Notice2022-07257
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
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 6, 2022
Effective
April 1, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
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
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19886-19903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a>. 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
[[Page 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 down-the-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 in-water 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; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS'
website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>.
[[Page 19888]]
Table 1--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................ Phocoena phocoena..... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -; N 95,543............... 851............. 164
Fundy. (0.31; 74,034; 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal.................... Phoca vitulina........ Western North -; N 61,336............... 1,729........... 339
Atlantic. (0.08, 57,637; 2018).
Gray seal...................... Halichoerus grypus.... Western North -; N 27,300\4\............ 1,389........... 4,453
Atlantic. (0.22; 22,785; 2016).
Harp seal...................... Pagophilus Western North -; N 7,600,000(unk,7,100.0 426,000......... 178,573
groenlandicus. Atlantic. 00, 2019).
Hooded seal........................ Cystophora cristata... Western North -; N 593,500.............. Unknown......... 1,680
Atlantic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered 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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports</a>. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These 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.
\4\ This 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 (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>) 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
[[Page 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 ([mu]Pa) (root mean square (RMS) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa
(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 [mu]Pa
(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 non-impulsive (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
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection</a>.
Table 2--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift for High Frequency Ceteaceans and
Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 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 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. 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 * log<INF>10</INF>(R<INF>1</INF>/R<INF>2</INF>),
Where:
B = transmission loss coefficient (assumed to be 15)
R<INF>1</INF> = the distance of the modeled sound pressure level
(SPL) from the driven pile, and
R<INF>2</INF> = 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.
[[Page 19890]]
Table 3--Summary of In-Water Pile Driving Source Levels
[At 10 m from source]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEL (dB re 1
Pile type Installation method Pile diameter Peak (dB re 1 RMS (dB re 1 [micro]Pa) [micro]Pa\ 2\
[micro]Pa) 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 181
(Level B).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Egger 2021a.
\2\ Egger 2021b.
\3\ A 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]).
\4\ A 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 [micro]Pa = dB referenced to a pressure of 1 microPascal, measures underwater SPL. dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\-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:
<bullet> 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
[[Page 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment (PTS onset) * Level B harassment
Total -------------------------------------------- *
Activity Purpose Count and size/ production High frequency --------------------
duration days cetaceans (harbor Phocid Pinnipeds Harbor porpoise and
porpoise) phocids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DTH Cluster Drill............... Foundation Support 38, 78-inch shafts. 247 84,380.4 m/0.417 37,909.7 m/0.417 13,594 m/0.417
Piles for Center km\2\. km\2\. km\2\.
Wall.
DTH Cluster Drill............... Foundation Leveling 18, 78-inch shafts. 117 84,380.4 m/0.417 37,909.7 m/0.417 13,594 m/0.417
Piles for Center km\2\. km\2\. km\2\.
Wall.
DTH Cluster Drill............... Center Wall--Access 38, 78-inch shafts. 133 84,380.4 m/0.417 37,909.7 m/0.417 13,594 m/0.417
Support Platform. km\2\. km\2\. km\2\.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Center Wall-- 6, 42-inch shafts.. 6 3,880.3 m/0.417 1,743.3 m/0417km\2\. 13,594 m/0.417
Temporary km\2\. km\2\.
Launching Piles.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Center Wall Tie- 36, 9-inch holes... 18 244.8 m/0.074 km\2\. 110 m/.............. 13,594 m/0.417
Downs. 0.0229 km\2\........ km\2\.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Center Wall-Access 18, 9-inch holes... 9 244.8 m/0.0741 km\2\ 110 m/.............. 13,594 m/0.417
Platform Tie-Downs. 0.0229 km\2\........ km\2\.
Impact Pile Driving............. West Closure Wall 16**, 28-inch Z- ** 4 988.2 m/0.4034 km\2\ 444.0 m/0.2012 km\2\ 2,512 m/0.417
Tie-In to Existing shaped sheets. km\2\.
Wall.
Impact Pile Driving............. Berth 11 End Wall 60, 28-inch Z- 7 1,568.6 m/0.417 704.7 m/0.365 km\2\. 2,512 m/0.417
Secant Pile Guide shaped sheets. km\2\. km\2\.
Wall.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Relief Holes Under 500, 4-6 inch holes 20 180.1 m/0.0481 km\2\ 80.9 m/0.015 km\2\.. 13,594 m/
West Closure Cell. 0. 417km\2\.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Mechanical Rock 46, 42-inch casing 24 3,880.3 m/0.417 1,743.3 m/0.417 13,594 m/0.417
Removal Along Face advancements. km\2\. km\2\. km\2\.
of Existing
Abutment.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Install Piles for 28, 42-inch shafts. 28 3,880.3 m/0.417 1,743.3 m/0.417 13,594 m/0.417
Dry Dock 1 North km\2\. km\2\. km\2\.
Entrance Abutment.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Relief Holes Under 2,201**, 4-6 inch ** 82 180.1 m/0.0481km\2\. 80.9 m/0.015 km\2\.. 13,594 m/
West Closure Cell. holes. 0.417 km\2\.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Mechanical Rock 365, 42-inch casing 183 3,880.3 m/0.417 1,743.3 m/0.417 13,594 m/
Removal Along Face advancements. km\2\. km\2\. 0.417 km\2\.
of Existing
Abutment.
DTH Mono-hammer................. Dry Dock 1 Entrance 100, 9-inch holes.. 52 132.9 m/0.0303 km\2\ 59.7 m/0.009km\2\... 13,594 m/0.417
Tremie Tie Downs. km\2\.
Impact Pile Driving............. Install Sheet Piles 96, 28-inch Z- 12 1,568.6 m/0.417 704.7 m/0.365km\2\.. 2,512 m/
for Dry Dock 1 shaped sheets. km\2\. 0.417 km\2\.
North Entrance and
Temporary
Cofferdam.
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... Removal of 2.5 hours.......... ** 10 5,860.0 m/0.417 2,633 m/0.4174km\2\. 398 m/
Sheetpile and km\2\. 0.165 km\2\.
Granite Quay Wall
(610 cy).
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... Mechanical Rock 9 hours............ 77 13,766 m/0.417 km\2\ 6,184.7 m/0.417 398 m/
Removal (985 cy) km\2\. 0.165 km\2\.
Under West Closure
Cell.
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... Shutter Panel 5 hours............ ** 56 9,303.1 m/0.417 4,179.6 m/0.417 398 m/
Demolition. km\2\. km\2\. 0.165 km\2\.
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... Mechanical Rock 12 hours........... ** 100 16,676.3 m/0.417 7,492.2 m/0.417 398 m/
Removal (3,500 cy) km\2\. km\2\. 0.165 km\2\.
Along Face of
Existing Berth 11
at Basin Floor.
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... P-310 Sheet Pile 12, 25-inch Z- ** 3 10,505.4 m/0.417 4,719.8 m/0.417 398 m/
Removal--Berth 1. shaped sheets, 6 km\2\. km\2\. 0.1652 km\2\.
hours.
Hydraulic Rock Hammer........... Berth 1 Top of Wall 10 hours........... ** 6 14,767.7 m/0.417 6,634.7 m/0.417 398 m/
Demolition for km\2\. km\2\. 0.165km\2\.
Waler Install.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 19892]]
Table 5--Calculated Distance and Areas of Level A and Level B Harassment for Non-Impulsive Noise
[vibratory pile driving, rotary drilling]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (PTS Onset) Level B Harassment
Total ----------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Purpose Count and size production High frequency
days cetaceans harbor Phocid Pinnipeds Harbor porpoise and
porpoise phocids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 38, 102-inch 38 2.1 m/0.000014 km\2\ 1.3 m/0.000005 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Foundation Pile-- Borings. 0.417
Install Outer km\2\
Casing.
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 38, 102-inch 38 8.9 m/0.000248 km\2\ 5.4 m/0.000091 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Foundation Pile-- Borings. 0.417
Pre-Drill Socket. km\2\
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 38, 102-inch 38 0.8 m/0.000002 km\2\ 0.5 m/0.000001 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Foundation Pile-- Borings. 0.417
Remove Outer km\2\
Casing.
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 18, 102-inch 18 2.1 m/.............. 1.3 m/0.000005 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Leveling Piles-- Borings. 0.000014 km\2\...... 0.417
Install Outer km\2\
Casing.
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 18, 102-inch 18 8.9 m/.............. 5.4 m/0.000091 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Leveling Piles-- Borings. 0.000248 km\2\...... 0.417
Pre-Drill Socket. km\2\
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall 18, 102-inch 18 0.8 m/.............. 0.5 m/0.000001 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Leveling Piles-- Borings. 0.000002 km\2\...... 0.417
Remove Outer km\2\
Casing.
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall Access 38, 102-inch 38 2.1 m/.............. 1.3 m/0.000005 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Platform Support-- Borings. 0.000014 km\2\...... 0.417
Install Outer km\2\
Casing.
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall Access 38, 102-inch 38 8.9 m/.............. 5.4 m/0.000091 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Platform Support-- Borings. 0.000248 km\2\...... 0.417
Pre-Drill Socket. km\2\
Rotary Drill.................... Center Wall Access 38, 102-inch 38 0.8 m/.............. 0.5 m/0.000001 km\2\ 1,848 m/
Platform Support-- Borings. 0.000002 km\2\...... 0.417
Remove Outer km\2\
Casing.
Vibratory Pile Driving.......... Tie-In to Existing 16**, 28-inch Z- ** 4 12.2 m/............. 5.0 m/0.000078 km\2\ 13,594 m/
West Closure Wall. Shaped Sheets. 0.000454 km\2\...... 0.417 km\2\
Vibratory Pile Driving.......... Berth 11 End Wall 60, 28-inch Z- 7 19.4 m/............. 8.0 m/0.0002 km\2\.. 13,594 m/
Secant Pile Guide Shaped Sheets. 0.001041 km\2\...... 0.417 km\2\
Wall.
Vibratory Extraction............ Remove P-310 West 238, 18-inch Flat 60 6.6 m/.............. 2.7 m/0.000023 km\2\ 7,356 m/
Closure Wall. Sheets. 0.000136 km\2\...... 0.417 km\2\
Vibratory Pile Driving.......... Install Sheet Piles 96, 28-inch Z- 12 19.4 m/............. 8.0 m/.............. 13,594 m/
for Dry Dock 1 Shaped Sheets. 0.001041 km\2\...... 0.0002 km\2\........ 0.417 km\2\
North Entrance and
Temporary
Cofferdam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustments to
Difference in sound specifications for
Source types level (at specified Level A harassment
meters) RMS/SELss*
calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive, continuous/ 0 or 1 dB........... Add 3 dB to the
Non-impulsive, continuous highest sound level
OR Impulsive source (at specified
(multiple strikes per meters) AND adjust
second)/Impulsive source number of piles per
(multiple strikes per day to account for
second). overlap (space and
time).
[[Page 19893]]
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 Non-Impulsive
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment (PTS onset) Level B harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise and
Multiple source scenario distance to 155 dB Phocids distance to 185 phocids distance to 120
SELcum threshold/area dB SELcum threshold/ dB (DTH) threshold/area
of harassment zone area of harassment zone of harassment zone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Rotary Drills...................... 23.6 m/0.002 km\2\..... 9.7 m/0.0002 km\2\..... 2,929 m/0.417 km\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
km\2\.
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.
[[Page 19894]]
Table 9--Calculated Proposed Take by Level A and Level B Harassment of Harbor Porpoise by Project Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B
Project activity Density harassment Number of days Take by Level harassment Take by Level
zone (km\2\) A harassment zone (km\2\) B harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.417 247 4 0.417 0
Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch diameter casing......
Center Wall--Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 drilled 0.04 0.417 117 2 0.417 0
shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch diameter
socket.................................................
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.417 133 2 0.417 0
Cluster Drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch outer casing.........
Mechanical Rock Excavation, Hydraulic rock hammering 0.04 0.417 77 1 0.165 0
(985 cy)...............................................
Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, Demolish shutter 0.04 0.417 56 1 0.165 0
panels, Hydraulic rock hammering.......................
Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Excavate 0.04 0.417 100 2 0.165 0
Bedrock, Hydraulic rock hammering......................
Mechanical Rock at Abutment: Drill 365 rock borings 0.04 0.417 183 3 0.417 0
(1,220 cy), 42-inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH...
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Install) 102-inch diameter outer casing..
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Pre-drill) 102-inch diameter socket,.....
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Remove) 102-inch outer casing............
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Install) 102-inch diameter outer casing..
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.00001 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Pre-drill) 102-inch diameter socket......
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled shafts: 0.04 0.0000002 38 0 0.417 1
Rotary Drill (Remove) 102-inch outer casing,...........
Remove Wall: 238 sheet piles, 18-inch wide flatwebbed, 0.04 0.000136 60 0 0.417 1
Vibratory Extraction...................................
Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin Floor: Drill 2,201 0.04 0.048109 82 0 0.417 1
relief holes, 4-6 holes, Mono-hammer DTH,..............
Drill Tremie Ties Downs: Drill 100 rock anchors, 9-inch 0.04 0.0303 52 0 0.417 1
holes, Mono-hammer DTH.................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 mono-hammer 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 year-round 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/km\2\, 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.
[[Page 19895]]
Table 10--Calculated Proposed Take by Level A Harassment of Harbor Seal by Project Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A
Project activity Harbor seals harassment Number of days Take by Level
density zone (km\2\) A harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled 3 0.417 247 309
shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch
diameter casing................................
Center Wall--Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 3 0.417 117 146
drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-
inch diameter socket...........................
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled 3 0.417 133 166
shafts: Cluster Drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch outer
casing.........................................
Center Wall--Temp Launching Piles: 6 drilled 3 0.417 6 8
shafts: 42-inch diameter shaft, Mono-hammer DTH
Center Wall Tie Downs: 36 Rock Anchors 3 0.023 18 1
(Install): 9-inch diameter holes, Mono-hammer
DTH............................................
Center Wall--Access Platform Tie Downs: 18 Rock 3 0.023 9 1
Anchors (Install): 9-inch diameter holes, Mono-
hammer DTH.....................................
Center Wall--Install Tie-In to Existing West 3 0.201 4 2
Closure Wall: 16 sheet piles: 28-inch wide Z-
shaped sheets--IMPACT Install..................
Berth 11 End Wall--Install Secant Pile Guide 3 0.417 7 8
Wall: 60 sheets piles: 28-inch wide Z-shaped
sheets--IMPACT Install.........................
Berth 1--Remove Granite Block Quay Wall: 610 cy, 3 0.417 10 13
Granite block demo, Hydraulic Rock hammering...
P310 West Closure Wall--Mechanical Rock 3 0.417 77 96
Excavation: 985 cy, Excavated bedrock,
Hydraulic rock hammering.......................
P310 West Closure Wall--Mechanical Rock 3 0.015 20 1
Excavation: Drill 500 relief holes, 4-6 inch
holes, Mono-hammer DTH.........................
P310 West Closure Wall--Mechanical Rock 3 0.417 24 30
Excavation: Drill 46 rock borings (50 cy), 42-
inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH..........
West Closure well--Berth 11 Abutment--Install 3 0.417 28 35
Piles: Drill 28 shafts, 42-inch diameter
casing, Mono-hammer DTH........................
Berth 11--Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, 3 0.417 56 70
Demolish shutter panels, Hydraulic rock
hammering......................................
Berth 11 Face--Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin 3 0.417 100 125
Floor: 3,500 cy, Excavate Bedrock, Hydraulic
rock hammering.................................
Berth 11 Face--Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin 3 0.015 82 4
Floor: Drill 2,201 relief holes, 4-6 holes,
Mono-hammer DTH................................
Berth 11 Face--Mechanical Rock at Abutment: 3 0.417 183 229
Drill 365 rock borings (1,220 cy), 42-inch
diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH...............
Dry Dock 1 North Entrances--Install Temporary 3 0.365 12 13
Cofferdam: Install 96 sheet piles, 28-inch wide
Z-shaped sheets, IMPACT Install................
Berth 1--Remove sheet piles: Remove 12 sheet 3 0.417 3 4
piles, 25-inch wide Z-shaped sheets, Hydraulic
rock hammering.................................
Berth 1 Top of Wall--Demolition for Waler 3 0.417 6 8
Installation: 30 lf, Mechanical concrete
demolition, Hydraulic rock hammering...........
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 19896]]
Table 11--Calculated Proposed Take by Level A Harassment of Gray Seal by Project Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A
Project activity Gray seal harassment Number of days Take by Level
density zone (km2) A harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Wall--Install Foundation: 38 drilled 0.2 0.417 247 21
shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch
diameter casing................................
Center Wall--Install Diving Board Shafts: 18 0.2 0.417 117 10
drilled shafts: Cluster drill DTH (Drill) 78-
inch diameter socket...........................
Center Wall--Access Platform Support: 38 drilled 0.2 0.417 133 11
shafts: Cluster Drill DTH (Drill) 78-inch outer
casing.........................................
Center Wall--Temp Launching Piles: 6 drilled 0.2 0.417 6 1
shafts: 42-inch diameter shaft, Mono-hammer DTH
Berth 11 End Wall--Install Secant Pile Guide 0.2 0.417 7 1
Wall: 60 sheets piles: 28-inch wide Z-shaped
sheets--IMPACT Install.........................
Berth 1--Remove Granite Block Quay Wall: 610 cy, 0.2 0.417 10 1
Granite block demo, Hydraulic Rock hammering...
P310 West Closure Wall--Mechanical Rock 0.2 0.417 77 6
Excavation: 985 cy, Excavated bedrock,
Hydraulic rock hammering.......................
P310 West Closure Wall--Mechanical Rock 0.2 0.417 24 2
Excavation: Drill 19 rock borings (50 cy), 42-
inch diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH..........
West Closure well--Berth 11 Abutment- Install 0.2 0.417 28 2
Piles: Drill 28 shafts, 42-inch diameter
casing, Mono-hammer DTH........................
Berth 11--Remove Shutter Panels: 112 panels, 0.2 0.417 56 5
Demolish shutter panels, Hydraulic rock
hammering......................................
Berth 11 Face--Mechanical Rock Removal at Basin 0.2 0.417 3 8
Floor: 1,020 cy, Excavate Bedrock, Hydraulic
rock hammering.................................
Berth 11 Face--Mechanical Rock at Abutment: 0.2 0.417 24 15
Drill 192 rock borings (610 cy), 42-inch
diameter casing, Mono-hammer DTH...............
Dry Dock 1 North Entrances--Install Temporary 0.2 0.365 12 1
Cofferdam: Install 96 sheet piles, 28-inch wide
Z-shaped sheets, IMPACT Install................
Berth 1 Top of Wall--Demolition for Waler 0.2 0.417 6 1
Installation: 30 lf, Mechanical concrete
demolition, Hydraulic rock hammering...........
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Level Proposed Level
Species Stock (NEST) A harassment B harassment Percent of stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................ Gulf of Maine/Bay 15 9 Less than 1 percent.
of Fundy
(95,543).
Harbor seal.................... Western North 1,269 1,125 Less than 3 percent.
Atlantic
(61,336).
Gray seal...................... Western North 85 75 Less than 1 percent.
Atlantic
(451,600).
Hooded seal.................... Western North 0 5 Less than 1 percent.
Atlantic
(593,500).
[[Page 19897]]
Harp seal...................... Western North 0 5 Less than 1 percent.
Atlantic (7.6
million).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shutdown zone (m)
-------------------------------- Level B harassment \1\ monitoring
P-381 year 1 activity description Harbor zone (m)
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 \2\ 200 \2\ 50 ROI
Closure Wall Tie-in.
Impact install of sheet piles (60) Secant \2\ 200 \2\ 50 ROI
pile guide wall; (96) temporary coffer dam.
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 20 10 ROI
sheets.
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.
[[Page 19898]]
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:
[ssquf] Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
[ssquf] 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);
[ssquf] Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
[ssquf] How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
[ssquf] Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
[ssquf] 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 post-completion 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:
[ssquf] PSOs must be independent (i.e., not construction personnel)
and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience,
education (degree in biological science or related field), or training;
[[Page 19899]]
[ssquf] 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:
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols;
[ssquf] Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
[ssquf] Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations;
[ssquf] 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
[ssquf] 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:
[ssquf] 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,
[ssquf] 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 in-water 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,
[ssquf] 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,
[ssquf] 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,
[ssquf] 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.),
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] For acoustically monitored construction activities, data
from the continuous monitoring locations will be post-processed to
obtain the following sound measures:
[cir] Maximum peak pressure level recorded for all activities,
expressed in dB re 1 [mu]Pa. 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),
[cir] From all activities occurring during the Level 4 phase these
additional measures will be made, as appropriate:
[ssquf] Mean, median, minimum, and maximum RMS pressure level in
(dB re 1 [mu]Pa),
[ssquf] Mean duration of a pile strike (based on the 90 percent
energy criterion),
[ssquf] Number of hammer strikes, and;
[ssquf] Mean, median, minimum, and maximum single strike SEL (dB re
[mu]Pa\2\ sec).
[cir] Cumulative SEL as defined by the mean single strike SEL +
10*log (number of hammer strikes) (dB re [mu]Pa\2\ sec),
[cir] Median integration time used to calculate SPL RMS,
[cir] A frequency spectrum (pressure spectral density) (dB re
[mu]Pa\2\ 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;
[cir] 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
log<INF>10</INF> taken of result to express (dB re [mu]Pa\2\ 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
[[Page 19900]]
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7a7a5d9bea3a7d9ba98999e8398859e9990a5928798858384b799989696d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1141433f5845413f5c7e7f78657e63787f764374617e636562517f7e70703f767e67">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92dbc6c2bcd7f5f5f7e0d2fcfdf3f3bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97dec3c7b9d2f0f0f2e5d7f9f8f6f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>. The report
must contain the following informational elements, at minimum, (and be
included in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan), including:
[ssquf] Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
[ssquf] Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period, including:
[cir] How many and what type of piles were driven and by what
method (e.g., impact or vibratory); and
[cir] Total duration of driving time for each pile (vibratory
driving) and number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);
[ssquf] PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following
information:
[cir] PSO who sighted the animal and PSO location and activity at
time of sighting;
[cir] Time of sighting;
[cir] 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;
[cir] 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);
[cir] Estimated number of animals (minimum/maximum/best);
[cir] Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles,
neonates, group composition, etc.;
[cir] Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent
within the harassment zone; and
[cir] 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);
[ssquf] 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
[ssquf] 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eebebcc0a7babec0a38180879a819c878089bc8b9e819c9a9dae80818f8fc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e0e0c70170a0e70133130372a312c3730390c3b2e312c2a2d1e30313f3f70393128">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#367f6266187351515344765859575718515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440d10146a0123232136042a2b25256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>. The
hydroacoustic monitoring report will contain the informational elements
described in the Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan and, at minimum, will
include:
[ssquf] Hydrophone equipment and methods: Recording device,
sampling rate, distance (m) from the pile where recordings were made;
depth of water and recording device(s);
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] 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 [micro]Pa): 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);
[ssquf] 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 [micro]Pa): Root
mean square sound pressure level (SPLrms), cumulative sound exposure
level (SELcum) (and timeframe over which the sound is averaged); and
[ssquf] One-third octave band spectrum and power spectral density
plot.
[ssquf] General Daily Site Conditions
[cir] Date and time of activities,
[cir] Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tidal state); and
[cir] 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)
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f4f4d31564b4f31527071766b706d7671784d7a6f706d6b6c5f71707e7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3b3b1cdaab7b3cdae8c8d8a978c918a8d84b186938c919790a38d8c8282cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>), 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
[[Page 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:
[ssquf] Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
[ssquf] Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
[ssquf] Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
[ssquf] Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
[ssquf] If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
[ssquf] 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., population-
level 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
[[Page 19902]]
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:
[ssquf] No mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization;
[ssquf] No Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for
authorization for hooded seals and harp seals;
[ssquf] 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;
[ssquf] Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at
worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
[ssquf] The required mitigation measures (i.e., bubble curtain,
shutdown zones) are expected to be effective in reducing the effects of
the specified activity;
[ssquf] Minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat/prey are expected;
[ssquf] The action area is located within an active marine shipyard
area,
[ssquf] 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
[ssquf] 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
[[Page 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 6, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.