driving were used as a 

proxy. Similarly, the following proxies 

were used as source levels for piles 

where no data was available: source 

levels for the 66-inch steel pile was used 

as a proxy for 42-inch steel pipe piles 

(vibratory); the 30-inch steel pile was 

used as a proxy for the 28-inch sheet 

piles (impact); and 18-inch octagonal 

pile was used as a proxy for 18-inch 

concrete piles (impact). Additionally, 

data on vibratory extraction of concrete 

piles are not available, therefore the 

Navy followed previous guidance 

suggesting that timber piles be used as 

a proxy for sound source levels (84 FR 

28474; June 19, 2019). 

Very little information is available 

regarding source levels for in-water 

drilling activities associated with 

nearshore pile installation. 

Measurements made during a pile 

drilling project in 1–5 m (3–16 ft) 

depths at Santa Rosa Island, CA, by 

Dazey et al., (2012) appear to provide 

the best available proxy source levels for 

the Navy’s activities. Dazey et al. (2012) 

reported average rms source levels 

ranging from 151 to 157 dB re 1mPa, 

normalized to a distance of 1 m (3 ft) 

from the pile, during activities that 

included casing removal and 

installation as well as drilling, with an 

average of 154 dB re 1mPa during 62 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15953 

days that spanned all related drilling 

activities during a single season. The 

sound field in the project area is the 

existing background noise plus 

additional construction noise from the 

project. Marine mammals are expected 

to be affected via sound generated by 

the primary components of the project 

(i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile 

driving, and drilling). 

TABLE 4—PROJECT SOUND SOURCE LEVELS NORMALIZED TO 10 METERS

Pile type Pile size 

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

RMS SPL 

(re 1 μPa (rms)) 

SEL 

(re 1 μPa (rms)) Source 

Steel Pipe Pile ...... 42 ............................................ Impact ................. 213 190 177 Navy 2015 

Vibratory .............. ............................ 168 168 Sitka 2017. 

Steel Sheet ........... 28 ............................................ Impact ................. 211 196 181 NAVFAC SW 2020. 

Vibratory .............. ............................ 167 167 Navy 2015. 

Concrete Pile ........ 24 ............................................ Impact ................. 189 176 163 Illingworth and Rodkin 2017. 

Vibratory .............. 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020. 

Concrete Pile ........ 18 ............................................ Impact ................. 185 166 154 Caltrans 2020. 

Vibratory .............. 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020. 

Polymeric Pile ....... 13 ............................................ Impact ................. 177 153 ............................ Denes et al., 2016. 

Vibratory .............. 185 162 157 Caltrans 2020. 

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

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

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

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

When the NMFS Technical Guidance 

(2016) was published, in recognition of 

the fact that ensonified area/volume 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict because of the duration 

component in the new thresholds, we 

developed a User Spreadsheet that 

includes tools to help predict a simple 

isopleth that can be used in conjunction 

with marine mammal density or 

occurrence to help predict takes. We 

note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used for these tools, we anticipate that 

isopleths produced are typically going 

to be overestimates of some degree, 

which may result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment 

take. However, these tools offer the best 

way to predict appropriate isopleths 

when more sophisticated 3D modeling 

methods are not available, and NMFS 

continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools, and 

will qualitatively address the output 

where appropriate. For stationary 

sources in-water pile driving/removal 

and drilling activities from the Navy’s 

project, NMFS User Spreadsheet 

predicts the distance at which, if a 

marine mammal remained at that 

distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet are 

reported in Table 1 and sources levels 

used in the User Spread are reported in 

Table 4, and the resulting isopleths are 

reported in Table 5 (Impact) and Table 

6 (Vibratory and Drilling) below. 

TABLE 5—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Distance to 

Level B 

threshold 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km 2) 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

land. 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL, AND PREDRILLING. 

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Level B— 

Radius to 

isopleth 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km 2) 1

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

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

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

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

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

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 6—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ISOPLETHS FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND REMOVAL, AND PREDRILLING.—Continued 

Pile driving site Source 

Level A—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

Level B—Radius to isopleth 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

Level B— 

Radius to 

isopleth 

(m) 

Area within 

Level B 

threshold 

(km 2) 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maximum distance to the Level A 

harassment threshold during 

construction would be during the 

impact driving of 42-inch steel pipe 

piles at CEP–102 (1193 m for harbor 

porpoise; 1001 m for humpback whale; 

35.6 m for bottlenose dolphin; and 536 

m for pinnipeds). The largest calculated 

Level B harassment zone extends out to 

15,849 m, which would result from the 

vibratory installation of the 42-inch 

steel pipe pile. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that was used to inform the take 

calculations. We describe how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate for each species. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales occur in the mouth 

of the Chesapeake Bay and nearshore 

waters of Virginia during winter and 

spring months. Most detections during 

shipboard surveys were one or two 

juveniles per sightings. Although two 

individuals were detected in the 

vicinity of the project activities, there is 

no evidence that they linger for multiple 

days. Because no density estimates are 

available for the species in this area, the 

Navy estimated two takes for every 60 

days of pile driving and drilling 

activities. Based on this information, 

NMFS has similarly estimated that two 

humpback whales may be taken by 

Level B harassment for every 60 days of 

pile driving and pre-drilling activities, 

which equates to 9 takes over 280 

project days (Table 1). To be 

conservative, the Navy has requested 3 

additional Level B harassment takes of 

humpback whales. Therefore, the Navy 

is requesting, and NMFS is authorizing 

12 takes by Level B harassment of 

humpback whale (Table 9). 

The largest Level A harassment zone 

for low-frequency cetaceans extends 

approximately 1002 m from the source 

during impact driving of a 48 inch steel 

pipe pile (Table 6). The Navy will 

implement a 1,010 m shutdown zone for 

humpback whales during impact pile 

driving of the 48 inch steel pipe piles, 

and shutdown zones that include the 

entire Level A harassment isopleth for 

all activities, as indicated in Table 10. 

Therefore, the Navy did not request, and 

NMFS does not authorize Level A 

harassment take of humpback whale. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

The expected number of bottlenose 

dolphins in the project area was 

estimated using inshore seasonal 

densities provided in Engelhaupt et al. 

(2016) from vessel line-transect surveys 

near NAVSTA Norfolk and adjacent 

areas near Virginia Beach, Virginia, from 

August 2012 through August 2015 

(Engelhaupt et al., 2016). This density 

includes sightings inshore of the 

Chesapeake Bay from NAVSTA Norfolk 

west to the Thimble Shoals Bridge, and 

is the most representative density for 

the project area. NMFS multiplied the 

density of 1.38 dolphins/km 2 by the 

Level B harassment zone area for each 

activity for the project, and then by the 

number of days associated with that 

activity (see Table 8), which resulted in 

14,989 takes by Level B harassment of 

bottlenose dolphins (see Table 9). There 

is insufficient information on relative 

abundance to apportion the takes 

precisely to the three stocks present in 

the area. We use the same approach to 

estimating the apportionment of takes to 

stock used in the previous IHAs in the 

area including the HRBT project (86 FR 

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

Norfolk Rule (86 FR 24340; May 6, 

2021). Given that most of the NNCES 

stock are found in the Pamlico Sound 

Estuarine, over 160 kilometers to 

Norfolk, the project will assume that no 

more than 200 of the requested takes 

will be from this stock. Since members 

of the northern migratory coastal and 

southern migratory coastal stocks are 

thought to occur in or near the Bay in 

greater numbers, we will conservatively 

assume that no more than half of the 

remaining takes will accrue to either of 

these stocks. Additionally, a subset of 

these takes would likely be comprised 

of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, 

although the size of that population is 

unknown. 

The largest Level A harassment area 

for mid-frequency cetaceans is less than 

40m, which is associated with impact 

pile driving of the 42 inch steel pipe. 

The Navy will implement a shutdown 

zone of 200 m during this activity as 

well as when pile driving the 24 inch 

concrete piles and 28 inch steel sheet 

piles. The Level A harassment zones for 

all other activities extend less than 10 

m for mid-frequency cetaceans (see 

Table 5 and Table 6), and the Navy will 

implement a minimum of a 10 m 

shutdown for all other activities not 

included in the list above (Table 10). 

Given the generally small size of the 

Level A harassment zones, and the 

Navy’s shutdown plan, which includes 

the entire Level A harassment zone for 

all pile driving and drilling activities, 

we do not expect Level A harassment 

take of bottlenose dolphins. Therefore, 

the Navy did not request, and NMFS 

does not authorize Level A harassment 

take of bottlenose dolphins (Table 9). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15955 

TABLE 8—BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN CALCULATED EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Location Activity Production 

days 

Level A 

harassment 

area 

(km 2) 

Level B 

harassment 

area 

(km 2) 

Level A takes Level B 

takes 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1All Level and Level B harassment exposure estimates were calculated using a density estimate of 1.38 Engelhaupt et al. (2016). 2The maximum distance to the Level A harassment threshold is 35.6 m resulting from impact driving 42-inch steel pipe piles. This falls within 

the shutdown zones (see Table 10). Therefore, no Level A harassment take was requested nor authorized for bottlenose dolphins. 3Some piles for a few projects are listed twice, due to the contractor choosing the installation method. However only the method resulting in 

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

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises are known to occur 

in the coastal waters near Virginia 

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

for this species in the project vicinity do 

not exist as harbor porpoise sighting 

data collected by the U.S. Navy near 

NAVSTA Norfolk and Virginia Beach 

from 2012 to 2015 (Engelhaupt et al., 

2014; 2015; 2016) did not produce 

enough sightings to calculate densities. 

One group of two harbor porpoises was 

seen during spring 2015 (Engelhaupt et 

al., 2016). Elsewhere in their range, 

harbor porpoises typically occur in 

groups of two to three individuals 

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

2017). Given the lack of density 

estimates for harbor porpoises in the 

construction area, this exposure analysis 

(similar to the methods used in previous 

IHAs) assumes that there is a porpoise 

sighting once every 60 days of pile 

driving or drilling, which would equate 

to 6 sightings per year over 280 days of 

activity. Assuming an average group 

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

et al., 2018), NMFS authorizes 12 takes 

by Level B harassment of harbor 

porpoises (Table 8). 

Harbor porpoises are members of the 

high-frequency hearing group which 

have Level A harassment isopleths as 

large as 1193 m during the 42 inch steel 

pipe pile installation using impact pile 

driving. The Navy will implement a 500 

meter shutdown zone for harbor 

porpoises during the aforementioned 

activity in addition to impact pile 

driving the 24 inch concrete piles and 

28 inch steel sheets, as a reasonable area 

to observe and implement shutdowns 

for this small and cryptic species while 

avoiding an impracticable number of 

shutdowns. Consequently, the Navy has 

requested authorization of take by Level 

A harassment for harbor porpoises 

during the project. While NMFS 

believes that take by Level A harassment 

is not likely, due to the duration of time 

a harbor porpoise would be required to 

remain within the Level A harassment 

zone to accumulate enough energy to 

experience PTS, we authorize 10 takes 

by Level A harassment as requested by 

the Navy (Table 8). 

Harbor Seal 

The expected number of harbor seals 

in the project area was estimated using 

systematic land- and vessel-based 

survey data for in-water and hauled-out 

seals collected by the U.S. Navy at the 

CBBT rock armor and portal islands 

from 2014 through 2019 (Jones et al., 

2020). The average daily seal count from 

the field season ranged from 8 to 23 

seals, with an average of 13.6 harbor 

seals across all the field seasons. 

The Navy expects, and NMFS 

concurs, that harbor seals are likely to 

be present from November to April. 

Consistent with previous nearby 

projects, NMFS calculated take by Level 

B harassment by multiplying 13.6 seals 

by 183, which is the number of pile 

driving/drilling days expected to occur 

from November to April, which results 

in 2489 harbor seal takes. However, 

NMFS believes this may be an 

overestimate of take as recent 

monitoring reports from a nearbycompleted project observed 0 harbor 

seals during the course of their project 

(HRCP, Unpublished). With these new 

data in hand, we alter our estimation 

method for this species and authorize 

half of the take estimated above to 

achieve a more realistic number of seals 

that may be encountered, while still 

conservatively estimating noise 

exposures. Therefore, NMFS authorizes 

1,244 takes of harbor seals. 

The largest Level A harassment 

isopleth for phocid species is less than 

550 m, which would occur during the 

installation of the 42 inch steel pipe pile 

by impact pile driving. The Navy will 

implement a 200 m shutdown zone for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

this activity in addition to the 

installation of the 24 inch concrete piles 

and 28 inch steel sheet piles by impact 

pile driving (Table 9). Given the area of 

the Level A harassment zone that will 

exceed the implemented shutdown zone 

for these activities, and the cryptic 

nature of the species, the Navy 

requested 16 takes by Level A 

harassment of harbor seals. For all other 

activities, the required shutdown zones 

exceed the calculated Level A 

harassment isopleth for phocid species. 

Therefore, NMFS authorizes 1,228 takes 

by Level B harassment, and 16 takes by 

Level A harassment of harbor seals 

(Table 9). 

Gray Seal 

Very little information is available 

about the occurrence of gray seals in the 

Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters. 

Survey data collected by the U.S. Navy 

at the CBBT portal islands from 2014 

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

al., 2018) observed one gray seal in 

February 2015 and one seal in February 

of 2016, while no seals were observed 

at any other time. Maintaining the 

assumption that gray seals may utilize 

the Chesapeake Bay waters, the Navy 

conservatively estimates that one gray 

seal may be exposed to noise levels 

above the Level B harassment threshold 

for every 60 days of vibratory pile 

driving during the six month period 

when they are most likely to be present. 

The Level A harassment isopleth for 

phocids is noted above for harbor seals, 

while the largest Level B harassment 

zone area is anticipated during drilling 

for installation of the 42 inch steel pipes 

(∼16 km2). The Navy calculated a total 

of 3 exposures for gray seals during the 

course of the project and they are 

expected to be very uncommon in the 

Project area. It is anticipated that up to 

20 percent of gray seal exposures would 

be at or above the Level A harassment 

threshold based on the proportion of the 

project’s pile driving and drilling 

activities that could exceed the Level A 

harassment threshold. Therefore, the 

Navy requested, and NMFS is 

authorizing, 1 take by Level A 

harassment and 2 takes by Level B 

harassment of gray seals (Table 8). 

TABLE 8—AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF TAKING, BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, BY SPECIES AND

STOCK AND PERCENT OF TAKE BY STOCK

Common name Stock Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment Total Percent of stock 

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

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

WNA Coastal, Southern Migratory acd ................ 0 19,327 19,327 197 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rounding. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

required through the IHA: 

• Avoid direct physical interactions 

with marine mammals during 

construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 meters of 

such activity, operations must cease and 

vessels must reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction; 

• The Navy will conduct trainings 

between construction supervisors and 

crews and the marine mammal 

monitoring team prior to the start of all 

activities subject to this IHA and when 

new personnel join the work, to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures; 

and 

• Pile driving activity must be halted 

upon observation of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15957 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the harassment zone. 

The following mitigation measures 

apply to the Navy’s in-water 

construction activities: 

Establishment of Shutdown Zones— 

The Navy will establish shutdown zones 

for all pile driving and removal and 

drilling activities. The purpose of a 

shutdown zone is generally to define an 

area within which shutdown of the 

activity will occur upon sighting of a 

marine mammal (or in anticipation of an 

animal entering the defined area). 

Shutdown zones will vary based on the 

activity type and marine mammal 

hearing group (Table 9). 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs)— 

The placement of PSOs during all pile 

driving and removal and drilling 

activities (described in the Monitoring 

and Reporting section) will ensure that 

the entire shutdown zone is visible. 

Should environmental conditions 

deteriorate such that the entire 

shutdown zone will not be visible (e.g., 

fog, heavy rain), pile driving and 

removal and drilling must be delayed 

until the PSO is confident marine 

mammals within the shutdown zone 

could be detected. 

Monitoring for Level A and B 

Harassment—The Navy will monitor 

the Level B harassment zones to the 

extent practicable, and all of the Level 

A harassment zones. The Navy will 

monitor at least a portion of the Level 

B harassment zone on all pile driving, 

removal or drilling days. Monitoring 

zones provide utility for observing by 

establishing monitoring protocols for 

areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. 

Monitoring zones enable observers to be 

aware of and communicate the presence 

of marine mammals in the project area 

outside the shutdown zone and thus 

prepare for a potential cessation of 

activity should the animal enter the 

shutdown zone. 

Pre-activity Monitoring—Prior to the 

start of daily in-water construction 

activity, or whenever a break in pile 

driving/removal of 30 minutes or longer 

occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown 

and monitoring zones for a period of 30 

minutes. The shutdown zone will be 

considered cleared when a marine 

mammal has not been observed within 

the zone for that 30-minute period. If a 

marine mammal is observed within the 

shutdown zones listed in Table 10, pile 

driving and drilling activity must be 

delayed or halted. If pile driving and/or 

drilling is delayed or halted due to the 

presence of a marine mammal, the 

activity may not commence or resume 

until either the animal has voluntarily 

exited and been visually confirmed 

beyond the shutdown zones or 15 

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

mammal for which Level B harassment 

take is authorized is present in the Level 

B harassment zone, activities may begin 

and Level B harassment take will be 

recorded. If work ceases for more than 

30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring 

of the shutdown zones will commence. 

A determination that the shutdown zone 

is clear must be made during a period 

of good visibility (i.e., the entire 

shutdown zone and surrounding waters 

must be visible to the naked eye). 

Soft Start—Soft-start procedures are 

used to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals by providing warning 

and/or giving marine mammals a chance 

to leave the area prior to the hammer 

operating at full capacity. For impact 

pile driving, contractors will be required 

to provide an initial set of three strikes 

from the hammer at reduced energy, 

followed by a 30-second waiting period, 

then two subsequent reduced-energy 

strike sets. Soft start will be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. 

TABLE 9—SHUTDOWN ZONES (m) DURING PILE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL

Pile type, size, and driving method Humpback 

whales Porpoises All other species 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The Navy has submitted a Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan to NMFS that 

has been approved for this project. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal monitoring during 

pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities must be conducted by PSOs 

meeting NMFS’ standards and in a 

manner consistent with the following: 

• Independent PSOs (i.e., not 

construction personnel) who have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods must be used; 

• At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

• Other PSOs may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

• Where a team of three or more PSOs 

is required, a lead observer or 

monitoring coordinator must be 

designated. The lead observer must have 

prior experience working as a marine 

mammal observer during construction. 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

The Navy must establish the 

following monitoring locations. For all 

pile driving activities, a minimum of 

one PSO must be assigned to the active 

pile driving or drilling location to 

monitor the shutdown zones and as 

much of the Level A and Level B 

harassment zones as possible. If the 

active project location includes 

demolition activities, then the next 

adjacent pier may be used as an 

appropriate monitoring location 

ensuring that the aforementioned 

criteria is met. Monitoring must be 

conducted by a minimum of two PSOs 

for impact driving, and a minimum of 

three PSOs for vibratory and drilling 

activities. For activities in Table 6 with 

Level B harassment zones larger than 

3,000 m, at least one PSO must be 

stationed on either Pier 14 or the North 

Jetty to monitor the part of the zone 

exceeding the edge of the Norfolk Naval 

Station (see Figure 3). The third PSO for 

vibratory and drilling activities will be 

located on Pier 1. PSOs will be placed 

at the best vantage point(s) practicable 

to monitor for marine mammals and 

implement shutdown/delay procedures 

(See Figure 3 for representative 

monitoring locations). If changes are 

necessary to ensure full coverage of the 

Level A harassment zones, the Navy 

shall contact NMFS to alter observer 

locations (e.g., vessel blocking view 

from pier location). 

Monitoring will be conducted 30 

minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 

after all in water construction activities. 

In addition, observers shall record all 

incidents of marine mammal 

occurrence, regardless of distance from 

activity, and shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from drilling or piles being 

driven or removed. Pile driving 

activities include the time to install or 

remove a single pile or series of piles, 

as long as the time elapsed between uses 

of the pile driving equipment is no more 

than 30 minutes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15959 

Acoustic Monitoring 

The Navy intends to conduct a sound 

source verification (SSV) study for 

various types of pile driving, extraction, 

and drilling associated with this project. 

Monitoring shall include two 

underwater positions and shall be 

conducted in accordance with NMFS 

guidance (NMFS 2012). One underwater 

location shall be at the standard 10 

meters from the sound source, while the 

other positions shall be located at a 

distance of at least 20 times water depth 

at the pile. If the contractor determines 

that this distance interferes with 

shipping lanes for vessel traffic, or if 

there is no other reasons why this 

criteria cannot be achieved (e.g., creates 

an unsafe scenario for crew), the Navy’s 

Acoustic Monitoring Plan must offer an 

alternate site as close to the criteria as 

possible for NMFS’ approval. 

Measurements shall be collected as 

detailed in the Navy’s application 

(Table 13–1) for each pile type during 

the entire pile-driving/extraction/ 

drilling event. Monitoring shall be 

conducted for 10 percent of each type of 

activity that has not previously been 

monitored at NAVSTA Norfolk (See 

Table 10 for complete list). 

TABLE 10—ACOUSTIC MONITORING SUMMARY

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

monitored 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN21MR22.005</GPH>

Legend 

0 Potential Protected Species Observer Locations N 0 0,25 0.5 1 

A Miles 

0 0.25 0.5 1 

- Kilome!ers 

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

Virginia. 
15960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

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

Environmental data shall be collected, 

including but not limited to, the 

following: Wind speed and direction, air 

temperature, humidity, surface water 

temperature, water depth, wave height, 

weather conditions, and other factors 

that could contribute to influencing 

underwater sound levels (e.g., aircraft, 

boats, etc.). 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report and a draft acoustic monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities, or 60 days prior to a requested 

date of issuance of any future IHAs or 

LOAs for the project, or other projects 

at the same location, whichever comes 

first. If the Navy goes ahead with their 

plan to request incidental take 

authorization for future phases of this 

project, the future LOA will be 

requested for coverage beginning on 

April 1, 2023; the draft reports under 

this issued IHA must be submitted to 

NMFS by January 31, 2023. The marine 

mammal report will include an overall 

description of work completed, a 

narrative regarding marine mammal 

sightings, and associated PSO data 

sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: (a) How many and what type 

of piles were driven or removed and the 

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

(b) the total duration of time for each 

pile (vibratory driving) or hole (drilling) 

and number of strikes for each pule 

(impact driving); 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; and 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

Upon observation of a marine 

mammal the following information must 

be reported: 

• Name of PSO who sighted the 

animal(s) and PSO location and activity 

at time of sighting; 

• Time of sighting; 

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

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

• Distance and location of each 

observed marine mammal relative to the 

pile being driven or hole being drilled 

for each sighting; 

• Estimated number of animals (min/ 

max/best estimate); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); 

• Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

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

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected within the harassment zones, 

by species; and 

• Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specified actions that ensured, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal(s), if any. 

The acoustic monitoring report must 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Acoustic Monitoring 

Plan and, at minimum, must include: 

• Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of water 

and recording device(s); 

• Type and size of pile being driven, 

substrate type, method of driving during 

recordings (e.g., hammer model and 

energy), and total pile driving duration; 

• Whether a sound attenuation device 

is used and, if so, a detailed description 

of the device used and the duration of 

its use per pile; 

• For impact pile driving and/or 

drilling (per pile): Number of strikes and 

strike rate; depth of substrate to 

penetrate; pulse duration and mean, 

median, and maximum sound levels (dB 

re: 1 mPa): Root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms); cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum), peak 

sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and 

single-strike sound exposure level 

(SELs-s); and 

• For vibratory driving/removal and/ 

or drilling (per pile): Duration of driving 

per pile; mean, median, and maximum 

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

square sound pressure level (SPLrms), 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) (and timeframe over which the 

sound is averaged). 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports 

will constitute the final reports. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS’ comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All PSO datasheets and/or 

raw sighting data must be submitted 

with the draft marine mammal report. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Navy must immediately cease the 

specified activities and shall report the 

incident to the Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) (PR.ITP.Monitoring 

Reports@noaa.gov) NMFS and to the 

Greater Atlantic Region New England/ 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the 

death or injury was clearly caused by 

the specified activity, the Navy must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS is able to review 

the circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of the 

authorization. The Navy must not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

i. Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

ii. Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

iii. Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

iv. Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

v. If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

vi. General circumstances under 

which the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15961 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Pile driving and removal and drilling 

activities have the potential to disturb or 

displace marine mammals. Specifically, 

the project activities may result in take, 

in the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated from pile driving and removal 

and drilling. Potential takes could occur 

if individuals are present in the 

ensonified zone when these activities 

are underway. 

The takes from Level A and Level B 

harassment would be due to potential 

behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. 

No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activity and measures designed to 

minimize the possibility of injury to 

marine mammals. The potential for 

harassment is minimized through the 

construction method and the 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures (see Mitigation 

section). 

The Level A harassment zones 

identified in Tables 6 and 7 are based 

upon an animal exposed to pile driving 

or drilling multiple piles per day. 

Considering the short duration to 

impact drive each pile and breaks 

between pile installations (to reset 

equipment and move pile into place), 

means an animal would have to remain 

within the area estimated to be 

ensonified above the Level A 

harassment threshold for multiple 

hours. This is highly unlikely given 

marine mammal movement throughout 

the area, especially for small, fast 

moving species such as small cetaceans 

and pinnipeds. Additionally, no Level A 

harassment is anticipated for humpback 

whales due to the required mitigation 

measures, which we expect the Navy 

will be able to effectively implement 

given the small Level A harassment 

zone sizes and high visibility of 

humpback whales. If an animal was 

exposed to accumulated sound energy, 

the resulting PTS would likely be small 

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

where pile driving energy is 

concentrated, and unlikely to result in 

impacts to individual fitness, 

reproduction, or survival. 

The Navy’s pile driving project 

precludes the likelihood of serious 

injury or mortality. For all species and 

stocks, take will occur within a limited, 

confined area (immediately surrounding 

NAVSTA Norfolk in the Chesapeake 

Bay area) of the stock’s range. Level A 

and Level B harassment will be reduced 

to the level of least practicable adverse 

impact through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. 

Furthermore, the amount of take 

authorized is extremely small when 

compared to stock abundance. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as increased swimming speeds, 

increased surfacing time, or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were occurring) 

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

Individual animals, even if taken 

multiple times, will most likely move 

away from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas of 

pile driving or drilling, although even 

this reaction has been observed 

primarily only in association with 

impact pile driving. The pile driving 

and drilling activities analyzed here are 

similar to, or less impactful than, 

numerous other construction activities 

conducted along both Atlantic and 

Pacific coasts, which have taken place 

with no known long-term adverse 

consequences from behavioral 

harassment. Furthermore, many projects 

similar to this one are also believed to 

result in multiple takes of individual 

animals without any documented longterm adverse effects. Level B harassment 

will be minimized through use of 

mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound produced by project 

activities is sufficiently disturbing, 

animals are likely to simply avoid the 

area while the activity is occurring, 

particularly as the project is located on 

a busy waterfront with high amounts of 

vessel traffic. 

As previously described in the notice 

of proposed IHA (87 FR3976; January 

26, 2022), UMEs have been declared for 

Northeast pinnipeds (including harbor 

seal and gray seal) and Atlantic 

humpback whales. However, we do not 

expect authorized takes to exacerbate or 

compound upon these ongoing UMEs. 

As noted previously, no injury, serious 

injury, or mortality is expected or 

authorized, and Level B harassment 

takes of humpback whale, harbor seal 

and gray seal will be reduced to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact 

through the incorporation of the 

mitigation measures. For the WNA stock 

of gray seal, the estimated stock 

abundance is 451,600 animals. Given 

that only 1 to 3 takes by Level B 

harassment are authorized for this stock 

annually, we do not expect this 

authorization to exacerbate or 

compound upon the ongoing UME. 

For the WNA stock of harbor seals, 

the estimated abundance is 61,336 

individuals. The estimated M/SI for this 

stock (339) is well below the PBR 

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

takes of harbor seal are not expected to 

exacerbate or compound upon the 

ongoing UMEs. 

With regard to humpback whales, the 

UME does not yet provide cause for 

concern regarding population-level 

impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant 

population of humpback whales (the 

Gulf of Maine stock and the West Indies 

breeding population, or distinct 

population segment (DPS)) remains 

healthy. The Gulf of Marine stock of 

humpback whales was listed as strategic 

under the MMPA from 1995 through the 

2018 SARs but has since been removed 

from this list. Annual SARs have also 

indicated an increasing population 

trend for the stock, with a current 

abundance estimate of 1369 whales 

(Hayes et al., 2021). 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS established 14 DPSs with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The West Indies DPS, which consists of 

the whales whose breeding range 

includes the Atlantic margin of the 

Antilles from Cuba to northern 

Venezuela, and whose feeding range 

primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, 

eastern Canada, and western Greenland, 

was delisted. The status review 

identified harmful algal blooms, vessel 

collisions, and fishing gear 

entanglements as relevant threats for 

this DPS, but noted that all other threats 

are considered likely to have no or 

minor impact on population size or the 

growth rate of this DPS (Bettridge et al., 

2015). As described in Bettridge et al., 

(2015), the West Indies DPS has a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
15962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 

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

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

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

appears to be experiencing consistent 

growth. This trend is consistent with 

that in 2021 draft SARs as mentioned 

above. Further, NMFS is authorizing no 

more than eight takes by Level B 

harassment annually of humpback 

whale. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on 

affected marine mammals’ habitats. The 

project activities will not modify 

existing marine mammal habitat for a 

significant amount of time. The 

activities may cause some fish to leave 

the area of disturbance, thus temporarily 

impacting marine mammals’ foraging 

opportunities in a limited portion of the 

foraging range; but, because of the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected (with no known 

particular importance to marine 

mammals), the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• Authorized Level A harassment will 

be very small amounts and of low 

degree; 

• The intensity of anticipated takes 

by Level B harassment is relatively low 

for all stocks; 

• The number of anticipated takes is 

very low for humpback whale, harbor 

porpoise, and gray seal; 

• The specified activity and 

associated ensonified areas are very 

small relative to the overall habitat 

ranges of all species and do not include 

habitat areas of special significance 

(Biologically Important Areas or ESAdesignated critical habitat); 

• The lack of anticipated significant 

or long-term negative effects to marine 

mammal habitat; 

• The presumed efficacy of the 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity; and 

• Monitoring reports from similar 

work in the Chesapeake Bay have 

documented little to no effect on 

individuals of the same species 

impacted by the specified activities. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS is 

authorizing is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance for 

humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray 

seal, the Northern North Carolina 

Estuarine Stock of bottlenose dolphin 

and harbor seal (in fact, take of 

individuals is less than 5 percent of the 

abundance of the affected stocks, see 

Table 8). This is likely a conservative 

estimate because they assume all takes 

are of different individual animals 

which is likely not the case. Some 

individuals may return multiple times 

in a day, but PSOs will count them as 

separate takes if they cannot be 

individually identified. 

There are three bottlenose dolphin 

stocks that could occur in the project 

area. Therefore, the estimated 14,989 

dolphin takes by Level B harassment 

would likely be split among the western 

North Atlantic northern migratory 

coastal stock, the western North Atlantic 

southern migratory coastal stock, and 

the northern North Carolina Estuarine 

stock (NNCES). Based on the stocks’ 

respective occurrence in the area, NMFS 

estimates that there would be no more 

than 200 takes from the NNCES stock, 

representing 24 percent of that 

population, with the remaining takes 

split evenly between the northern and 

southern migratory coastal stocks. Based 

on the consideration of various factors 

as described below, we have determined 

the number of individuals taken will 

comprise less than one-third of the best 

available population abundance 

estimate of either coastal migratory 

stocks. Detailed descriptions of the 

stocks’ ranges have been provided in the 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities section. 

Both the northern migratory coastal 

and southern migratory coastal stocks 

have expansive ranges and they are the 

only dolphin stocks thought to make 

broad-scale, seasonal migrations in 

coastal waters of the western North 

Atlantic. Given the large ranges 

associated with these two stocks it is 

unlikely that large segments of either 

stock would approach the project area 

and enter into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

majority of both stocks are likely to be 

found widely dispersed across their 

respective habitat ranges and unlikely to 

be concentrated in or near the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and 

nearby offshore waters represent the 

boundaries of the ranges of each of the 

two coastal stocks during migration. The 

northern migratory coastal stock is 

found during warm water months from 

coastal Virginia, including the 

Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New 

York. The stock migrates south in late 

summer and fall. During cold water 

months, dolphins may be found in 

coastal waters from Cape Lookout, 

North Carolina, to the North Carolina/ 

Virginia border. During January–March, 

the southern Migratory coastal stock 

appears to move as far south as northern 

Florida. From April–June, the stock 

moves back north to North Carolina. 

During the warm water months of July– 

August, the stock is presumed to occupy 

the coastal waters north of Cape 

Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, 

Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. 

There is likely some overlap between 

the northern and southern migratory 

stocks during spring and fall migrations, 

but the extent of overlap is unknown. 

The Chesapeake Bay and waters 

offshore of the mouth are located on the 

periphery of the migratory ranges of 

both coastal stocks (although during 

different seasons). Additionally, each of 

the migratory coastal stocks are likely to 

be located in the vicinity of the Bay for 

relatively short timeframes. Given the 

limited number of animals from each 

migratory coastal stock likely to be 

found at the seasonal migratory 

boundaries of their respective ranges, in 

combination with the short time periods 

(∼2 months) animals might remain at 

these boundaries, it is reasonable to 

assume that takes are likely to occur 

only within some small portion of either 

of the migratory coastal stocks. 

Many of the dolphin observations in 

the Bay are likely repeated sightings of 

the same individuals. The PotomacVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Mar 18, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM 21MRN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2022 / Notices 15963 

Chesapeake Dolphin Project has 

observed over 1,200 unique animals 

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

highly variable. Some dolphins are 

observed once per year, while others are 

highly regular with greater than 10 

sightings per year (Mann, Personal 

Communication). Similarly, using 

available photo-identification data, 

Engelhaupt et al., (2016) determined 

that specified individuals were often 

observed in close proximity to their 

original sighting locations and were 

observed multiple times in the same 

season or same year. Ninety-one percent 

of re-sighted individuals (100 of 110) in 

the study area were recorded less than 

30 km from the initial sighting location. 

Multiple sightings of the same 

individual would considerably reduce 

the number of individual animals that 

are taken by harassment. Furthermore, 

the existence of a resident dolphin 

population in the Bay would increase 

the percentage of dolphin takes that are 

actually re-sightings of the same 

individuals. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination regarding the 

incidental take of small numbers of the 

affected stocks of a species or stock: 

• The take of marine mammal stocks 

authorized for take comprises less than 

5 percent of any stock abundance (with 

the exception of the Northern and 

Southern Migratory stocks of bottlenose 

dolphin); 

• Potential bottlenose dolphin takes 

in the project area are likely to be 

allocated among three distinct stocks; 

• Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the 

project area have extensive ranges and 

it would be unlikely to find a high 

percentage of the individuals of any one 

stock concentrated in a relatively small 

area such as the project area or the 

Chesapeake Bay; 

• The Chesapeake Bay represents the 

migratory boundary for each of the 

specified dolphin stocks and it would 

be unlikely to find a high percentage of 

any stock concentrated at such 

boundaries; and 

• Many of the takes would likely be 

repeats of the same animals and likely 

from a resident population of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is authorized or expected to 

result from this activity. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

is not required for this action. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of this IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the U.S. 

Navy for conducting pile driving and 

drilling activities associated with the 

demolition and reconstruction of Pier 3 

at Naval Station Norfolk, in Norfolk, 

Virginia from April 1, 2022 through 

March 31, 2023, that includes the 

previously explained mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

The final IHA can be found at https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

Dated: March 15, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05851 Filed 3–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

[Docket ID USA–2022–HQ–0007] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Department of the Army, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: 60-Day information collection 

notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

announces a proposed public 

information collection and seeks public 

comment on the provisions thereof. 

Comments are invited on: Whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the information collection on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by May 20, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail: Department of Defense, Office of 

the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and 

Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 

4800 Mark Center Drive, Attn: Mailbox 

24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350– 

1700. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES