19886 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

Time Topic Presenter(s) Notes 

11:05 a.m.–1 p.m ........................... TORs #5, #11 and #6 ................... Liz Brooks, Tom Carruthers ......... BRPs. 

EGB Reference. 

Points Projections. 

1 p.m.–1:30 p.m ............................. Break.

1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m ........................ TORs #8 and #7 ........................... Liz Brooks, Tom Carruthers, Brian 

Linton.

Alternative Assessment Approach. 

Research Recommendations. 

3:30 p.m.–4 p.m ............................. Discussion/Summary .................... Review Panel.

4 p.m.–4:15 p.m ............................. Public Comment ........................... Public.

4:15 p.m.–4:30 p.m ........................ Break.

4:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m ........................ Panel Wrap-up and Report Discussion.Review Panel.

5:30 p.m ......................................... Adjourn..

The meeting is open to the public; 

however, during the ‘Report Discussion’ 

session on Thursday, March 31st, the 

public should not engage in discussion 

with the Peer Review Panel. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Special 

requests should be directed to Michele 

Traver, via email. 

Dated: March 31, 2022. 

Ngagne Jafnar Gueye, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07229 Filed 4–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB918] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy 

Construction of the Multifunctional 

Expansion of Dry Dock 1 at 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, 

Maine 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

U.S. Navy (Navy) to incidentally harass, 

by Level A and B harassment, marine 

mammals during activities associated 

with the Multifunctional Expansion of 

Dry Dock 1 at Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard, Kittery, Maine 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from April, 1 2022 through March 31, 

2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

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

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

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

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

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On September 2, 2021, NMFS 

received a request from the Navy for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to construction activities associated 

with the multifunctional expansion of 

Dry Dock 1 project (also referred to as 

P–831) at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 

Kittery, Maine. The Navy submitted a 

revised version of the application on 

December 21, 2021. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on 

February 10, 2022. The Navy’s request 

is for take of harbor porpoises, harbor 

seals, gray seals, harp seals, and hooded 

seals by Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment. Neither the Navy nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity; 

therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

The shipyard is located in the 

Piscataqua River in Kittery, Maine. The 

Piscataqua River originates at the 

boundary of Dover, New Hampshire, 

and Eliot, Maine Multifunctional 

Expansion of Dry Dock 1 (P–381) is one 

of three projects that support the overall 

expansion and modification of Dry Dock 

1, located in the western extent of the 

shipyard. The previous two projects, 

construction of a super flood basin (P– 

310) and extension of portal crane rail 

and utilities (P–1074) are currently 

under construction. Work associated 

with P–310 and P–1074 has been and/ 

or is being completed under the separate 

IHAs issued by NMFS. The projects 

have been phased to support Navy 

mission schedules. P–381 will be 

constructed within the same footprint of 

the super flood basin over an 

approximated 7-year period. In-water 

activities are expected to occur within 

the first 5 years, between April 2022 and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19887 

April 2027. This IHA request is for the 

first year of in-water construction for P– 

381 occurring from April 2022 through 

April 2023. All work beyond year 1 is 

anticipated to be requested in a 

rulemaking/Letter of Authorization 

(LOA) application submission to NMFS. 

The purpose of the proposed project, 

Multifunctional Expansion of Dry Dock 

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

basin to create two additional dry 

docking positions (Dry Dock 1 North 

and Dry Dock 1 West) in front of the 

existing Dry Dock 1 East. The super 

flood basin provides the starting point 

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

the application). 

Year 1 construction activities will 

focus on the preparation of the walls 

and floors of the super flood basin to 

support the placement of the monoliths 

and the construction of the two dry 

dock positions. The primary work 

needed to prepare the super flood basin 

involves structural reinforcement of the 

existing berths and floor within the 

super flood basin, bedrock removal, and 

demolition of portions of the super 

flood basin walls. Most of the 

preparatory work will occur behind the 

existing super flood basin walls that 

would act as a barrier to sound and 

would contain underwater noise to 

within a small portion of the Piscataqua 

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

Construction activities that could affect 

marine mammals are limited to in-water 

pile driving and removal activities, rock 

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

The construction activities are 

anticipated to begin in March 2022 and 

proceed to March 2023. In-water 

construction activities would occur for 

365 days over a period of approximately 

12 consecutive months. All in-water 

work capable of producing noise 

harmful to marine mammals will be 

limited to daylight hours. Pile driving 

days are not necessarily consecutive and 

certain activities may occur at the same 

time, decreasing the total number of inwater construction days. Vibratory pile 

driving and extraction is assumed to 

occur during 84 days of Year 1. Impact 

pile driving will occur during 24 days 

in Year 1. DTH activities would occur 

for 919 days and rotary drilling would 

occur for 282 days. Rock hammering 

would occur for 252 days. Overlapping 

activities are estimated to reduce the 

number of construction days by 1,172 

days for a total of 365 construction days. 

A total of 539 shafts/borings; 2,855 

holes/anchors; and 422 sheet piles 

would occur for this project. 

Preparatory work for P–381 in Year 1 

as proposed for this IHA can be 

generally grouped into four categories: 

center wall support and tie-in, structural 

reinforcement of super flood basin 

sidewalls and entrance, mechanical 

bedrock removal, and demolition of 

super flood basin wall components. 

Each category involves one or more 

activities expected to result in 

harassment of marine mammals. 

A detailed description of the planned 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (87 

FR 11860; March 2, 2022). Since that 

time, no 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. 

Comments and Response 

A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue 

an IHA to the Navy was published in 

the Federal Register on March 2, 2022 

(87 FR 11860). 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 comment or comment letter 

from the Marine Mammal Commission. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to the 

Final IHA 

No public comments were received 

during the comment period; however, 

NMFS made a few minor clarifications 

and corrections to this final notice and 

the corresponding IHA. In the sections 

of the documents that refer to the use of 

a bubble curtain, it was established that 

the bubble curtain would be used in 

cases where the Level A harassment 

zone extends to the full region of 

influence (ROI). To clarify this further, 

NMFS add that this refers to DTH 

(cluster and mono-hammer), rock 

hammering, and impact pile driving of 

sheet piles. Specifically, these include 

the 78-in cluster and 42-in mono DTH, 

rock hammering, and impact pile 

driving of sheet piles for the secant pile 

guide wall. In addition, for bubble 

curtains, NMFS clarified that the air 

flow to the bubblers would be balanced 

across the entrance openings to the 

superflood basin, rather than the piles. 

Finally, NMFS removed the mitigation 

condition that outlined observers shall 

work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 

hours (hrs) with at least a 1-hr break 

between shifts and will not perform 

duties as a observer for more than 12 hrs 

in a 24-hr period. This is not a required 

condition for the Navy for these 

construction activities, rather it is 

related to seismic surveys but was 

accidentally included. That said, NMFS 

communicated to the Navy that 

observers should be given adequate 

breaks and work in shifts to reduce 

observer fatigue to ensure their ability to 

best monitor for marine mammals. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

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

/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the 

Piscataqua River in Kittery, Maine, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, 

NMFS follows Committee on Taxonomy 

(2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’ 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal 

SARs. All values presented in Table 3 

are the most recent available at the time 

of publication and are available in the 

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

draft 2021 SARs, available online at: 

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

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19888 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, most 

recent abundance survey) 2 PBR Annual M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise ............. Phocoena phocoena ............ Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy -; N 95,543 ...........................................

(0.31; 74,034; 2016) .....................

851 ......... 164 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ..................... Phoca vitulina ...................... Western North Atlantic ........ -; N 61,336 ...........................................

(0.08, 57,637; 2018) .....................

1,729 ...... 339 

Gray seal ........................ Halichoerus grypus .............. Western North Atlantic ........ -; N 27,3004 .........................................

(0.22; 22,785; 2016) .....................

1,389 ...... 4,453 

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

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

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

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

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

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed action area are 

included in Table 1. More detailed 

descriptions of marine mammals in the 

PNSY project area are provided below. 

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 

11860; March 2, 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. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/find-species) 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 Level A and 

Level B harassment by behavioral 

disturbance, temporary threshold shift 

to marine mammals in the vicinity of 

the project area. The notice of proposed 

IHA (87 FR 11860; March 2, 2022) 

included a discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from the Navy’s 

construction activities 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 11860; March 2, 2022). 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of small numbers and the 

negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, in the form of 

behavioral disturbance, masking, and 

potential TTS, with a smaller amount of 

Level A harassment in the form of PTS. 

As described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and (4) the number of days of activities. 

We note that while these factors can 

contribute to a basic calculation to 

provide an initial prediction of takes, 

additional information that can 

qualitatively inform take estimates is 

also sometimes available (e.g., previous 

monitoring results or average group 

size). Below, we describe the factors 

considered here in more detail and 

present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19889 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2012). Based on what the 

available science indicates and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 microPascal (mPa) (root mean square 

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

pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (RMS) for impulsive and/or 

intermittent (e.g., impact pile driving, 

DTH) sources. The Navy’s construction 

includes the use of continuous and 

impulsive sources, and therefore the 120 

and 160 dB re 1 mPa (RMS) thresholds 

are applicable. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise. The Navy’s 

modification and expansion of Dry Dock 

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

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

driving) sources. 

These thresholds re provided in Table 

2 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-mammalprotection. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT FOR HIGH FREQUENCY CETEACEANS

AND PINNIPEDS

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (HF cetaceans and PW 

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

transmission loss coefficient. 

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease 

in acoustic intensity as an acoustic 

pressure wave propagates out from a 

source. TL parameters vary with 

frequency, temperature, sea conditions, 

current, source and receiver depth, 

water depth, water chemistry, and 

bottom composition and topography. 

The general formula for underwater TL 

is: 

TL = B * log10(R1/R2), 

Where: 

B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to 

be 15) 

R1 = the distance of the modeled sound 

pressure level (SPL) from the driven pile, 

and 

R2 = the distance from the driven pile of the 

initial measurement. 

This formula neglects loss due to 

scattering and absorption, which is 

assumed to be zero here. The degree to 

which underwater sound propagates 

away from a sound source is dependent 

on a variety of factors, most notably the 

water bathymetry and presence or 

absence of reflective or absorptive 

conditions, including in-water 

structures and sediments. Spherical 

spreading occurs in a perfectly 

unobstructed (free-field) environment 

not limited by depth or water surface, 

resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound 

level for each doubling of distance from 

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

spreading occurs in an environment in 

which sound propagation is bounded by 

the water surface and sea bottom, 

resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound 

level for each doubling of distance from 

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

common practice in coastal waters, here 

we assume practical spreading (4.5 dB 

reduction in sound level for each 

doubling of distance). Practical 

spreading is a compromise that is often 

used under conditions where water 

depth increases as the receiver moves 

away from the shoreline, resulting in an 

expected propagation environment that 

would lie between spherical and 

cylindrical spreading loss conditions. 

Practical spreading was used to 

determine sound propagation for this 

project. 

The intensity of pile driving sounds is 

greatly influenced by factors such as the 

type of piles, hammers, and the physical 

environment in which the activity takes 

place. There are sound source level 

(SSL) measurements available for 

certain pile types and sizes from the 

similar environments from other Navy 

pile driving projects that were evaluated 

and used as proxy sound source levels 

to determine reasonable sound source 

levels likely to result from the pile 

driving and removal activities (Table 3). 

Some of the proxy source levels are 

expected to be more conservative, as the 

values are from larger pile sizes. 

Acoustic monitoring results and 

associated monitoring reports from past 

projects conducted at the shipyard and 

elsewhere were reviewed. Projects 

reviewed were those most similar to the 

specified activity in terms of drilling 

and rock hammering activities, type and 

size of piles installed, method of pile 

installation, and substrate conditions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19890 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF IN-WATER PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVELS

[At 10 m from source] 

Pile type Installation method Pile diameter Peak (dB re 1 

μPa) RMS (dB re 1 μPa) SEL (dB re 1 μPa 2 sec) 

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

Shaft .............................. DTH Cluster Drill ......... 78-inch 2 ....................... NA 195.2 (Level A) 167 dB 

(Level B).

181 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bedrock and concrete 

demolition.

Rock Hammer 6 7 ......... NA ................................ 197 184 ............................... 175 

1Egger 2021a. 

2Egger 2021b. 

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

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

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

6 Reyff 2018a 

7 Reyff 2018b 

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

driving and were used to calculate distances to PTS. 

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

microPascal squared per second, measures underwater SEL. 

All recordings were made at 10 meters unless noted otherwise. 

With regards to the proxy values 

summarized in Table 3, very little 

information is available regarding 

source levels for in-water rotary drilling 

activities. As a conservative measure 

and to be consistent with previously 

issued IHAs for similar projects in the 

region (Egger 2021a; Dazey 2012), a 

proxy of 154 dB RMS is proposed for all 

rotary drilling activities. 

Rock hammering is analyzed as an 

impulsive noise source. For purposes of 

this analysis, it is assumed that the 

hammer would have a maximum strike 

rate of 460 strikes per minute and would 

operate for a maximum duration of 15 

minutes before needing to reposition or 

stop to check progress. Therefore, noise 

impacts for rock hammering activities 

are assessed using the number of blows 

per 15-minute interval (6,900 blows) 

and the number of 15-minute intervals 

anticipated over the course of the day 

based on the durations provided in 

Table 2–1 and Table 6–5 of the 

application. As with rotary drilling, very 

little information is available regarding 

source levels associated with nearshore 

rock hammering. Measurements taken 

for this activity as part of the Tappan 

Zee Bridge replacement project recorded 

sound levels as follows: 

• 197 dBpk, 184 dB RMS, 175 dB SEL 

(Reyff 2108a, 2018b) 

Since no other comparable proxy 

values were identified in the literature, 

the Navy is proposing to use the same 

proxy values for rock hammering 

activities associated with P–381. 

The Navy consulted with NMFS to 

obtain the appropriate proxy values for 

DTH mono-hammers. With regards to 

DTH mono-hammers, NMFS provided 

proxy values of 170 dBpk, 167 RMS, 

and 144 dB single strike SEL for holes 

8-inches in diameter or less (Reyff 

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

single strike SEL for holes 8- to 18 

inches in diameter (Guan and Miner 

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

dB single strike SEL for holes 24- to 42- 

inches in diameter (Reyff 2020, Denes et 

al., 2019 as cited in NMFS 2021a). For 

the 78-inch DTH cluster drill, NMFS 

provided an RMS value of 195.2 based 

off of regression and extrapolation 

calculations of existing data. Because of 

the high number of hammers and strikes 

for this system, cluster drills were 

treated as a continuous sound source for 

the time component of Level A 

harassment but still used the impulsive 

thresholds. The Level B harassment 

sound source level at 10 m remained at 

167 dB RMS (Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021 

as cited in NMFS 2021b). 

In conjunction with the NMFS 

Technical Guidance (2018), in 

recognition of the fact that ensonified 

area/volume could be more technically 

challenging to predict because of the 

duration component in the new 

thresholds, NMFS developed a User 

Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 

predict a simple isopleth that can be 

used in conjunction with marine 

mammal density or occurrence to help 

predict takes. We note that, because of 

some of the assumptions included in the 

methods used for these tools, we 

anticipate that isopleths produced are 

typically going to be overestimates of 

some degree, which may result in some 

degree of overestimation of Level A 

harassment take. However, these tools 

offer the best way to predict appropriate 

isopleths when more sophisticated 3D 

modeling methods are not available, and 

NMFS continues to develop ways to 

quantitatively refine these tools and will 

qualitatively address the output where 

appropriate. For stationary sources 

(such as from impact and vibratory pile 

driving), the NMFS User Spreadsheet 

(2020) predicts the closest distance at 

which, if a marine mammal remained at 

that distance the whole duration of the 

activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs 

used in the User Spreadsheet can be 

found in Appendix A of the Navy’s 

application and the resulting isopleths 

are reported below (Tables 4 and 5). 

Calculated distances to Level A 

harassment (PTS Onset) and Level B 

harassment thresholds are large, 

especially for DTH and rock hammering 

activities. However, the full distance of 

sound propagation would not be 

reached due to the presence of land 

masses and anthropogenic structures 

that would prevent the noise from 

reaching nearly the full extent of the 

larger harassment isopleths. The region 

of influence (ROI), which illustrates that 

the land masses preclude the sound 

from traveling more than approximately 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19891 

870 m (3,000 ft) from the source, at 

most. 

Maximum distances are provided for 

the behavioral thresholds for in-water 

construction activities. Areas 

encompassed within the threshold 

(harassment zones) were calculated by 

using a Geographical Information 

System to clip the maximum calculated 

distances to the extent of the ROI. 

Table 4 summarizes the calculated 

maximum distances corresponding to 

the underwater marine mammal 

harassment zones from impulsive 

(impact pile driving, rock hammering, 

DTH) and Table 5 for non-impulsive 

noise (vibratory pile driving, rotary 

drilling, etc.) and the area of the 

harassment zone within the ROI. The 

distances do not take the land masses 

into consideration, but the ensonified 

areas do. Neither consider the reduction 

that will be achieved by the required 

use of a bubble curtain for certain 

activities and therefore all take 

estimates are considered conservative. 

Refer to Figures 6–9 through 6–11 of the 

application for the calculated maximum 

distances corresponding to the 

underwater marine mammal harassment 

zones from impulsive (impact pile 

driving, rock hammering, DTH) and 

non-impulsive noise (vibratory pile 

driving, rotary drilling) and the 

corresponding area of the harassment 

zone within the ROI. 

TABLE 5—CALCULATED DISTANCE AND AREAS OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR IMPULSIVE NOISE

[DTH, impact pile driving, hydraulic rock hammering] 

Activity Purpose Count and size/duration 

Total 

production 

days 

Level A harassment 

(PTS onset) * 

Level B 

harassment * 

High frequency 

cetaceans 

(harbor 

porpoise) 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

Harbor 

porpoise and 

phocids 

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

Center Wall.

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

0.417 km2.

37,909.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Center Wall.

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

0.417 km2.

37,909.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Platform.

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

0.417 km2.

37,909.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Launching Piles.

6, 42-inch shafts ..................... 6 3,880.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

1,743.3 m/ 

0417km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer ................ Center Wall Tie-Downs .......... 36, 9-inch holes ...................... 18 244.8 m/0.074 

km2.

110 m/ .............

0.0229 km2 ......

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Tie-Downs.

18, 9-inch holes ...................... 9 244.8 m/0.0741 

km2.

110 m/ .............

0.0229 km2 ......

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

Impact Pile Driving ................. West Closure Wall Tie-In to 

Existing Wall.

16**, 28-inch Z-shaped sheets ** 4 988.2 m/0.4034 

km2.

444.0 m/0.2012 

km2.

2,512 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Pile Guide Wall.

60, 28-inch Z-shaped sheets 7 1,568.6 m/ 

0.417 km2.

704.7 m/0.365 

km2.

2,512 m/0.417 

km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer ................ Relief Holes Under West Closure Cell.500, 4–6 inch holes ................ 20 180.1 m/0.0481 

km2.

80.9 m/0.015 

km2.

13,594 m/ 

0. 417km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer ................ Mechanical Rock Removal 

Along Face of Existing 

Abutment.

46, 42-inch casing advancements.24 3,880.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

1,743.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

North Entrance Abutment.

28, 42-inch shafts ................... 28 3,880.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

1,743.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer ................ Relief Holes Under West Closure Cell.2,201**, 4–6 inch holes .......... ** 82 180.1 m/ 

0.0481km2.

80.9 m/0.015 

km2.

13,594 m/ 

0.417 km2. 

DTH Mono-hammer ................ Mechanical Rock Removal 

Along Face of Existing 

Abutment.

365, 42-inch casing advancements.183 3,880.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

1,743.3 m/ 

0.417 km2.

13,594 m/ 

0.417 km2. 

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

Tie Downs.

100, 9-inch holes .................... 52 132.9 m/0.0303 

km2.

59.7 m/ 

0.009km2.

13,594 m/0.417 

km2. 

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

Dock 1 North Entrance and 

Temporary Cofferdam.

96, 28-inch Z-shaped sheets 12 1,568.6 m/ 

0.417 km2.

704.7 m/ 

0.365km2.

2,512 m/ 

0.417 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ Removal of Sheetpile and 

Granite Quay Wall (610 cy).

2.5 hours ................................ ** 10 5,860.0 m/ 

0.417 km2.

2,633 m/ 

0.4174km2.

398 m/ 

0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ Mechanical Rock Removal 

(985 cy) Under West Closure Cell.

9 hours ................................... 77 13,766 m/0.417 

km2.

6,184.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

398 m/ 

0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ Shutter Panel Demolition ....... 5 hours ................................... ** 56 9,303.1 m/ 

0.417 km2.

4,179.6 m/ 

0.417 km2.

398 m/ 

0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ Mechanical Rock Removal 

(3,500 cy) Along Face of 

Existing Berth 11 at Basin 

Floor.

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

0.417 km2.

7,492.2 m/ 

0.417 km2.

398 m/ 

0.165 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ P–310 Sheet Pile Removal— 

Berth 1.

12, 25-inch Z-shaped sheets, 

6 hours.

** 3 10,505.4 m/ 

0.417 km2.

4,719.8 m/ 

0.417 km2.

398 m/ 

0.1652 km2. 

Hydraulic Rock Hammer ........ Berth 1 Top of Wall Demolition for Waler Install.10 hours ................................. ** 6 14,767.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

6,634.7 m/ 

0.417 km2.

398 m/ 

0.165km2. 

Source: Kiewit 2021. 

Notes: 

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

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

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

lf = linear feet; N/A = Not Applicable 

Proxy sources used were unattenuated SPLs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19892 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 5—CALCULATED DISTANCE AND AREAS OF LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT FOR NON-IMPULSIVE NOISE

[vibratory pile driving, rotary drilling] 

Activity Purpose Count and size 

Total 

production 

days 

Level A Harassment 

(PTS Onset) 

Level B 

Harassment 

High frequency 

cetaceans harbor porpoise 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

Harbor porpoise and 

phocids 

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

Install Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 2.1 m/0.000014 

km2.

1.3 m/0.000005 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Pre-Drill Socket.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 8.9 m/0.000248 

km2.

5.4 m/0.000091 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Remove Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 0.8 m/0.000002 

km2.

0.5 m/0.000001 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Install Outer Casing.

18, 102-inch Borings .............. 18 2.1 m/ ..............

0.000014 km2 ..

1.3 m/0.000005 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Pre-Drill Socket.

18, 102-inch Borings .............. 18 8.9 m/ ..............

0.000248 km2 ..

5.4 m/0.000091 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Remove Outer Casing.

18, 102-inch Borings .............. 18 0.8 m/ ..............

0.000002 km2 ..

0.5 m/0.000001 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Support—Install Outer Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 2.1 m/ ..............

0.000014 km2 ..

1.3 m/0.000005 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Support—Pre-Drill Socket.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 8.9 m/ ..............

0.000248 km2 ..

5.4 m/0.000091 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

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

Support—Remove Outer 

Casing.

38, 102-inch Borings .............. 38 0.8 m/ ..............

0.000002 km2 ..

0.5 m/0.000001 

km2.

1,848 m/ 

0.417 

km2

Vibratory Pile Driving .............. Tie-In to Existing West Closure Wall.16**, 28-inch Z-Shaped 

Sheets.

** 4 12.2 m/ ............

0.000454 km2 ..

5.0 m/0.000078 

km2.

13,594 m/ 

0.417 km2

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

Pile Guide Wall.

60, 28-inch Z-Shaped Sheets 7 19.4 m/ ............

0.001041 km2 ..

8.0 m/0.0002 

km2.

13,594 m/ 

0.417 km2

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

Wall.

238, 18-inch Flat Sheets ........ 60 6.6 m/ ..............

0.000136 km2 ..

2.7 m/0.000023 

km2.

7,356 m/ 

0.417 km2

Vibratory Pile Driving .............. Install Sheet Piles for Dry 

Dock 1 North Entrance and 

Temporary Cofferdam.

96, 28-inch Z-Shaped Sheets 12 19.4 m/ ............

0.001041 km2 ..

8.0 m/ ..............

0.0002 km2 ......

13,594 m/ 

0.417 km2

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

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

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

Proxy sources used were unattenuated SPLs. 

Concurrent Activities 

Simultaneous use of pile drivers, 

hammers, and drills could result in 

increased SPLs and harassment zone 

sizes given the proximity of the 

component sites and the rules of decibel 

addition (see Table 6 below). Due to the 

relatively small size of the ROI, the use 

of a single DTH cluster drill or rock 

hammer would ensonify the entire ROI 

to the Level A harassment thresholds 

(PTS Onset) (refer to Table 4). Therefore, 

when this equipment is operated in 

conjunction with other noise generating 

equipment, there would be no change in 

the size of the harassment zone. The 

entire ROI would remain ensonified to 

the Level A harassment thresholds for 

the duration of the activity and there 

would be no Level B harassment zone. 

However, when DTH cluster drills or 

rock hammers are not in use, increased 

SPLs and harassment zone sizes within 

the ROI could result. Due to the large 

amount of bedrock excavation required 

for the construction of the 

multifunctional expansion of Dry Dock 

1, the only scenario identified in which 

DTH cluster drills and/or rock hammers 

would not be in operation would be at 

the beginning of the project when two 

rotary drills could be used 

simultaneously. 

According to recent, project specific, 

guidance provided by NMFS to the 

Navy, when two noise sources have 

overlapping sound fields, there is 

potential for higher sound levels than 

for non-overlapping sources because the 

isopleth of one sound source 

encompasses the sound source of 

another isopleth. In such instances, the 

sources are considered additive and 

combined using the rules of decibel 

addition, presented in Table 6 below. 

TABLE 6—ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL CRITERION

Source types 

Difference in 

sound level 

(at specified 

meters) 

Adjustments to specifications for Level A harassment 

RMS/SELss* calculations 

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

source (multiple strikes per second).

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

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19893 

TABLE 6—ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL CRITERION—Continued 

Source types 

Difference in 

sound level 

(at specified 

meters) 

Adjustments to specifications for Level A harassment 

RMS/SELss* calculations 

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

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

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

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

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

AND adjust number of piles per day to account for overlap 

(space and time). 

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

For simultaneous usage of three or 

more continuous sound sources, the 

three overlapping sources with the 

highest sound source levels are 

identified. Of the three highest sound 

source levels, the lower two are 

combined using the above rules, then 

the combination of the lower two is 

combined with the highest of the three. 

For example, with overlapping isopleths 

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

pipe piles with sound source levels of 

161, 167, and 168 dB RMS respectively, 

the 24- and 36-inch would be added 

together; given that 167¥161 = 6 dB, 

then 1 dB is added to the highest of the 

two sound source levels (167 dB), for a 

combined noise level of 168 dB. Next, 

the newly calculated 168 dB is added to 

the 42-inch steel pile with sound source 

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

3 dB is added to the highest value, or 

171 dB in total for the combination of 

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

(NMFS, 2021 unpublished). By using 

this method, a revised proxy source for 

Level A and Level B analysis was 

determined for the use of two, 102-inch 

diameter rotary drills. The revised proxy 

value is presented in Table 7 and the 

resulting harassment zones are 

summarized in Table 8 (depicted in 

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

TABLE 7—REVISED PROXY VALUES

FOR SIMULTANEOUS USE OF NONIMPULSIVE SOURCES

Equipment Rotary drill 

RMS 154 

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

TABLE 8—LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT ZONES RESULTING FROM THE SIMULTANEOUS USE OF TWO, 102-IN. 

DIAMETER ROTARY DRILL

Multiple source scenario 

Level A harassment 

(PTS onset) 

Level B harassment 

Harbor porpoise distance to 155 dB 

SELcum threshold/area of 

harassment zone 

Phocids distance to 185 dB SELcum

threshold/area of harassment zone 

Harbor porpoise and phocids distance 

to 120 dB (DTH) threshold/area of 

harassment zone 

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

Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take 

Calculation and Estimation 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Potential exposures to impact pile and 

vibratory pile driving, rotary drilling, 

DTH, and rock hammering noise for 

each acoustic threshold were estimated 

using marine mammal density estimates 

(N) from the Navy Marine Species 

Density Database (NMSDD) (Navy 2017) 

or from monitoring reports from the 

Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements and 

P–310 construction projects. 

Specifically, where monitoring data 

specific to the project area were 

available, they were used, and the 

NMSDD data were used when there 

were no monitoring data available. The 

take estimate was determined using the 

following equation take estimate = N * 

days of activity * area of harassment. 

The pile type, size, and installation 

method that produce the largest zone of 

influence (ZOI) were used to estimate 

exposure of marine mammals to noise 

impacts. We describe how the 

information provided above is brought 

together to produce a quantitative take 

estimate in the species sections below. 

Harbor Porpoise 

Harbor porpoises may be present in 

the proposed project area during spring, 

summer, and fall, from April to 

December. Based on density data from 

the Navy Marine Species Density 

Database, their presence is highest in 

spring, decreases in summer, and 

slightly increases in fall. During 

previous monitoring of construction 

projects in the area, three harbor 

porpoise were sighted between April 

and December of 2017; two harbor 

porpoise were sighted in early August of 

2018; and one harbor porpoise was 

sighted in 2020 (Cianbro 2018a, b; Navy 

2019; NAVFAC 2021). Using the 2017 

and 2018 data from construction 

monitoring for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements project, the density of 

harbor porpoise for the largest 

harassment zone was determined to be 

0.04/km2. 

Estimated take was calculated by 

density * harassment zone * days for 

each activity (see Table 9). Note that 

where the Level A harassment zone is 

as large as the Level B harassment zone 

and fills the entire ensonified area, the 

enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19894 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 9—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT OF HARBOR PORPOISE BY PROJECT

ACTIVITY

Project activity Density 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by 

Level A 

harassment 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Take by 

Level B 

harassment 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Cluster drill 

DTH (Drill) 78-inch diameter casing ...................................... 0.04 0.417 247 4 0.417 0 

Center Wall—Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 drilled shafts: 

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

Center Wall—Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: 

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

Mechanical Rock Excavation, Hydraulic rock hammering (985 

cy) .......................................................................................... 0.04 0.417 77 1 0.165 0 

Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, Demolish shutter panels, Hydraulic rock hammering .............................................. 0.04 0.417 56 1 0.165 0 

Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Excavate Bedrock, 

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

Mechanical Rock at Abutment: Drill 365 rock borings (1,220 

cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH ............... 0.04 0.417 183 3 0.417 0 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill 

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

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill 

(Pre-drill) 102-inch diameter socket, ..................................... 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1 

Center Wall—Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: Rotary Drill 

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Drill 2,201 relief 

holes, 4–6 holes, Mono-hammer DTH, ................................. 0.04 0.048109 82 0 0.417 1 

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

Mono-hammer DTH ............................................................... 0.04 0.0303 52 0 0.417 1 

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

In summary, we estimate that up to 15 

takes in the form of Level A harassment 

and/or Level B harassment could occur 

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

driving, and rock hammering activities. 

In addition, DTH mono-hammer 

excavation could result in 2 takes by 

Level B harassment and vibratory 

installing/extracting and rotary drilling 

activities could result in 7 takes by 

Level B harassment (Table 9). 

Harbor Seal 

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

constant densities throughout the year. 

Harbor seals are the most common 

pinniped in the Piscataqua River near 

the Shipyard. Harbor seal sightings were 

recorded during monthly surveys 

conducted in 2017 and 2018 (NAVFAC 

Mid-Atlantic 2018, 2019b) as well as 

during Berth 11 and P–310 construction 

monitoring in 2017, 2018, 2020 and 

2021 (Cianbro 2018a, b; Navy 2019; 

Stantec 2020, Stantec 2021). Estimated 

take by Level B harassment has been 

calculated by multiplying the average 

number of harbor seals sighted per day 

from May 2020 through October 2021 by 

the number of actual in-water 

construction days (375 days (159 during 

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

2). Over the course of this time period, 

there have been 1,023 harbor seal 

observations equating to equating to 3 

harbor seal sightings per day. Initially, 

takes were calculated for Level A and 

Level B harassment for harbor seals 

where the density of animals (2.48 

harbor seals/km2, rounded to 3) was 

multiplied by the harassment zone and 

the number of days per construction 

activity. However, using that method 

produced take numbers for Level B 

harassment that were lower than the 

number of harbor seals that has been 

previously observed in the Navy’s 

monitoring reports. Therefore, NMFS is 

proposing (and the Navy agrees), to 

increase the take by Level B harassment 

to more accurately reflect harbor seal 

observations in the monitoring reports, 

by using the value of three harbor seals 

a day multiplied by the total number of 

construction days resulting in 1,125 

takes by Level B harassment proposed 

for authorization. Take by Level A 

harassment of 1,269 harbor seals is 

shown in Table 10 below. Note that 

where the Level A harassment zone is 

as large as the Level B harassment zone 

and fills the entire ensonified area, the 

enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. The authorized takes by 

Level B harassment were not included 

in Table 10 as they were calculated by 

a different method discussed above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19895 

TABLE 10—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT OF HARBOR SEAL BY PROJECT ACTIVITY

Project activity Harbor seals 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by 

Level A 

harassment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gray Seal 

Gray seals may be present year-round 

in the project vicinity, with constant 

densities throughout the year. Gray seals 

are less common in the Piscataqua River 

than the harbor seal. Sightings of gray 

seals were recorded during P–310 

construction monitoring in 2020 and 

2021 (Stantec 2020; Stantec 2021). 

Estimated take by Level B harassment 

has been calculated by multiplying the 

average number of gray seal 

observations per day from May 2020 

through October 2021 (47 during year 1 

P–310 monitoring and 9 during year 2 

P–310 monitoring (to date)) over the 

course of 337 monitoring days (Stantec 

2020; 2021). Over the course of this time 

period, there have been 56 gray seal 

observations equating to equating to 0.2 

gray seal sightings per day. Initially, 

takes were calculated for Level A and 

Level B harassment for gray seals where 

the density was multiplied by the 

harassment zone and the number of 

days per construction activity. However, 

using that method produced take 

numbers for Level B harassment that 

were fewer than the number of gray 

seals that has been previously observed 

in the Navy’s monitoring reports. 

Therefore, NMFS (and the Navy agreed) 

increased the take by Level B 

harassment to more accurately reflect 

gray seal observations in the monitoring 

reports, by using the value of 0.2 gray 

seals multiplied by the total number of 

construction days resulting in 75 takes 

by Level B harassment. Take by Level A 

harassment of 85 gray seals is shown in 

Table 11 below. Note that where the 

Level A harassment zone is as large as 

the Level B harassment zone and fills 

the entire ensonified area, the 

enumerated takes in the Level A 

harassment column may be in the form 

of Level A harassment and/or Level B 

harassment. The authorized takes by 

Level B harassment were not included 

in Table 11 as they were calculated by 

a different method as discussed above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19896 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 11—CALCULATED PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT OF GRAY SEAL BY PROJECT ACTIVITY

Project activity Gray seal 

density 

Level A 

harassment 

zone 

(km2) 

Number of 

days 

Take by 

Level A 

harassment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hooded Seal 

Hooded seals may be present in the 

project vicinity from January through 

May, though their exact seasonal 

densities are unknown. In general, 

hooded seals are much rarer than the 

harbor seal and gray seal in the 

Piscataqua River. One take per month 

from January to May from Level B 

harassment of a hooded seal for the 

Berth 11 Waterfront Improvements 

Construction project (NMFS 2018b) and 

for Year 1 construction activities for Dry 

Dock 1 (NMFS, 2019) was previously 

authorized. To date, the monitoring for 

that project and for the density surveys 

have not recorded a sighting of hooded 

seal in the project area (Cianbro 2018a, 

b; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 2019b; 

Navy 2019; Stantec 2020; Stantec 2021). 

In order to guard against unauthorized 

take, the Navy requested and NMFS is 

authorizing one take by Level B 

harassment of hooded seal per month 

(between the months of January and 

May) resulting in five total takes of 

Level B harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or authorized. 

Harp Seal 

Harp seals may be present in the 

project vicinity January through May. In 

general, harp seals are much rarer than 

the harbor seal and gray seal in the 

Piscataqua River. As discussed above for 

hooded seals, one take by Level B 

harassment during each month of 

construction for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements Project (NMFS 2018b) 

and for year 1 construction activities for 

Dry Dock 1 (NMFS, 2019) was 

previously authorized. The monitoring 

for the Berth 11 Waterfront 

Improvements Construction and P–310 

projects did not record any sightings of 

harp seal in the project area (Cianbro 

2018a, b; NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic 2018, 

2019b; Navy 2019; Stantec 2020; Stantec 

2021). However, it should be noted that 

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

one on 5/14/2020) were observed when 

pile driving activities were not 

occurring (Stantec 2020). In order to 

guard against unauthorized take, the 

Navy requested and NMFS is 

authorizing one take by Level B 

harassment of harp seal per month 

(between the months of January and 

May) resulting in five total takes of 

Level B harassment. No take by Level A 

harassment is anticipated or authorized. 

Table 12 below summarizes the 

authorized take for all the species 

described above as a percentage of stock 

abundance. 

TABLE 12—PROPOSED TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE

Species Stock (NEST) 

Proposed 

Level A 

harassment 

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

Percent of stock 

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

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

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

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19897 

TABLE 12—PROPOSED TAKE ESTIMATES AS A PERCENTAGE OF STOCK ABUNDANCE—Continued 

Species Stock (NEST) 

Proposed 

Level A 

harassment 

Proposed 

Level B 

harassment 

Percent of stock 

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

Mitigation 

Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to the activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the species or stock and its habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

the species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses (latter not applicable 

for this action). NMFS regulations 

require applicants for incidental take 

authorizations to include information 

about the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, we 

carefully consider two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has 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. 

General 

The Navy will follow mitigation 

procedures as described below. In 

general, if poor environmental 

conditions restrict full visibility of the 

shutdown zone, pile driving activities 

would be delayed. 

Training 

The Navy will ensure that 

construction supervisors and crews, the 

monitoring team, and relevant Navy 

staff are trained and prior to the start of 

construction activity, so that 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. New personnel joining 

during the project shall be trained prior 

to commencing work. 

Avoiding Direct Physical Interaction 

The Navy will avoid direct physical 

interaction with marine mammals 

during construction activity. If a marine 

mammal comes within 10 m of such 

activity, operations will cease and 

vessels will reduce speed to the 

minimum level required to maintain 

steerage and safe working conditions, as 

necessary to avoid direct physical 

interaction. 

Shutdown Zones 

The Navy will establish shutdown 

zones for all pile driving activities. The 

purpose of a shutdown zone is generally 

to define an area within which 

shutdown of the activity would occur 

upon sighting of a marine mammal (or 

in anticipation of an animal entering the 

defined area). Shutdown zones will vary 

based on the activity type and marine 

mammal hearing group (Table 13). 

TABLE 13—PILE DRIVING SHUTDOWN ZONE AND MONITORING ZONES DURING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

P–381 year 1 activity description 

Shutdown zone 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 1

monitoring zone 

(m) 

Harbor 

porpoise Phocids 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: 

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

2 Reduced Monitoring area distance negotiated with NMFS. 

Key: ROI—region of influence. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19898 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

Soft Start 

The Navy will use soft start 

techniques when impact pile driving. 

Soft start requires contractors to provide 

an initial set of three strikes from the 

hammer at reduced energy, followed by 

a 30-second waiting period. Then two 

subsequent reduced-energy strike sets 

would occur. A soft start will be 

implemented at the start of each day’s 

impact pile driving and at any time 

following cessation of impact pile 

driving for a period of 30 minutes or 

longer. Soft start is not required during 

vibratory pile driving activities. 

Bubble Curtain 

A bubble curtain will be installed 

across any openings at the entrance of 

super flood basin to attenuate sound for 

the sound sources that encompass the 

entire ROI, which include during DTH 

excavation (DTH mono-hammer and 

cluster drill), hydraulic rock hammering 

and impact pile driving of sheet piles. 

The Navy will record hydroacoustic 

measurements inside and outside of the 

bubble curtain. Should the results of the 

recordings inside the bubble curtain 

show that thresholds are not being 

exceeded by the activity occurring, that 

upon review of the data by NMFS, Navy 

may discontinue use of the bubble 

curtain for those activities that are not 

actually exceeding thresholds. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s planned measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as for ensuring that the most 

value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

D Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

D Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

D Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

D How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

D Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

D Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

The Navy will submit a Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Plan to NMFS for 

approval in advance of the start of 

construction. 

Monitoring Zones 

The Navy will conduct monitoring to 

include the area within the Level B 

harassment zones (areas where SPLs are 

equal to or exceed the 160 dB RMS 

threshold for impact driving and the 120 

dB RMS threshold during vibratory pile 

driving) (see Table 13 above). These 

monitoring zones provide utility for 

monitoring conducted for mitigation 

purposes (i.e., shutdown zone 

monitoring) by establishing monitoring 

protocols for areas adjacent to the 

shutdown zones. Monitoring of the 

disturbance zones enables observers to 

be aware of and communicate the 

presence of marine mammals in the 

project area, but outside the shutdown 

zone, and thus prepare for potential 

shutdowns of activity. 

Visual Monitoring 

Monitoring will take place from 30 

minutes (min) prior to initiation of pile 

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

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

marine mammal is observed entering or 

within the shutdown zones, pile driving 

will be delayed or halted. If pile driving 

is delayed or halted due to the presence 

of a marine mammal, the activity may 

not commence or resume until either 

the animal has voluntarily exited and 

been visually confirmed beyond the 

shutdown zone or 15 min have passed 

without re-detection of the animal. Pile 

driving activity will be halted upon 

observation of either a species for which 

incidental take is not authorized or a 

species for which incidental take has 

been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met, entering 

or within the disturbance zone. 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

Monitoring Requirements and Locations 

PSOs will be responsible for 

monitoring, the shutdown zones, the 

disturbance zones and the pre-clearance 

zones, as well as effectively 

documenting Level A and B harassment 

take. As described in more detail in the 

Reporting section below, they will also 

(1) document the frequency at which 

marine mammals are present in the 

project area, (2) document behavior and 

group composition, (3) record all 

construction activities, and (4) 

document observed reactions (changes 

in behavior or movement) of marine 

mammals during each sighting. The 

PSOs will monitor for marine mammals 

during all in-water pile activities 

associated with the project. The Navy 

shall monitor the project area to the 

extent possible based on the required 

number of PSOs, required monitoring 

locations, and environmental 

conditions. Visual monitoring shall be 

conducted by three PSOs. It is assumed 

that three PSOs shall be located on 

boats, docks, or piers sufficient to 

monitor the respective ROIs given the 

abundance of suitable vantage points 

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

PSOs must record all observations of 

marine mammals, regardless of distance 

from the pile being driven. 

Monitoring of pile driving will be 

conducted by qualified, PSOs. The Navy 

shall adhere to the following conditions 

when selecting PSOs: 

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

construction personnel) and have no 

other assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods; 

D At least one PSO must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activities 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; 

D Other PSOs may substitute other 

relevant experience, education (degree 

in biological science or related field), or 

training; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19899 

D Where a team of three PSOs are 

required, a lead observer or monitoring 

coordinator shall be designated. The 

lead observer must have prior 

experience performing the duties of a 

PSO during construction activity 

pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental 

take authorization; and 

The Navy will ensure that the PSOs 

have the following additional 

qualifications: 

D Visual acuity in both eyes 

(correction is permissible) sufficient for 

discernment of moving targets at the 

water’s surface with ability to estimate 

target size and distance; use of 

binoculars may be necessary to correctly 

identify the target; 

D Experience and ability to conduct 

field observations and collect data 

according to assigned protocols; 

D Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

D Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

D Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; and 

D Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary. 

Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

The Navy will conduct a sound 

source verification (SSV) study for all 

pile types and will follow accepted 

methodological standards to achieve 

their objectives. The Navy will submit 

an acoustic monitoring plan to NMFS 

for approval prior to the start of 

construction. The Navy will collect and 

evaluate acoustic sound record levels 

for 10 percent of the new rotary drilling, 

DTH excavation (DTH mono-hammer 

and cluster drill), and rock hammering 

activities conducted as part of P–381 

(Table 14). Hydrophones will be placed 

at locations 10 m (33 ft) from the noise 

source and, where the potential for 

Level A harassment exists, at a second 

representative monitoring location at an 

intermediate distance between the 

cetacean and phocid shutdown zones. 

For the 10 percent of rotary drilling, 

DTH excavation (DTH mono-hammer 

and cluster drill), and rock hammering 

events acoustically measured, 100 

percent of the data will be analyzed. 

At a minimum, the methodology 

includes: 

D For underwater recordings, a 

stationary hydrophone system with the 

ability to measure SPLs will be placed 

in accordance with NMFS most recent 

guidance for the collection of source 

levels, 

D Hydroacoustic monitoring will be 

conducted for 10 percent of each 

different type of activity not previously 

monitored as part of P–310 (Table 14). 

Monitoring will occur from the same 

locations approved by NMFS for P–310 

construction activities. The resulting 

data set will be analyzed to examine and 

confirm sound pressure levels and rates 

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

concurrence, these metrics will be used 

to recalculate the limits of shutdown 

and Level B harassment zones, and to 

make corresponding adjustments in 

marine mammal monitoring of these 

zones for use in the forthcoming 

rulemaking/LOA application. 

Hydrophones will be placed in the same 

manner as for P–310 construction 

activities. Locations of hydroacoustic 

recordings will be collected via GPS. A 

depth sounder and/or weighted tape 

measure will be used to determine the 

depth of the water. The hydrophone 

will be attached to a-weighted nylon 

cord to maintain a constant depth and 

distance from the pile/drill/hammer 

location. The nylon cord or chain will 

be attached to a float or tied to a static 

line, 

D Each hydrophone (underwater) will 

be calibrated at the start of each action 

and will be checked frequently to the 

applicable standards of the hydrophone 

manufacturer, 

D For each monitored location, a 

single hydrophone will be suspended 

midway in the water column in order to 

evaluate site-specific attenuation and 

propagation characteristics that may be 

present throughout the water column, 

D Environmental data will be 

collected, including but not limited to, 

the following: Wind speed and 

direction, air temperature, humidity, 

surface water temperature, water depth, 

wave height, weather conditions, and 

other factors that could contribute to 

influencing the airborne and underwater 

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

D The chief inspector will supply the 

acoustics specialist with the substrate 

composition, hammer/drill model and 

size, hammer/drill energy settings, 

depth of drilling, and boring rates and 

any changes to those settings during the 

monitoring; 

D For acoustically monitored 

construction activities, data from the 

continuous monitoring locations will be 

post-processed to obtain the following 

sound measures: 

Æ Maximum peak pressure level 

recorded for all activities, expressed in 

dB re 1 mPa. This maximum value will 

originate from the phase of drilling/ 

hammering during which drill/hammer 

energy was also at maximum (referred to 

as Level 4), 

Æ From all activities occurring during 

the Level 4 phase these additional 

measures will be made, as appropriate: 

D Mean, median, minimum, and 

maximum RMS pressure level in (dB re 

1 mPa), 

D Mean duration of a pile strike 

(based on the 90 percent energy 

criterion), 

D Number of hammer strikes, and; 

D Mean, median, minimum, and 

maximum single strike SEL (dB re mPa2

sec). 

Æ Cumulative SEL as defined by the 

mean single strike SEL + 10*log 

(number of hammer strikes) (dB re mPa2

sec), 

Æ Median integration time used to 

calculate SPL RMS, 

Æ A frequency spectrum (pressure 

spectral density) (dB re mPa2 per Hz) 

based on the average of up to eight 

successive strikes with similar sound. 

Spectral resolution will be 1 Hz, and the 

spectrum will cover nominal range from 

7 Hz to 20 kHz, and; 

Æ Finally, the cumulative SEL will be 

computed from all the strikes associated 

with each pile occurring during all 

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

4. This measure is defined as the sum 

of all single strike SEL values. The sum 

is taken of the antilog, with log10 taken 

of result to express (dB re mPa2 sec). 

TABLE 14—HYDROACOUSTIC MONITORING SUMMARY

Size Count Activity Number monitored 

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

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

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19900 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 14—HYDROACOUSTIC MONITORING SUMMARY—Continued 

Size Count Activity Number monitored 

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

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

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

Marine Mammal Monitoring Reporting 

The Navy will submit a draft report to 

NMFS within 90 calendar days of the 

completion of monitoring or 60 calendar 

days prior to the requested issuance of 

any subsequent IHA for construction 

activity at the same location, whichever 

comes first. The report will detail the 

monitoring protocol and summarize the 

data recorded during monitoring. The 

final report must be prepared and 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of any NMFS comments on 

the draft report. If no comments are 

received from NMFS within 30 days of 

receipt of the draft report, the report 

will be considered final. If comments 

are received, a final report addressing 

NMFS comments must be submitted 

within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All draft and final marine 

mammal monitoring reports must be 

submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Egger@noaa.gov. The report 

must contain the following 

informational elements, at minimum, 

(and be included in the Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Plan), including: 

D Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring; 

D Construction activities occurring 

during each daily observation period, 

including: 

Æ How many and what type of piles 

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

impact or vibratory); and 

Æ Total duration of driving time for 

each pile (vibratory driving) and 

number of strikes for each pile (impact 

driving); 

D PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

D Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

D Upon observation of a marine 

mammal, the following information: 

Æ PSO who sighted the animal and 

PSO location and activity at time of 

sighting; 

Æ Time of sighting; 

Æ Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; 

Æ Distance and bearing of each 

marine mammal observed to the pile 

being driven for each sighting (if pile 

driving was occurring at time of 

sighting); 

Æ Estimated number of animals 

(minimum/maximum/best); 

Æ Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.; 

Æ Animal’s closest point of approach 

and estimated time spent within the 

harassment zone; and 

Æ Description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses to the activity (e.g., no 

response or changes in behavioral state 

such as ceasing feeding, changing 

direction, flushing, or breaching); 

D Detailed information about 

implementation of any mitigation (e.g., 

shutdowns and delays), a description of 

specific actions that ensued, and 

resulting changes in behavior of the 

animal, if any; and 

D All PSO datasheets and/or raw 

sightings data. 

Reporting of Hydroacoustic Monitoring 

The Navy will also submit a draft 

hydroacoustic monitoring report to 

NMFS within 60 workdays of the 

completion of required monitoring at 

the end of the project. The report will 

detail the hydroacoustic monitoring 

protocol and summarize the data 

recorded during monitoring. The final 

report must be prepared and submitted 

within 30 days following resolution of 

any NMFS comments on the draft 

report. If no comments are received 

from NMFS within 30 days of receipt of 

the draft report, the report shall be 

considered final. If comments are 

received, a final report addressing 

NMFS comments must be submitted 

within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. All draft and final 

hydroacoustic monitoring reports must 

be submitted to 

PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Egger@noaa.gov. The 

hydroacoustic monitoring report will 

contain the informational elements 

described in the Hydroacoustic 

Monitoring Plan and, at minimum, will 

include: 

D Hydrophone equipment and 

methods: Recording device, sampling 

rate, distance (m) from the pile where 

recordings were made; depth of water 

and recording device(s); 

D Type and size of pile being driven, 

substrate type, method of driving during 

recordings (e.g., hammer model and 

energy), and total pile driving duration; 

D Whether a sound attenuation device 

is used and, if so, a detailed description 

of the device used and the duration of 

its use per pile; 

D For impact pile driving and/or DTH 

excavation (DTH mono-hammer and 

cluster drill) (per pile): Number of 

strikes and strike rate; depth of substrate 

to penetrate; pulse duration and mean, 

median, and maximum sound levels (dB 

re: 1 mPa): Root mean square sound 

pressure level (SPLrms); cumulative 

sound exposure level (SELcum), peak 

sound pressure level (SPLpeak), and 

single-strike sound exposure level 

(SELs-s); 

D For vibratory driving/removal and/ 

or DTH excavation (DTH mono-hammer 

and cluster drill) (per pile): Duration of 

driving per pile; mean, median, and 

maximum sound levels (dB re: 1 mPa): 

Root mean square sound pressure level 

(SPLrms), cumulative sound exposure 

level (SELcum) (and timeframe over 

which the sound is averaged); and 

D One-third octave band spectrum 

and power spectral density plot. 

D General Daily Site Conditions 

Æ Date and time of activities, 

Æ Water conditions (e.g., sea state, 

tidal state); and 

Æ Weather conditions (e.g., percent 

cover, visibility). 

Reporting of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

Navy will report the incident to NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

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

NMFS (301–427–8401) and to the 

Greater Atlantic Region New England/ 

Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator 

(866–755–6622) as soon as feasible. If 

the death or injury was clearly caused 

by the specified activity, the Navy must 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19901 

immediately cease the specified 

activities until NMFS OPR is able to 

review the circumstances of the incident 

and determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of this rule. 

The Navy will not resume their 

activities until notified by NMFS. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

D Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

D Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

D Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

D Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

D If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

D General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be taken 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, this introductory 

discussion of our analyses applies to all 

of the species listed in Table 1, given 

that many of the anticipated effects of 

this project on different marine mammal 

stocks are expected to be relatively 

similar in nature. Where there are 

meaningful differences between species 

or stocks in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impacts of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, they are described 

independently in the analysis below. 

Construction activities associated 

with the project, as outlined previously, 

have the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level A and Level B 

harassment from underwater sounds 

generated by pile driving activities, 

rotary drilling, rock hammering, and 

DTH. Potential takes could occur if 

marine mammals are present in zones 

ensonified above the thresholds for 

Level A and Level B harassment, 

identified above, while activities are 

underway. 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected even in the absence of the 

proposed mitigation measures. A bubble 

curtain will be installed across any 

openings at the entrance of super flood 

basin to attenuate sound for the sound 

sources that encompass the entire ROI 

include during DTH excavation (DTH 

mono-hammer and cluster drill), rock 

hammering, and impact pile driving of 

sheet piles. During all impact driving, 

implementation of soft start procedures 

and monitoring of established shutdown 

zones will be required, significantly 

reducing the possibility of injury. Given 

sufficient notice through use of soft start 

(for impact driving), marine mammals 

are expected to move away from an 

irritating sound source prior to it 

becoming potentially injurious. In 

addition, PSOs will be stationed within 

the action area whenever pile driving, 

rotary drilling, rock hammering and 

DTH activities are underway. The Navy 

shall employ the use of three PSOs to 

ensure all monitoring and shutdown 

zones are properly observed. For 

hooded and harp seals which are a rare 

species in within the project area, we do 

not anticipate any take by Level A 

harassment. 

The Navy’s planned activities and 

associated impacts will occur within a 

limited area. Most of the work will 

occur behind the existing super flood 

basin walls that would act as a barrier 

to sound and would contain underwater 

noise to within a small portion of the 

Piscataqua River. Exposures to elevated 

sound levels produced during pile 

driving activities may cause behavioral 

disturbance of some individuals, but 

they are expected to be mild and 

temporary and further minimized by the 

use of a bubble curtain and soft starts. 

As described previously, the mitigation 

and monitoring measures are expected 

to further reduce the likelihood of injury 

as well as reduce behavioral 

disturbances. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, as enumerated 

in the Estimated Take section, on the 

basis of reports in the literature as well 

as monitoring from other similar 

activities, will likely be limited to 

reactions such as increased swimming 

speeds, increased surfacing time, or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff 

2006). Most likely, individual animals 

will simply move away from the sound 

source and be temporarily displaced 

from the area, although even this 

reaction has been observed primarily 

only in association with impact pile 

driving. The activities analyzed here are 

similar to numerous other construction 

activities conducted along both Atlantic 

and Pacific coasts, which have taken 

place with no known long-term adverse 

consequences from behavioral 

harassment. These reactions and 

behavioral changes are expected to 

subside quickly when the exposures 

cease. Level B harassment will be 

minimized through use of mitigation 

measures described herein. including 

the soft starts and the use of the bubble 

curtain, which was not quantitatively 

factored into the take estimates. 

Regarding Level A harassment 

particularly for harbor seals and gray 

seals, monitoring and shutdown 

protocols, and a bubble curtain 

implemented during DTH excavation 

(DTH mono-hammer and cluster drill), 

hydraulic rock hammering, and impact 

pile driving of sheet piles would 

minimize potential for take by Level A 

harassment. For pinnipeds, the 

calculated Level A harassment likely 

overestimates PTS exposure because: (1) 

Seals are unlikely to remain in the Level 

A harassment zone underwater long 

enough to accumulate sufficient 

exposure to noise resulting in PTS, and 

(2) the estimate assumes that new seals 

are in the Level A harassment zone 

every day during pile driving. Further as 

discussed above, take by Level A 

harassment would be minimized due to 

implementation of monitoring, 

shutdown procedures and a bubble 

curtain. Nonetheless, we have 

considered the potential impacts of 

these PTS takes occurring in this 

analysis. The degree of PTS that may 

incur from the Navy’s activities are not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
19902 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 

expected to impact marine mammals 

such that their reproduction or survival 

could be affected. Similarly, data do not 

suggest that a single instance in which 

an animal accrues PTS (or TTS) and is 

subject to behavioral disturbance would 

result in impacts to reproduction or 

survival. If PTS were to occur, it would 

be at a lower level likely to accrue to a 

relatively small portion of the 

population by being a stationary activity 

in one particular location. 

The project is also not expected to 

have significant adverse effects on any 

marine mammal habitat. The project 

activities will not modify existing 

marine mammal habitat since the 

project will occur within the same 

footprint as existing marine 

infrastructure. Impacts to the immediate 

substrate are anticipated, but these 

would be limited to minor, temporary 

suspension of sediments, which could 

impact water quality and visibility for a 

short amount of time but which would 

not be expected to have any effects on 

individual marine mammals. The 

nearshore and intertidal habitat where 

the project will occur is an area of 

consistent vessel traffic from Navy and 

non-Navy vessels, and some local 

individuals would likely be somewhat 

habituated to the level of activity in the 

area, further reducing the likelihood of 

more severe impacts. The closest 

pinniped haulout used by harbor and 

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

the opposite side of the island and not 

within the ensonified area. There are no 

other biologically important areas for 

marine mammals near the project area. 

In addition, impacts to marine 

mammal prey species are expected to be 

minor and temporary. Overall, the area 

impacted by the project is very small 

compared to the available surrounding 

habitat. The most likely impact to prey 

will be temporary behavioral avoidance 

of the immediate area. During 

construction activities, it is expected 

that some fish and marine mammals 

would temporarily leave the area of 

disturbance, thus impacting marine 

mammals’ foraging opportunities in a 

limited portion of the foraging range. 

But, because of the relatively small area 

of the habitat that may be affected, the 

impacts to marine mammal habitat are 

not expected to cause significant or 

long-term negative consequences. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

D No mortality is anticipated or 

proposed for authorization; 

D No Level A harassment is 

anticipated or proposed for 

authorization for hooded seals and harp 

seals; 

D Level A harassment proposed for 

authorization for harbor and gray seals 

will be minimized with a bubble curtain 

and shutdown zones and is expected to 

be of a lower degree that would not 

impact the fitness of any animals; 

D Anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment consist of, at worst, 

temporary modifications in behavior; 

D The required mitigation measures 

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

are expected to be effective in reducing 

the effects of the specified activity; 

D Minimal impacts to marine 

mammal habitat/prey are expected; 

D The action area is located within an 

active marine shipyard area, 

D There is one pinniped haulouts in 

the vicinity of the project area, but it is 

on the opposite side of Seavey Island 

and not within the ensonified area; and 

D There are no known biologically 

important areas in the vicinity of the 

project. Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat and, taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers, 

so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Take of five of the marine mammal 

stocks proposed for authorization will 

comprise at most approximately 3 

percent or less of the stock abundance 

(Table 12). The number of animals 

proposed for authorization to be taken 

from these stocks would be considered 

small relative to the relevant stock’s 

abundances even if each estimated take 

occurred to a new individual, which is 

an unlikely scenario. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

planned 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. 

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 the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy 

for the taking of marine mammals 

incidental to modification and 

expansion of the Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard Dry Dock 1 in Kittery, Maine, 

effective for one year from the date of 

issuance, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 6, 2022 / Notices 19903 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07257 Filed 4–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB929] 

Pacific Bluefin Tuna United States 

Stakeholder Meeting; Meeting 

Announcement 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a public 

meeting to discuss management of 

Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF). This meeting 

is intended to discuss both commercial 

and recreational management of PBF 

and is following up to meetings held on 

similar topics in 2019 and 2020. It is 

also intended to solicit input into 

development of an international longterm harvest strategy for PBF. The 

meeting topics are described under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

DATES: The virtual meeting will be held 

on May 4, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 

p.m. PDT (or until business is 

concluded). You must complete the 

registration process by April 26, 2022, if 

you plan to attend the meeting (see 

ADDRESSES). Members of the public may 

submit written comments on the 

meeting topics or materials to Celia 

Barroso at celia.barroso@noaa.gov by 

April 26, 2022, and may also provide 

oral comments during the virtual 

meeting. 

ADDRESSES: If you plan to attend the 

meeting, which will be held by webinar, 

please register at https://forms.gle/

KKR3Fo7cw1cLUoCt8. Instructions for 

attending the meeting will be emailed to 

meeting participants in advance of the 

meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region 

at celia.barroso@noaa.gov or 562–432– 

1850. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Stakeholders have expressed an interest 

in developing a long-term management 

framework for PBF. In September 2018, 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(PFMC) recommended that its Highly 

Migratory Species Management Team 

develop a long-term management 

strategy for PBF (see the PFMC’s 

‘‘September 2018 Decision Summary 

Document’’ at https://www.pcouncil

.org/documents/2018/09/september2018-decision-document.pdf/). On May 

2, 2019, NMFS held a stakeholder 

meeting in which participants discussed 

potential management objectives and 

strategies to achieve those objectives for 

the domestic commercial PBF fishery 

(see the NMFS report to the June 2019 

PFMC meeting at https://www.pcouncil

.org/documents/2019/06/agenda-item-j2-b-supplemental-nmfs-report-3-pacificbluefin-tuna-stakeholder-meeting-andinput-to-development-of-councilharvest-strategy.pdf). On May 19, 2020, 

NMFS hosted a virtual meeting 

facilitated by Kearns & West that 

focused on domestic implementation of 

an IATTC resolution (see the NMFS 

report to the June 2020 PFMC meeting 

at https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/ 

2020/06/d-1-a-supplemental-nmfsreport-3.pdf). These meetings mainly 

discussed domestic management of PBF. 

NMFS is hosting a separate virtual 

meeting to discuss a long-term harvest 

strategy for PBF within the international 

arena on April 1, 2022 (87 FR 10175, 

February 23, 2022), and this May 4 

meeting will provide an overview of 

that April 1 meeting in addition to 

following up to the 2019 and 2020 

meetings held on domestic PBF 

management. 

PBF U.S. Stakeholder Meeting Topics 

The agenda for this meeting will be 

distributed to participants in advance of 

the meeting. The PBF U.S. stakeholder 

meeting topics may include, but are not 

limited to, the following: (1) An 

overview of international management 

of PBF and current domestic 

management of the U.S. PBF fishery, (2) 

future domestic management of 

commercial and recreational PBF; and 

(3) development of an international 

long-term harvest strategy. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be indicated when registering for 

the meeting (see ADDRESSES) by April 

26, 2022. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 6901 

et seq. 

Dated: April 1, 2022. 

Ngagne Jafnar Gueye, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07318 Filed 4–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Educational Technology, Media, and 

Materials for Individuals With 

Disabilities Program—Educational 

Materials in Accessible Formats for 

Eligible Children and Students With 

Disabilities; Corrections 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice; corrections. 

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2022, the 

Department of Education (Department) 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice inviting applications (NIA) for 

new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for 

Educational Materials in Accessible 

Formats for Eligible Children and 

Students With Disabilities, Assistance 

Listing Number (ALN) 84.327D. The 

Department is amending the NIA by 

increasing the estimated available funds 

and maximum award amount. 

DATES: This correction is applicable 

April 6, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlene Reid, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 

Room 5083A, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–5076. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6139. Email: 

carlene.reid@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 9, 2022, we published the NIA 

in the Federal Register (87 FR 7433). 

Following the publication of the NIA, 

the Joint Explanatory Statement 

accompanying Division H of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 

(Pub. L. 117–103) indicated an intent by 

Congress to provide no less than 

$9,000,000 from the amount 

appropriated for the Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials 

Program for a new Educational 

Materials in Accessible Formats for 

Eligible Children and Students With 

Disabilities competition. Accordingly, 

we are amending the NIA to notify 

prospective applicants that we are 

increasing the estimated available funds 

and maximum award amount. 

Applicants that have already submitted 

applications under the FY 2022 

Educational Materials in Accessible 

Formats for Eligible Children and 

Students With Disabilities competition 

may resubmit applications, but are not 

required to do so. If a new application 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1