Title: CPAP 2.0.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0297.

Type of Request: Revision.

Abstract: This information collection is required to support CFAP 2.0 information collection activities to provide payments to eligible producers who, with respect to their agricultural commodities, have been impacted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The information collection is necessary to evaluate the application and other required paperwork for determining the producer's eligibility and assist in the producer's payment calculations. Producers must submit a completed CFAP 2 application and additional documentation for eligibility, such as certifications of compliance with adjusted gross income provisions and conservation compliance activities; those additional documents and forms must be submitted no later than 60 days from the date a producer signs the application.

The annual burden hours increased by 65,281 in this collection because FSA estimated additional burden hours to account for the new CFAP payments for contract growers and sod and pullet producers that was previously approved under the OMB control number of 0560-0299. The initial notice for OMB 0560-0297 information collection request was published on April 2, 2020, (89 FR 17351); this notice needs to be published to include the added burden hours as indicated in the above.

For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.

Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collections of information.

Type of Respondents: Producers or farmers.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,248,901.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,248,901.

Estimated Average Time per Response: 0.741492 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 926,051 hours.

FSA is requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this document, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

Title: Submission Requirements and Acceptance Testing Protocols and Requirements for New or Relocated Aerial Tramways, Aerial and Surface Lifts, Tows, Conveyors, and Funiculars.

OMB Number: 0596-NEW.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: Existing form FS-2700-5b, Ski Area Term Special Use Permit, requires the permit holder to be responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and public safety of improvements authorized by the permit, including new or relocated aerial tramways, aerial and surface lifts, tows, conveyors, and funiculars (hereinafter “passenger ropeways”).

In particular, clause II.B of FS-2700-5b requires all plans for development, layout, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of improvements in the permit area, as well as revisions to those plans, to be prepared by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional acceptable to the authorized officer. Clause II.B further provides that these plans and plan revisions must have written approval from the authorized officer before they are implemented and that the authorized officer may require the holder to furnish as-built plans, maps, or surveys upon completion of the work. New form FS-7300-0006, Submission Requirements and Acceptance Testing Protocols and Requirements, would also be used for passenger ropeways authorized by other types of special use authorizations besides the Ski Area Term Special Use Permit. The submission requirements in new form FS-7300-0006 align with American National Standard Institute Standard B77.1 (ANSI B77.1) for passenger ropeways, which has been adopted by the Forest Service on National Forest System lands. ANSI B77.1 enumerates documentation, certification, and other requirements for ensuring the integrity of the design, construction, maintenance, and operational safety of passenger ropeways. New form FS-7300-0006 is needed to ensure that holders of ski area permits or other types of special use authorizations authorizing passenger ropeways submit the requisite information and documentation for Forest Service engineers to assess whether new or relocated passenger ropeways meet design, construction, maintenance, and operational safety requirements in ANSI B77.1.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1 burden hour per response.

Type of Respondents: Businesses and other non-federal organizations and entities.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 8.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 8.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 72 hours.

Comment is Invited: Comment is invited on (1) whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request provided to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.

On March 28, 2018, Commerce published its Final Determination in the AD investigation of wire rod from Turkey. 1 After correcting a ministerial error contained in the Final Determination, on May 21, 2018, Commerce published the Amended Final Determination and Order, and calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin of 4.93 percent for Habas, 7.94 percent for Icdas, and 6.44 percent for all other producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 2

Icdas and Habas appealed Commerce's Final Determination, as modified by the Amended Final Determination and Order . On January 28, 2020, the CIT remanded the Amended Final Determination and Order to Commerce, directing Commerce to recalculate Habas' and Icdas' duty drawback adjustments using a different calculation methodology than the duty neutral methodology Commerce applied in the Final Determination, which allocated the duty drawback over total cost of production. 3

In its first remand redetermination, issued in April 2020, Commerce recalculated Icdas' and Habas' duty drawback adjustment by adding the full amount of exempted duties to Habas' and Icdas' U.S. price, and adding the same per-unit duty amount to normal value as a circumstance-of-sale adjustment. 4 As a result of the changes in the First Results of Redetermination, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 3.22 percent for Habas, 8.72 percent for Icdas, and 4.78 percent for all other producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 5 The CIT remanded Commerce's determination for a second time, ordering Commerce to recalculate normal value without making a circumstance-of-sale adjustment related to the duty drawback adjustment made to U.S. price. 6

In its final remand redetermination, issued in December 2020, Commerce calculated a duty drawback adjustment for Habas and Icdas without making a circumstance-of-sale adjustment to normal value, resulting in a revised weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for Habas, and 4.44 percent for Icdas and all other producers/exporters of subject merchandise. 7

The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination. 8

In its decision in Timken, 9 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 10 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's May 20, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Amended Final Determination and Order . Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken .

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Amended Final Determination and Order with respect to Habas, Icdas, and all other producers/exporters as follows:

Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, Commerce “shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as defined in section 733(b)(3) of the Act.”  12 As a result of this amended final determination, Commerce is hereby excluding from this Order merchandise produced and exported by Habas, for which Commerce has calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent. 13 This exclusion will not be applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by Habas in any other producer/exporter combination or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination. 14 As a result of the exclusion, Commerce will not initiate any new administrative reviews of the AD order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Habas. However, a review may be conducted with regard to merchandise produced by Habas and exported by another company or produced by any other company and exported by Habas, as such merchandise is not subject to exclusion.

Because Icdas and all other producers/exporters do not have superseding cash deposit rates, i.e., there have been no final results published in subsequent administrative reviews for Icdas and all other producers/exporters, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

As a result of this Amended Final Determination and Order, in which Commerce calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for Habas, Commerce is hereby excluding merchandise produced and exported by Habas from the AD order. Accordingly, for entries of merchandise produced and exported by Habas that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to May 30, 2021, Commerce will direct CBP to liquidate such entries without regard to antidumping duties.

For entries of merchandise produced and exported by Habas that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after May 30, 2021, Commerce will direct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent. Pursuant to Timken, 15 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 16 under sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must suspend liquidation of such entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. If the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate entries produced and exported by Habas, and entered on or after May 30, 2021, without regard to antidumping duties.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e), and 777(i) of the Act.

On October 30, 2020, based on timely requests for review of five companies by TRAILSTAR LLC (Trailstar), 1 Trans Texas Tire, LLC (Trans Texas), 2 and Rimco Inc. (Rimco), 3 Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wheels from China covering the period April 22, 2019, through August 31, 2020. 4

On November 24 and November 25, 2020, respectively, Trans Texas and Trailstar withdrew their respective review requests. 5 On January 21, 2021, Rimco withdrew its request for an administrative review. 6 No other interested parties requested an administrative review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Trailstar, Trans Texas, and Rimco's review requests were withdrawn within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice, and no other interested party requested a review, Commerce is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), in its entirety.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period April 22, 2019, through August 31, 2020, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Commerce's regulations provide that it will publish in the Federal Register a list of scope rulings on a quarterly basis. 1 Our most recent notification of scope rulings was published on March 4, 2020. 2 This current notice covers all scope rulings and anti-circumvention determinations made by Enforcement and Compliance between January 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021.

Requestor: The Government of Canada. Identified cedar shakes and shingles are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain softwood lumber products from Canada because prior relevant scope rulings, the scope language of the orders, and the ITC's final import injury determination, indicate that cedar shakes and shingles were not intended to be covered by the scope of the orders; March 12, 2021.

Requestor: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. and Columbia River Shake & Shingle Ltd DBA The Teal Jones Group (collectively, the Teal Jones Group). The Teal Jones Group's cedar shakes and shingles are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain softwood lumber products from Canada because they meet the physical description of merchandise previously determined to be outside the scope of the orders; March 15, 2021.

Requestor: American & Efird LLC. Wildcat Plus Tex 35 Sewing Thread is covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on polyester textured yarn from India because the imported product is a form of polyester textured yarn and the scope is expressly broad to include all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness, number of filaments, number of plies, finish, cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packing method; March 22, 2021.

Requestor: Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. Two types of tubing for intermediate bulk container cages are outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on LWRPT from Mexico because the products do not have a rectangular (including square) cross section; February 9, 2021.

Requestor: New-Tec Integration Xiamen Co., Ltd. Individual spring modules, which are sold/packaged as individual springs, do not meet the description of subject merchandise covered by the order, i.e., innerspring units which consist of multiple springs joined together in the shape and size of a mattress; January 12, 2021.

Requestor: WKW Erbsloeh North America LLC. Certain rear quarter finishers and rubber seals are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China because they do not contain extruded aluminum. Certain waist finishers, belt moldings, and outer waist belts are covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China because they are not fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry; January 28, 2021.

Requestor: Phoenix Folding Door Co. Twelve models of folding door kits are not covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China because they meet the criteria for exclusion as finished goods kits; February 22, 2021.

Requestor: American & Efird LLC. Wildcat Plus Tex 35 Sewing Thread is covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on polyester textured yarn from China because the imported product is a form of polyester textured yarn and the scope is expressly broad to include all forms of polyester textured yarn, regardless of surface texture or appearance, yarn density and thickness, number of filaments, number of plies, finish, cross section, color, dye method, texturing method, or packing method; March 22, 2021.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries and anti-circumvention determinations made during the period January 1, 2021 through March 31, 2021. Any comments should be submitted to James Maeder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to CommerceCLU@trade.gov.

This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization is 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 here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On July 15, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to San Francisco to take marine mammals incidental to the Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, California (85 FR 44043, July 21,2020), effective from July 15, 2020 through July 14, 2021. On March 10, 2021, NMFS received an application for the Renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for Renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of a subset activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. However, because the only remaining work is pile removal, which takes less time per pile, the applicant requested take based on 12 piles maximum removed per day, which was not explicitly discussed as one of the scenarios in the initial IHA process. The initial IHA process explicitly analyzed a number of scenarios for each phase of the work that were clearly described as the worst possible scenarios that could occur among a possible range of scenarios. The currently requested work is clearly less impactful than those scenarios and thus we believe this situation could qualify as a Renewal IHA. However, out of an abundance of caution, and because there is time for a full 30 day public comment period, we choose to treat this application as a standard submission and not a Renewal. San Francisco requested the new IHA be effective from July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022.

As described in the 2020 IHA, the project consists of the construction of a ferry terminal, breakwater, fireboat access pier, and removal of an old pier on Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco Bay. Construction involved driving and/or removal of 36-inch-diameter steel piles and 14-inch steel H piles, driving of 48-inch-diameter steel piles and 24-inch octagonal concrete piles, and removal of 12-inch diameter timber piles that supported the old pier. All pile installation has been completed as has removal of the old pier. The only work that remains is removal of 2 36-inch-diameter steel piles and 64 14-inch diameter steel H piles. Table 1 summarizes the original work authorized in the initial 2020 IHA, work completed to date under the initial 2020 IHA, work expected to be completed before the initial 2020 IHA expires, and work expected to be completed under this newly requested IHA. San Francisco's request is for take for the work expected to be completed before the initial 2020 IHA expires, and work expected to be completed under this newly requested IHA, just in case some of that work is not completed as expected. Pile removal is expected to take no more than 25 days. Pile removal would use vibratory methods only.

A detailed description of the demolition and construction activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial 2020 authorization. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices. The initial 2020 IHA authorized take from pile driving and removal, by Level A and Level B harassment of harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ), California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) and harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ), and take by Level B harassment only of gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ), bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ), elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), and Northern fur seals ( Callorhinus ursinus ). Because only pile removal remains and there will be no simultaneous piling with multiple hammers, Level A harassment take is not necessary nor proposed to be authorized for this new IHA.

The proposed IHA would be effective from July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022. All documents from the initial 2020 IHA can be viewed from the project web page ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-treasure-island-ferry-dock-project-san-francisco-california ).

A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial 2020 authorization. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial 2020 IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals contained in the supporting documents for the initial 2020 IHA. The only difference is an updated stock abundance estimate for the San Francisco/Russian River stock of harbor porpoises which has decreased from 9,886 to 7,524. We consider this change in our findings below.

A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial 2020 authorization. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial 2020 IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.

A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notice of the final IHA for the 2020 authorization. Specifically, the source levels and marine mammal density/occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the 2020 IHA. Similarly, the stocks taken and methods of take remain unchanged from the 2020 IHA. As noted above, the types of take requested and proposed no longer include Level A harassment take because only pile removal remains and there will be no simultaneous piling with multiple hammers. The only change is the decreased number of days of operation and the necessity of revising the scenarios used to estimate take. No use of multiple hammers or simultaneous removal as was considered in the initial 2020 IHA is planned for this IHA. In addition to not using multiple hammers for this IHA, because of the limited number and type of piles remaining, and the work only being pile removal by vibratory hammer with no installation, the original scenarios used to estimate take and shutdown zones are no longer relevant. The remaining scenarios for this IHA are: (1) Two days of work removing the two 36-inch steel piles and (2) 23 days removing up to 12 steel H piles per day. Both of these scenarios are reductions from the worst case scenarios presented in the initial proposed IHA. The new scenario 1 above has no simultaneous driving, uses only a vibratory hammer with no impact hammering, and involves 36-inch piles rather than the 48-inch piles considered in the worst case scenarios of the initial proposed IHA. The new Scenario 2 above has no simultaneous driving, uses only a vibratory hammer with no impact hammering, and has a maximum of 120 minutes per day of vibratory hammer use as opposed to the worst case scenarios in the initial proposed IHA which considered up to 180 minutes per day of vibratory hammer use.

The inputs to calculate the Level A and Level B harassment isopleths for the new scenarios are in Table 2. The resulting Level A and Level B harassment isopleths are in Table 3. These new Level A and Level B isopleths are smaller than the worst case scenarios considered in the initial proposed IHA.

As was done in the initial 2020 IHA, we use density data from the multiple years of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) project to estimate take for harbor seal, California sea lion, and Harbor porpoise, and for other species we use more qualitative data on observations from the SFOBB project and observations from year one of this project along with local information on strandings and other biology. The density calculations are shown in Table 4. For bottlenose dolphin, take is still estimated at 0.33 dolphins per day for an estimated Level B harassment take of 9 dolphins. For the other species where we used qualitative information to estimate Level B harassment take in the initial IHA, we propose Level B harassment take at 40 percent of the take from the initial 2020 IHA, that is 4 Level B harassment takes each for gray whales and northern elephant seals, and 2 takes for northern fur seals. The proposed takes are indicated in Table 5 along with the authorized take from the initial 2020 IHA.

The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the Federal Register notice announcing the issuance of the initial 2020 IHA (except terms related to work already completed ( i.e., pile installation and impact hammering) have been removed, and the discussion of the least practicable adverse impact included in that document remains accurate. The following measures are proposed for this IHA:

• For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile removal ( e.g., standard barges, etc. ), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane;

• Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile removal activity and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;

• For those marine mammals for which Level B harassment take has not been requested, in-water pile removal will shut down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the Level B harassment zone; and

• If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile removal will be stopped as these species approach the Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.

The following mitigation measures would apply to San Francisco's in-water construction activities.

• Establishment of Shutdown Zones —San Francisco will establish shutdown zones for all pile removal 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. The largest shutdown zones are generally for low and high frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 6.

• The placement and number of PSOs during all pile removal activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting section) will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during pile removal. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone would not be visible ( e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile removal must be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected.

• Monitoring for Level A and Level B Harassment —San Francisco will monitor the Level A and B harassment zones. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential halt of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. Placement of PSOs will allow PSOs to observe marine mammals within the Level A and B harassment zones. However, due to the large Level B harassment zone for 36-inch piles (Table 3), PSOs will not be able to effectively observe the entire zone. Therefore, Level B harassment exposures will be recorded and extrapolated, as necessary, based upon the number of observed takes and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not visible.

• Pre-activity Monitoring —Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile removal of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs will observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone will be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a re-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 15 minutes. When a marine mammal for which Level B harassment take is authorized is present in the Level B harassment zone, activities may begin and Level B harassment take will be recorded. If the entire Level B harassment zone is not visible at the start of construction, pile removal activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones will commence.

• Pile removal must occur during daylight hours.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Monitoring section of the application and section 5 of the IHA. Marine mammal monitoring during pile removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:

• Independent PSOs ( i.e., not construction personnel) who have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods must be used;

• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and

• San Francisco must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae for approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.

PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

Two PSOs will be employed. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone(s), and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations are as follows:

(1) At the pile driving site(s) or best vantage point practicable to monitor the shutdown zones; and

(2) For the large Level B harassment zone associated with removal of 36-inch pipe piles, a second PSO will be placed near Pier 33 in San Francisco.

Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being removed. Pile removal activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.

A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:

• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were removed and by what method ( i.e., vibratory);

• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period ( e.g., wind speed, percent cover, visibility, sea state);

• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting;

• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed;

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;

• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being removed for each sighting (if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting);

• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was active;

• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);

• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered ( e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal, if any;

• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals; and

• An extrapolation of the estimated takes by Level B harassment based on the number of observed exposures within the Level B harassment zone and the percentage of the Level B harassment zone that was not visible, when applicable.

If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, San Francisco shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the regional stranding coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, San Francisco must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);

• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);

• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;

• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and

• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

As described above, the action in this IHA is a subset of the original activities consisting solely of removal of two types of steel pile with a new description of the specific scenarios remaining rather than consideration of the worst case scenarios possible as was done in the initial 2020 IHA. We found that the initial 2020 IHA would have a negligible impact and that the taking would be small relative to population size for all stocks. The only change in this IHA is the small decrease in the estimated abundance for the San Francisco/Russian River stock of harbor porpoises which has decreased from 9,886 to 7,524 and the consideration of the specific removal scenarios required now. Despite this stock size decrease the proposed take of 46 is still less than 10 percent of the stock and is thus small relative to the population size. The other marine mammal information is identical to the initial 2020 IHA. The potential effects, and the mitigation and monitoring are all less impactful because of the smaller harassment zones sizes for the remaining scenarios. The estimated take is greatly reduced and no Level A harassment take is proposed because of the smaller Level A harassment zone sizes and the lack of multiple hammer use.

NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial 2020 IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundance of the harbor seal stock decreasing slightly and the discussion of the specific scenarios to account for the remaining work. The new scenarios have smaller level A and Level B harassment zones than the worst case scenarios analyzed in the 2020 IHA because of the removal of simultaneous driving, the smaller pile sizes and durations remaining, and the use of only a vibratory hammer in this IHA.

Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) San Francisco's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and; (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the West Coast Region Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to San Francisco for conducting the Treasure Island Ferry Dock Project in San Francisco, California from July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

We request comment on our analyses (included in both this document and the referenced documents supporting the 2020 IHA), the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed construction activity at Treasure Isand. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Specified Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Specified Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA);

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take); and

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized; and

• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

Meeting information, including agendas, overviews, and briefing book materials will be posted on the Council's website at: http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/council-meetings/. Webinar registration links for each meeting day will also be available from the Council's website.

Public comment: Public comment on items on this agenda may be submitted through the Council's online comment form at: https://safmc.wufoo.com/forms/m9mrll0e1fm0f/. Comments will be accepted from May 31 to June 18, 2021. These comments are accessible to the public, part of the Administrative Record of the meeting, and immediately available for Council consideration.

The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

The Committee will review nominations and select recipient of the Council's Law Enforcement Officer of the Year.

The Council will meet in Closed Session to review applicants for open seats on the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and various advisory panels. The Council will then meet in Open Session and receive reports from state agencies, Council liaisons, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Council will review and approve South Atlantic Research Priorities, receive presentations from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) on the Southeast Longline Surveys and on the Dolphin Participatory Workshops, updates from the Recreational Reporting Workgroup and further discuss and comment on Executive Order 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.

The Committee will receive stock assessment reports for gag, golden tilefish, and red snapper. Each report will include a presentation on the stock assessment from NOAA Fisheries SEFSC, recommendations from the Council's SSC, and a Fishery Overview. The Committee will then develop a management response for each stock assessment. The Committee will review draft Amendment 50 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing proposed measures for red porgy, review recommendations from its Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) and consider approving the amendment for public hearings.

The Committee will also receive a Fishery Overview for yellowtail snapper, review an options paper, receive recommendations from the Council's Snapper Grouper AP, and provide guidance on amendment development relative to yellowtail snapper. The Committee will also receive additional recommendations from the Snapper Grouper AP not covered earlier and updates on the South Atlantic Red Snapper Count and Greater Amberjack Count in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.

The Committee will review actions and alternatives for Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP. The Amendment includes actions addressing: Revisions to recreational data and catch level recommendations; modifications to recreational accountability measures; measures to allow properly permitted commercial vessels with trap, pot or buoy gear on board to possess commercial quantities of dolphin and wahoo; removal of the current Operator Card requirement; reductions in the recreational vessel limit for dolphin; and reductions in the recreational bag limit and establishment of a recreational vessel limit for wahoo. The Committee will also review a project plan for amendments to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP.

Formal Public Comment, Wednesday, June 16, 2021, 4 p.m. —Public comment will be accepted via webinar on all items on the Council meeting agenda. Highlighted items: Approval of Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo FMP for submission to the Secretary of Commerce and public hearing approvals of Amendment 50 to the Snapper Grouper FMP (red porgy) and Coastal Migratory Pelagics Amendment 34 (Atlantic king mackerel). The Council Chair will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter based on the number of individuals wishing to comment.

The Committee will review the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Amendment 34 addressing management measures for Atlantic king mackerel and CMP Amendment 32 addressing management measures to end overfishing for Gulf of Mexico cobia. CMP Amendment 34 is scheduled to be approved for public hearings. The Committee will also receive a report from the Mackerel Cobia Advisory Panel.

The Committee will receive a report from the Council Coordinating Committee meeting, review and approve the Council's 2021 Budget, and review the Council's FMP Workplan.

The Committee will review public hearing comments on Amendment 10 to the Coral FMP, which would establish a shrimp fishery access area for the deepwater shrimp fishery along the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern, and is scheduled to approve all actions. The Committee will also receive an update on the Habitat Blueprint and a report from the Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management AP.

The Council will receive a report from the Executive Director and staff reports on development of the Council's Allocation Tool to inform sector allocation decisions, Climate Change Scenario Planning, the Council's Citizen Science Program, and Outreach and Communications efforts. The Council will receive a report from the Outreach and Communications AP and an update on relevant activities at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

NOAA Fisheries SEFSC staff will provide an update on the status of commercial electronic logbooks. NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office staff will provide an overview of the draft Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology document, an update on the For-Hire Electronic Reporting program, and a Protected Resources report.

The Council will receive reports from the following committees: Law Enforcement; Snapper Grouper; Dolphin Wahoo; Mackerel Cobia; Executive; and Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management.

The Council will discuss other business, upcoming meetings, and take action as necessary.

Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) 5 days prior to the meeting.

The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar are as follows:

1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the data webinars, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

The Scallop Committee will discuss the 2022/23 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA): Develop research recommendations for federal funding announcement. Scallop Framework 34: Receive an update on the timeline and likely measures. This action will be initiated at the June 2021 Council meeting. They will also discuss the Rotational Management Program Evaluation and receive an update and provide input on issues that could be considered as part of the review. Also on the agenda is the Leasing Petition: Review Scallopers Campaign letter to NMFS requesting secretarial action to implement a scallop leasing program, develop input for Council to consider. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

The Scallop Advisory Panel (AP) will discuss 2022/23 Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA): Develop research recommendations for federal funding announcement.

They will also discuss Scallop Framework 34 and receive an update on the timeline and likely measures. This action will be initiated at the June 2021 Council meeting. The AP plans to discuss the Rotational Management Program Evaluation and receive an update and provide input on issues that could be considered as part of the review. Also on the agenda is the Leasing Petition: Discuss Scallopers Campaign letter to NMFS requesting secretarial action to implement a scallop leasing program. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

The information to be submitted under this collection of information is necessary to comply with obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946). The Schedule of the Convention is binding on the United States and requires that this information be submitted for all whaling operations authorized by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), including the aboriginal subsistence whaling conducted by Native Americans. The Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916-916l) authorizes the collection of this information. Regulations codifying the provisions of this act are at 50 CFR part 230. Information on the retrieval and use of dead whales (“stinkers”) is requested in order to have a record of all whales brought to shore and to ensure that whales killed under the IWC quotas are not claimed to have been found dead.

Native Americans may conduct certain aboriginal subsistence whaling under the Whaling Convention Act in accordance with the provisions of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In order to respond to obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the IWC, and the Whaling Convention Act, whaling captains participating in these operations must submit certain information to the relevant Native American whaling organization about strikes on and catch of whales. Anyone retrieving a dead whale is also required to report. Captains must place a distinctive permanent identification mark on any harpoon, lance, or explosive dart used, as well as provide information on the mark and self-identification information. The relevant Native American whaling organization receives the reports, compiles them, and submits the information to NOAA. The information is used to monitor the hunt and to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. The information is also provided to the IWC, which uses it to monitor compliance with its requirements.

Reports may be made by phone, fax, email, or in writing. Information on equipment marks must be made in writing. No form is used.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0311.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Individuals or households; State, Local, or Tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 166 (165 whaling captains, one Native American whaling organization).

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes for reports on whales struck or on recovery of dead whales, including providing the information to the relevant Native American whaling organization; 5 minutes for the relevant Native American whaling organization to type in each report; and 5 hours for the relevant Native American whaling organization to consolidate and submit reports.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 100.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916-9161).

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11), and reauthorized under the Coordinated Ocean Observations and Research Act of 2020 (Pub. L. No: 116-271). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice.

The Committee will provide advice on:

(A) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

(B) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

(C) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in disseminating information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

(D) additional priorities, including—

(i) a national surface current mapping network designed to improve fine scale sea surface mapping using high frequency radar technology and other emerging technologies to address national priorities, including Coast Guard search and rescue operation planning and harmful algal bloom forecasting and detection that—

(I) is comprised of existing high frequency radar and other sea surface current mapping infrastructure operated by national programs and regional coastal observing systems;

(II) incorporates new high frequency radar assets or other fine scale sea surface mapping technology assets, and other assets needed to fill gaps in coverage on United States coastlines; and

(III) follows a deployment plan that prioritizes closing gaps in high frequency radar infrastructure in the United States, starting with areas demonstrating significant sea surface current data needs, especially in areas where additional data will improve Coast Guard search and rescue models;

(ii) fleet acquisition for unmanned maritime systems for deployment and data integration to fulfill the purposes of this subtitle;

(iii) an integrative survey program for application of unmanned maritime systems to the real-time or near real-time collection and transmission of sea floor, water column, and sea surface data on biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and hydrography;

(iv) remote sensing and data assimilation to develop new analytical methodologies to assimilate data from the System into hydrodynamic models;

(v) integrated, multi-State monitoring to assess sources, movement, and fate of sediments in coastal regions;

(vi) a multi-region marine sound monitoring system to be—

(I) planned in consultation with the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Navy, and academic research institutions; and

(II) developed, installed, and operated in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Navy, and academic research institutions; and

(E) any other purpose identified by the Administrator or the Council.

The meeting will be open to public participation after each session (check agenda on website to confirm times.) In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Due to the condensed nature of the meeting, each individual or group providing written public comments will be limited to one comment per public comment period with no repetition of previous comments. Comments can also be submitted in writing during the public comment period through the webinar. Comments will be read into the record, transcribed, and become part of the meeting record. Due to time meeting constraints, all comments may not be addressed during the meeting. Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by June 11, 2021, to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after June 11, 2021, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. To submit written comments, please email your comments to Krisa Arzayus, Krisa.Arzayus@noaa.gov and Erick Lee, Erick.Lee@noaa.gov . Advance written statements will be shared with the IOOS AC members and will be included in the meeting public record. We do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

Matters to be Considered: The meeting will focus on (1) Presenting the Committee Recommendations Report to NOAA and IOOC Leadership, (2) Discussing the FY22 President's Budget request, which will be public information by then, and (3) Fall public meeting planning. The latest version of the agenda will be posted at http://ioos.noaa.gov/community/u-s-ioos-advisory-committee/ .

Special Accommodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Krisa Arzayus, Designated Federal Official at Krisa.Arzayus@noaa.gov and Laura.Gewain@noaa.gov or 240-533-9455 by June 14, 2021.

The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panel to develop a fishery performance report (FPR). The intent of the FPR is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panel for the bluefish specifications process. The FPR will be used by the MAFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC) when reviewing 2022-2023 management measures designed to achieve the recommended bluefish catch and landings limits.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to K. Collins, (302) 526-5253, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The applicant proposes to continue studies of the population structure, trends in relative abundance, distribution, genetics, zoogeography, and epidemiology of green and hawksbill sea turtles in the coastal waters of Puerto Rico. Up to 140 sea turtles of each species would be captured annually by hand or tangle net for photographs, temporary marking, measurements, weights, blood and tissue sampling, and flipper and passive integrated transponder tagging. A subset of 10 turtles of each species would receive a satellite tag (epoxy attachment) prior to release. Another 140 hawksbill turtles and 50 green turtles annually would be harassed during unsuccessful hand captures. The permit would be valid for up to 10 years from the date of issuance.

This action is authorized by the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745, which allow NMFS Regional Administrators to authorize exempted fishing permits (EFPs) to test fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited.

At its April 2021 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended that NMFS approve three EFP applications for the 2021-2022 Pacific sardine fishing year. All three applications, two from the California Wetfish Producers Association (CWPA) and one from the West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group (WCPCG), are renewal requests for an exemption from the expected prohibition on primary directed fishing for Pacific sardine during the 2021-2022 fishing year; the purpose of the requests are to collect Pacific sardine as part of industry-based scientific surveys. The Council considered these EFP applications concurrently with the 2021-2022 annual harvest specifications for Pacific sardine because expected Pacific sardine catch under each EFP would be accounted for under the proposed 2021-2022 annual catch limit (ACL), which is 3,329 metric tons (mt). A summary of each EFP application is provided below:

(1) Proposal for Renewal of Exempted Fishery Permit (EFP) To Allow Take of Pacific Sardine (for Point Sets) in 2021 Nearshore Research Program: The CWPA submitted a renewal application for their CPS Nearshore Cooperative Survey (NCS) program. The purpose of this EFP project is to continue to develop a sampling methodology for estimating CPS biomass in shallow waters that are not accessible to NOAA survey ships. Since 2012 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in partnership with the CWPA, has been conducting aerial surveys to estimate the biomass and distribution of Pacific sardine and certain other CPS in nearshore waters in the Southern California Bight, and in the Monterey-San Francisco area since the summer of 2017. Currently, there is uncertainty in the biomass estimates from aerial spotter pilots. The CPS-NCS survey aims to quantify that level of uncertainty by capturing CPS schools identified by aerial spotter pilots and validating the biomass and species composition of the schools. If approved, this EFP would allow up to six participating vessels to directly harvest a total of 300 mt of Pacific sardine during the 2021-2022 fishing year. A portion of each point set ( i.e., an individual haul of fish captured with a purse seine net) would be retained for biological sampling, and the remainder will be sold by the participating fishermen and processors to offset research costs and avoid unnecessary discard.

(2) Request for Renewal of Exempted Fishery Permit (EFP) To Allow Fishing of Pacific Sardine For Biological Samples in 2021 Nearshore Research Program: The CWPA submitted a renewal application for their biological sampling EFP project. The primary directed fishery for Pacific sardine has been closed since 2015, and consequently, scientists at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) have a limited amount of fishery-dependent data to use in their annual stock assessment. The goal of this EFP project is to provide additional biological data ( i.e., age and length data from directed harvest) for potential use in Pacific sardine stock assessments. If approved, this EFP would allow up to six participating vessels to directly harvest up to 520 mt of Pacific sardine during the 2021-2022 fishing year. A portion of each landing would be retained for biological sampling by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the remainder would be sold by the participating fishermen and processors to offset research costs and avoid unnecessary discard.

(3) Exempted Fishery Permit to continue an industry-federal-state collaborative acoustic survey for CPS in nearshore waters: The WCPCG submitted a renewal application for their Nearshore Surveillance Acoustic Trawl Methodology Survey of North West Coastal Waters EFP project. Since 2017, the WCPCG has been working with NMFS' SWFSC and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to survey CPS in nearshore Oregon/Washington coastal waters. The purpose of the EFP is to collect biological samples in areas inshore of the SWFSC acoustic trawl survey to better assess species composition and CPS distribution and abundance. If approved, this EFP would allow one research vessel to harvest up to 10 mt of Pacific sardine during the 2021-2022 fishing year. A portion of each set ( i.e., an individual haul of fish captured with a purse seine net) would be retained by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for biological sampling, and the remainder of the set would be released from the purse seine net immediately after collecting the biological samples.

Altogether, these EFP projects total 830 mt. If NMFS does not issue these EFPs, then this 830-mt portion of the ACL would be available for harvest by other permissible fishing activities during the 2021-2022 fishing year ( e.g., live bait or minor directed harvest).

After publication of this document in the Federal Register , NMFS may approve and issue permits to participating vessels after the close of the public comment period. NMFS will consider comments submitted in deciding whether to approve the applications as requested. NMFS may approve the applications in their entirety or may make any alterations needed to achieve the goals of the EFP projects. NMFS may also approve different amounts of Pacific sardine allocation for each EFP project if any changes are made to the 2021-2022 proposed sardine harvest specifications before final implementation.

The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:

All three meetings will be discussing the same agenda items.

The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meetings will begin on June 15, 2021 at 10 a.m. EDT, and will end on June 16, 2021, at 12 p.m. EDT. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated, at the discretion of the Chair.

Simultaneous interpretation will be provided for the DAP-PR, on June 15, 2021.

Se proveerá interpretación en español.

Para interpretación en español puede marcar el siguiente número para entrar a la reunión: US/Canadá: llame al +1-888-947-3988, cuando el sistema conteste, entrar el número 1*999996#.

For English interpretation you may dial the following number to enter the meeting: US/Canada: call +1-888-947-3988, when the system answers enter the number 2*999996#.

For any additional information on this public virtual meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 226-8849.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.

The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On March 17, 2021, NMFS received an application from ACOE requesting an IHA to take small numbers of seven species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving associated with the Debris Dock Replacement Project. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 20, 2021. The ACOE's request is for take of a small number of these species by Level A or Level B harassment. Neither the ACOE nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The purpose of the project is to replace the existing decaying dock and other onshore infrastructure used to move marine debris collected from San Francisco Bay onto land for disposal. The existing dock will be removed and replaced. The work will involve impact hammering 31 24-inch diameter concrete deck support piles and 17 14-inch diameter timber fender piles for the replacement dock and removal of the decayed dock by cutting or otherwise removing 31 18-inch diameter concrete deck support piles and 17 14-inch diameter timber fender piles. This construction work will occur from September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022 and will take no more than 26 days of in-water pile work.

The pile driving/removal can result in take of marine mammals from sound in the water which results in behavioral harassment or auditory injury.

The work described here is scheduled for September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022. In-water activities are planned for daylight hours only.

The activities would occur in Richardson's Bay in north San Francisco Bay (Figure 1). The debris dock is situated adjacent to the ACOE Bay Model Facility in their San Francisco District Base Yard. The debris dock is neighbored by docks for long term mooring of private vessels to the north, and to the south there is a dock used for mooring of ACOE vessels and public use for storing kayaks. Nearby docks within approximately 0.15 miles (mi) (241 meters (m)) may serve as potential haulout locations for pinnipeds. Due to sinuosity of the shoreline, the haulout locations are not within line of site of the project. Pacific herring spawning events are known to take place within Richardson's Bay, which usually begin in late February. Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Central California Coast Steelhead smolts are known to traverse Richardson's Bay in late February through April.

The purpose of the project is to replace the decaying seaward portion of a dock. Demolition of the existing debris dock would begin by first removing the fencing that borders the debris dock. The timber fender system would then be removed by pulling or cutting the 17 14-inch diameter timber piles at approximately 2 feet below the mudline without dewatering. The piles would be hoisted out with a crane or tractor from land. The concrete deck would then be removed, along with a bulkhead wall (a vertical concrete retaining wall) which encloses the soil filled inner part of the dock. Temporary shoring (support beams) would be placed to fortify the bulkhead wall while soil is removed from the landward side, then the bulkhead wall would be demolished and removed. The bulkhead wall will be removed in similar fashion to the concrete deck, by breaking it apart with a tractor and hoisting it out with a crane. Riprap stones would then be removed and stored temporarily, for reuse with the finished dock. Finally, to complete demolition, the 31 18-inch square concrete piles that supported the concrete deck would be cut approximately 2 feet below the mudline without dewatering. They would then be removed by either a crane or tractor from land, such that no barge or other water borne vessel would be used in the demolition. The need to leave the in-situ portion of the piles in place, as opposed to removing them, stems from the risk of soil liquefaction and creating voids too close to the new pile locations which could cause the piles to shift their alignment or affect other parts of the debris dock structure which will not to be removed. Vibratory methods for removal and installation are thus not possible. Pile cutting will be accomplished with the use of either hydraulic underwater chainsaws or hydraulic pile clippers depending on the contractor's capability.

Construction of the new dock would be in reverse of the demolition, by starting with the impact driving of 31 new octagonal concrete piles (24-inch diameter). Driving the piles until bedrock (approximately 80 feet) would be accomplished with an impact hammer. After the piles are driven, the 6-10 ton rip rap stones would be replaced and then a new bulkhead wall would be built. The deck of the debris dock would be built by cast-in-place pile caps, pre-cast concrete panels, and a cast-in-place concrete topping. The earthen fill behind the bulkhead retaining wall would then be backfilled. A new timber pile fender system with a total of 17 timber piles (14-inch diameter) would be installed. Timber piles would also be installed using an impact hammer. Pile driving equipment such as a crane will be deployed and operated from the landside from the inner part of the ACOE Base Yard for concrete piles, with timber piles being driven by equipment deployed on a barge. A bubble curtain to attenuate sound will be used for impact hammering of both timber and concrete piles. Pile driving and removal activities are summarized in Table 1. Finally, to complete the installation, the perimeter fencing, and other incidentals will be installed.

A staging area will be used to store building supplies and construction equipment. The location of the staging area would be immediately adjacent to the debris dock portion that is to be replaced, within the ACOE Base Yard. The proposed project is currently scheduled to only take one construction season, with construction completed by December.

In summary, the project period includes 10 days of pile removal and 16 days of pile installation activities for which incidental take authorization is requested.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

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's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the project area in San Francisco Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs and draft SARs ( e.g., Caretta et al., 2020a and b).

Harbor seal, California sea lion, bottlenose dolphin and Harbor porpoise spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing take of these species. For gray whale, northern fur seal and northern elephant seal, occurrence is such that take is possible, and we have proposed authorizing take of these species also. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in the ACOE's IHA application (see application, Table 2). Humpback whales could potentially occur in the area. However the spatial and temporal occurrence of this species is very rare, the species is readily observed, and the applicant would shut down pie driving if humpback whales enter the project area. Thus take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further.

The California coastal stock of common bottlenose dolphin is found within 0.6 mi (1 kilometer (km)) of shore (Defran and Weller, 1999) and occurs from northern Baja California, Mexico to Bodega Bay, CA. Their range has extended north over the last several decades with El Niño events and increased ocean temperatures (Hansen and Defran, 1990). Genetic studies have shown that no mixing occurs between the California coastal stock and the offshore common bottlenose dolphin stock (Lowther-Thieleking et al., 2015). Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic foragers: Time of day, tidal state, and oceanographic habitat influence where they pursue prey (Hanson and Defran, 1993). Dive durations up to 15 minutes have been recorded for trained Navy bottlenose dolphins, (Ridgway et al., 1969), but typical dives are shallower and of a much shorter duration (approximately 30 ; et al., 1999, Mate et al., 1995).

Bottlenose dolphins began entering San Francisco Bay in 2010 (Szczepaniak, 2013). They primarily occur in the western Central and South Bay, from the Golden Gate Bridge to Oyster Point and Redwood City. However, one individual has been regularly seen in San Francisco Bay since 2016 near the former Alameda Air Station (Perlman, 2017; W. Keener, pers. comm. 2017), and five animals were regularly seen in the summer and fall of 2018 in the same location (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019).

Harbor porpoise occur along the US west coast from southern California to the Bering Sea (Carretta et al., 2019). They rarely occur in waters warmer than 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (17 degrees Celsius; Read, 1990). The San Francisco-Russian River stock is found from Pescadero, 18 mi (30 km) south of the San Francisco Bay, to 99 mi (160 km) north of the bay at Point Arena (Carretta et al., 2014). In most areas, harbor porpoise occur in small groups of just a few individuals.

Harbor porpoise sightings in the San Francisco Bay declined in the 1930's and were functionally extirpated shortly after. Harbor porpoise occur frequently outside San Francisco Bay and re-entered the bay beginning in 2008 (Stern et al., 2017). They now commonly occur year-round within San Francisco Bay, primarily on the west and northwest side of the Central Bay near the Golden Gate Bridge, near Marin County, and near the city of San Francisco (Duffy 2015, Keener et al., 2012; Stern et al., 2017). In the summer of 2017 and 2018, mom-calf pairs and small groups (one to four individuals) were seen to the north and west of Treasure Island, and just south of Yerba Buena Island (Caltrans 2018a, 2019; M. Schulze, pers. comm. 2019).

Harbor porpoise must forage nearly continuously to meet their high metabolic needs (Wisniewska et al., 2016). They consume up to 550 small fish (1.2-3.9 in [3-10 cm]; e.g. anchovies) per hour at a nearly 90 percent capture success rate (Wisniewska et al., 2016).

California sea lions occur from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the southern tip of Baja California. Sea lions breed on the offshore islands of southern and central California from May through July (Heath and Perrin, 2008). During the non-breeding season, adult and subadult males and juveniles migrate northward along the coast to central and northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island (Jefferson et al., 1993). They return south the following spring (Heath and Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). Females and some juveniles tend to remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008).

California sea lions have occupied docks near Pier 39 in San Francisco, a few miles from the project area, since 1987. The highest number of sea lions recorded at Pier 39 was 1,701 individuals in November 2009. Occurrence of sea lions here is typically lowest in June (during pupping and breeding seasons) and highest in August. Approximately 85 percent of the animals that haul out at this site are males, and no pupping has been observed here or at any other site in San Francisco Bay. Pier 39 is the only regularly used haulout site in the project vicinity, but sea lions occasionally haul out on human-made structures such as bridge piers, jetties, or navigation buoys (Riedman 1990).

Pupping occurs primarily on the California Channel Islands from late May until the end of June (Peterson and Bartholomew 1967). Weaning and mating occur in late spring and summer during the peak upwelling period (Bograd et al., 2009). After the mating season, adult males migrate northward to feeding areas as far away as the Gulf of Alaska (Lowry et al., 1992), and they remain away until spring (March-May), when they migrate back to the breeding colonies. Adult females generally remain south of Monterey Bay, California throughout the year, feeding in coastal waters in the summer and offshore waters in the winter, alternating between foraging and nursing their pups on shore until the next pupping/breeding season (Melin and DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008).

Two northern fur seal stocks may occur near San Francisco Bay: The California and Eastern North Pacific stocks. The California stock breeds and pups on the offshore islands of California, and forages off the California coast. The Eastern Pacific stock breeds and pups on islands in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, including the Aleutian Islands, Pribilof Islands, and Bogoslof Island, but females and juveniles move south to California waters to forage in the fall and winter months (Gelatt and Gentry, 2018). Breeding and pupping occur from mid- to late-May into July. Pups are weaned in September and move south to feed offshore California (Gentry, 1998).

Both the California and Eastern North Pacific stocks forage in the offshore waters of California, but usually only sick or emaciated juvenile fur seals seasonally enter the bay. The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) occasionally picks up stranded fur seals around Yerba Buena and Treasure Islands (NMFS, 2019b).

Northern elephant seals are common on California coastal mainland and island sites, where the species pups, breeds, rests, and molts. The largest rookeries are on San Nicolas and San Miguel islands in the northern Channel Islands. Near San Francisco Bay, elephant seals breed, molt, and haul out at Año Nuevo Island, the Farallon Islands, and Point Reyes National Seashore.

Northern elephant seals haul out to give birth and breed from December through March. Pups remain onshore or in adjacent shallow water through May. Both sexes make two foraging migrations each year: One after breeding and the second after molting (Stewart, 1989; Stewart and DeLong, 1995). Adult females migrate to the central North Pacific to forage, and males migrate to the Gulf of Alaska to forage (Robinson et al., 2012). Pup mortality is high when they make the first trip to sea in May, and this period correlates with the time of most strandings. Young-of-the-year pups return in the late summer and fall to haul out at breeding rookeries and small haulout sites, but occasionally may make brief stops in San Francisco Bay.

Harbor seals are found from Baja California to the eastern Aleutian Islands of Alaska (Harvey and Goley, 2011). In California there are approximately 500 haulout sites along the mainland and on offshore islands, including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores, and beaches (Hanan, 1996; Lowry et al., 2008).

Harbor seals are the most common marine mammal species observed in the San Francisco Bay. Within the bay they primarily haul out on exposed rocky ledges and on sloughs in the southern San Francisco Bay. Harbor seals are central-place foragers (Orians and Pearson, 1979) and tend to exhibit strong site fidelity within season and across years, generally forage close to haulout sites, and repeatedly visit specific foraging areas (Grigg et al., 2012; Suryan and Harvey, 1998; Thompson et al., 1998). Harbor seals in San Francisco Bay forage mainly within 7 mi (10 km) of their primary haulout site (Grigg et al., 2012), and often within just 1-3 mi (1-5 km; Torok, 1994). Depth, bottom relief, and prey abundance also influence foraging location (Grigg et al., 2012).

Harbor seals molt from May through June. Peak numbers of harbor seals haul out in central California during late May to early June, which coincides with the peak molt. During both pupping and molting seasons, the number of seals and the length of time hauled out per day increase, from an average of 7 hours per day to 10-12 hours (Harvey and Goley, 2011; Huber et al., 2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994).

Harbor seals tend to forage at night and haul out during the day with a peak in the afternoon between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. (Grigg et al., 2012; London et al., 2001; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; Yochem et al., 1987). Tide levels affect the maximum number of seals hauled out, with the largest number of seals hauled out at low tide, but time of day and season have the greatest influence on haul out behavior (Manugian et al., 2017; Patterson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2008; Stewart and Yochem, 1994).

The closest haulout to the project area is on Yerba Buena Island. This haulout site has a daily range of zero to 109 harbor seals during fall months, with the highest numbers hauled out during afternoon low tides (Caltrans, 2004). The Golden Gate National Recreation Area contains a number of haul out areas in San Francisco Bay including Alcatraz Island and Point Bonita at the entrance to the bay (NPS, 2016).

Large concentrations of spawning Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasii ) and migrating salmonids likely attract seals into San Francisco Bay during the winter months (Greig and Allen, 2015). Harbor seals forage for Pacific herring in eelgrass beds in the winter (Schaeffer et al., 2007).

Pupping occurs from March through May in central California (Codde and Allen, 2018). Pups are weaned in four weeks, most by mid-June (Codde and Allen, 2018). Harbor seals molt from June through July (Codde and Allen, 2018) and breed between late March and June (Greig and Allen, 2015). The closest recognized harbor seal pupping site to the project is at Castro Rocks, approximately 12 mi (20 km) from the project area.

In the fall, gray whales migrate from their summer feeding grounds, heading south along the coast of North America to spend the winter in their breeding and calving areas off the coast of Baja California, Mexico. From mid-February to May, the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales can be seen migrating northward with newborn calves along the west coast of the U.S. During the migration, gray whales will occasionally enter rivers and bays (such as San Francisco Bay) along the coast but not in high numbers. In recent years there have been an increased number of gray whales in the San Francisco Bay (W. Keener, pers. comm. 2019) and there is an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2021-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and ).

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 3.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. California sea lions are in the otariid family group.

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from impact pile driving and removal by underwater chainsaws or pile clippers. The effects of underwater noise from the ACOE's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.

The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (ANSI 1994, 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical ( e.g., waves, wind, precipitation, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic sound ( e.g., vessels, dredging, aircraft, construction).

The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals.

In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving and pile removal by underwater chainsaws or pile clippers. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds ( e.g., explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, underwater chainsaws, pile clippers, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998; NMFS 2018). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward 1997 in Southall et al., 2007).

One type of pile hammer would be used on this project: impact. Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005).

Pile clippers and underwater chainsaws are hydraulically operated equipment. A pile clipper is a large, heavy elongated horizontal guillotine-like structure that is mechanically lowered over a pile down to the mudline or substrate where hydraulic force is used to push a sharp blade to cut a pile. Sounds generated by this demolition equipment are non-impulsive and continuous (NAVAC Southwest, 2020).

The likely or possible impacts of the ACOE's proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature. Acoustic stressors include effects of heavy equipment operation during pile installation and removal.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and the various demolition equipment is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the ACOE's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). Generally, exposure to pile driving and removal and other construction noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving and demolition noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) —NMFS defines PTS as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2018). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson and Hu, 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates, with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals, largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —A temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002). As described in Finneran (2016), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with cumulative sound exposure level (SEL cum ) in an accelerating fashion: At low exposures with lower SEL cum , the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SEL cum , the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis )) and five species of pinnipeds exposed to a limited number of sound sources ( i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). TTS was not observed in trained spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to impulsive noise at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). The potential for TTS from impact pile driving exists. After exposure to playbacks of impact pile driving sounds (rate 2760 strikes/hour) in captivity, mean TTS increased from 0 dB after 15 minute exposure to 5 dB after 360 minute exposure; recovery occurred within 60 minutes (Kastelein et al., 2016). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species. No data are available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and Table 5 in NMFS (2018).

Installing piles requires impact pile driving. There would likely be pauses in activities producing the sound during each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment —Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005).

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history stage of the animal.

In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities ( i.e., pile driving) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal monitoring report for that project (ABR 2016), 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within the Level B disturbance zone during pile driving or drilling ( i.e., documented as Level B harassment take). Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, 7 were fleeing, and 19 swam away from the project site. All other animals (98 percent) were engaged in activities such as milling, foraging, or fighting and did not change their behavior. In addition, two sea lions approached within 20 m of active vibratory pile driving activities. Three harbor seals were observed within the disturbance zone during pile driving activities; none of them displayed disturbance behaviors. Fifteen killer whales and three harbor porpoise were also observed within the Level B harassment zone during pile driving. The killer whales were travelling or milling while all harbor porpoises were travelling. No signs of disturbance were noted for either of these species. Given the similarities in activities and habitat, we expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the ACOE's specified activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and localized ( e.g., small area movements).

Stress responses —An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses ( e.g., Seyle 1950; Moberg 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance ( e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations ( e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of these would be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003), however distress is an unlikely result of this project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the area.

Masking —Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., pile driving, shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions. Masking of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels of background sound at frequencies important to marine mammals. Conversely, if the background level of underwater sound is high ( e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. The San Francisco area contains active military and commercial shipping, ferry operations, as well as numerous recreational and other commercial vessel and background sound levels in the area are already elevated.

Potential Effects of Underwater Chainsaw and Pile Clipper Sounds —Underwater chainsaws and pile clippers may be used to assist with removal of piles. The sounds produced by these activities are of similar frequencies to the sounds produced by vessels (NAVFAC Southwest, 2020), and are anticipated to diminish to background noise levels (or be masked by background noise levels) in San Francisco Bay relatively close to the project site. Therefore, the effects of this equipment are likely to be similar to those discussed above in the Behavioral Harassment section.

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving and removal that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would likely previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

The ACOE's construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During impact and vibratory pile driving or removal, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify Richardson's and San Francisco Bay where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction, however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects to the individuals or populations. Construction activities are of short duration and would likely have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat through increases in underwater and airborne sound.

A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are installed or removed. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-foot (7.6-m) radius around the pile (Everitt et al. 1980). The sediments of the project site are sandy and will settle out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the pile driving areas to experience effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Local strong currents are anticipated to disburse any additional suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid rates depending on tidal stage. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat ( e.g., the impacted area is mostly in Richardson's Bay only) of San Francisco Bay and does not include any Biologically Important Areas or other habitat of known importance. The area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is a very small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in San Francisco Bay. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

Avoidance by potential prey ( i.e., fish) of the immediate area due to the temporary loss of this foraging habitat is also possible. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Prey —Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.

Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning ( e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and detect the motion of surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality.

Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fish, although several are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs ( e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Pena et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012).

SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long. Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).

Because of the rarity of use and research, the effects of pile clippers and underwater chainsaws are not fully known; but given their similarity to ship noises we do not expect unique effects from these activities.

The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and removal and demolition activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area. Forage fish form a significant prey base for many marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order of 10 feet (3 m) or less) of construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates any effects on forage fish are expected to be minor or negligible. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to be different from the current exposure; fish and marine mammals in San Francisco Bay are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from natural and anthropogenic sources.

In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.

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, as use of the acoustic source ( i.e., vibratory or impact pile driving) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for pinnipeds and harbor porpoise because predicted auditory injury zones are larger. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Due to the lack of marine mammal density, NMFS relied on local occurrence data and group size to estimate take for some species. Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 microPascal (μPa) (root mean square (rms)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile-driving) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., impact pile driving) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources.

The ACOE's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (underwater chainsaw and pile clippers) and impulsive (impact pile-driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The ACOE's activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile-driving) and non-impulsive (pile cutting methods) sources.

These thresholds are provided in Table 4. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and transmission loss coefficient.

The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project ( i.e., impact pile driving, pile clippers and underwater chainsaws).

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods (see Table 5). Data for the pile clippers and underwater chainsaws come from data gathered at U.S. Navy projects in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW, 2020), the source levels used are from the averages of the maximum source levels measured, a somewhat more conservative measure than the median sound levels we typically use. The source level for an underwater chainsaw is 150 db RMS and the source level for a large pile clipper is 161 dB RMS (NAVFAC SW, 2020). Because the ACOE's as yet unhired contractor has not decided which of the various pile removal methods it will use, we only use a worst-case scenario of operation using the loudest sound producing method (large pile clippers) to consider the largest possible harassment zones and estimated take.

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:

The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the ACOE's proposed activity in the absence of specific modelling.

The ACOE determined underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 160 dB RMS for impact driving at 22 m and the 120 dB rms threshold for pile cutting at 5,412 m. It should be noted that based on the bathymetry and geography of San Francisco Bay, sound will not reach the full distance of the Level B harassment isopleths in all directions.

When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of take by Level A harassment. 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 impact pile driving or removal using any of the methods discussed above, NMFS User Spreadsheet 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. We used the User Spreadsheet to determine the Level A harassment isopleths. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet or models are reported in Table 1 and the resulting isopleths are reported in Table 6 for each of the construction methods and pile types.

In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) project monitoring showed two observations of this species over 6 days of monitoring in 2017 (CalTrans 2018). One common bottlenose dolphin is sighted with regularity near Alameda (GGCR 2016). Based on the regularity of the sighting in Alameda and the SFOBB observations of approximately 0.33 dolphin a day, we propose the Level B harassment take equivalent to 0.33 dolphins per day for the 26 proposed days of the project, or 9 common bottlenose dolphin (Table 70. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the Protected Species Observer (PSO) will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A harassment of bottlenose dolphins.

Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.17/km 2 (CalTrans 2018). Based on the different pile types and methods there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to estimate Level B harassment take (Table 8). Multiplication of the above density times the corresponding ensonified area and duration, summing the results for the three methods, and subtracting the overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid double-counting of take, leads to a proposed Level B harassment take of 21 harbor porpoise (Table 7).

Similarly, calculating expected Level A harassment take as density times the corresponding Level A harassment ensonified area and duration for each method results in an estimate that less than one harbor porpoise may enter a Level A harassment zone during the project (see Table 14 of application). Given the relatively high density and larger size of the Level A isopleths for harbor porpoises (Table 6, high-frequency cetaceans) we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. However, we recognize that harbor porpoises travel in groups of up to 10 individuals and can be quick and somewhat cryptic, so there is potential that underwater mammals may go undetected before spotted in the Level A harassment and shutdown zone. Based on this observation we propose Level A harassment take of 2 harbor porpoise.

Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 0.16/km 2 (CalTrans 2018). Based on the different pile types and methods there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to estimate Level B harassment take (Table 8). Multiplication of the above density times the corresponding ensonified area and duration, and summing the results for the three methods, and subtracting the overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid double-counting of take, leads to a proposed Level B harassment take of 20 California sea lions (Table 7).

Similarly, calculating expected Level A harassment take as density times the corresponding Level A harassment ensonified area and duration for each method results in an estimate that less than one California sea lion will enter a Level A harassment zone (see Table 13 of application). Given the relatively high density and behavior of California sea lions we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. Based on this observation we propose Level A harassment take of 2 California sea lions.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exit. SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, personal communication). The Marine Mammal Center rescues about five northern fur seals in a year, and they occasionally rescue them from Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island (TMMC, 2019). To be conservative we propose Level B harassment take of three northern fur seals. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the Protected Species Observer (PSO) will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A harassment of northern fur seals.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, personal communication). Out of the approximately 100 annual northern elephant seal strandings in San Francisco Bay, approximately 10 individuals strand nearby at Yerba Buena or Treasure Islands each year (TMMC, 2020). Therefore, we propose the Level B harassment take of 5 northern elephant seals. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A harassment of northern elephant seals.

Density data for this species from SFOBB monitoring was 3.92/km 2 (CalTrans 2018). Based on the different pile types and methods there are three different sized ensonified areas to be considered to estimate Level B harassment take (Table 8). Multiplication of the above density times the corresponding ensonified area and duration, summing the results for the three methods, and subtracting the overlap of Level A take (below) to avoid double-counting of take, leads to a proposed Level B harassment take of 527 harbor seals (Table 7).

Similarly, calculating expected Level A harassment take as density times the corresponding Level A harassment ensonified area and duration for each method results in an estimate that less than one harbor seal may enter a Level A harassment zone during the project (see Table 12 of application). Given the relatively high density and size of the Level A isopleths for harbor seals (Table 6, phocid pinnipeds) we consider Level A harassment take is a possibility. We recognize that harbor seals can occur in moderate and rarely large size groups and can be quick and somewhat cryptic, so there is potential that underwater mammals may go undetected before spotted in the Level A harassment and shutdown zone. Based on this observation we propose Level A harassment take of 2 harbor seals.

Density data for this species in the project vicinity do not exist. SFOBB monitoring showed no observations of this species (CalTrans 2018). None were observed for the Treasure Island Ferry Dock project in 2019 (Matt Osowski, personal communication). Approximately 12 gray whales were stranded in San Francisco Bay from January to May of 2019 (TMMC, 2019) and four stranded in the vicinity on one week in 2021 ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2021/04/11/whales-sf-bay-beaches/ ). Because recent observations are not well understood, Sausalito sits near the entrance to the bay, and as a conservative measure, we propose Level B harassment take of 2 gray whales. Because the Level A harassment zones are relatively small and we believe the PSO will be able to effectively monitor the Level A harassment zones, and the species is rare, we do not anticipate or propose take by Level A harassment of gray whales.

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:

(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and

(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

The following mitigation measures are proposed in the IHA:

• Avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions;

• Conduct training between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team and relevant ACOE staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood;

• Pile driving activity must be halted upon observation of either a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met, entering or within the harassment zone;

• The ACOE will establish and implement the shutdown zones indicated in Table 9. 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 typically vary based on the activity type and marine mammal hearing group. The ACOE wishes to simplify implementation of the relatively small shutdown zones and has proposed using a single shutdown zone distance for each activity rather than separate zones for each hearing group as we minimally require typically. Therefore the shutdown zones in Table 9 are based on the largest possible Level A harassment zones calculated from the isopleths in Table 6.

• Employ PSOs and establish monitoring locations as described in the application and Section 5 of the IHA. The Holder must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions For all pile driving and removal one PSO must be used. The PSO will be stationed as close to the activity as possible;

• The placement of the PSO during all pile driving and removal and drilling activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible during pile installation. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone will not be visible ( e.g., fog, heavy rain), pile driving and removal must be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected;

• Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity. Pre-start clearance monitoring must be conducted during periods of visibility sufficient for the lead PSO to determine the shutdown zones clear of marine mammals. Pile driving may commence following 30 minutes of observation when the determination is made;

• 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 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal;

• The ACOE must use soft start techniques when impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. A soft start must 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;

• Use a bubble curtain during impact pile driving and ensure that it is operated as necessary to achieve optimal performance, and that no reduction in performance may be attributable to faulty deployment. At a minimum, the ACOE must adhere to the following performance standards: The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling circumference for the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the substrate for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent substrate contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full substrate contact. Air flow to the bubblers must be balanced around the circumference of the pile.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated ( e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment ( e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species ( e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure ( e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

• Effects on marine mammal habitat ( e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and

• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

• Monitoring must be conducted by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in accordance with the following: PSOs must be independent ( i.e., not construction personnel) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field), or training. PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA.

• PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as described in the Section 5 of the IHA, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed;

PSOs must have the following additional qualifications:

• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary;

• The ACOE must establish the following monitoring locations. For all pile driving and cutting activities, a minimum of one PSO must be assigned to the active pile driving or cutting location to monitor the shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible.

A draft marine mammal monitoring report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:

• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;

• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method ( i.e., impact or cutting) and the total equipment duration for cutting for each pile or total number of strikes for each pile (impact driving);

• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;

• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;

• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification of the animal(s) ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, etc.); Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations ( e.g., observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity ( e.g., no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);

• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and

• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered ( e.g., shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any.

If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) ( PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov ), NMFS and to West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the ACOE must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);

• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);

• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;

• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and

• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

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's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline ( e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

Pile driving and removal activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zone when these activities are underway.

The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Proposed Mitigation section).

The Level A harassment zones identified in Table 6 are based upon an animal exposed to impact pile driving multiple piles per day. Considering duration of impact driving each pile (up to 20 minutes) and breaks between pile installations (to reset equipment and move pile into place), this means an animal would have to remain within the area estimated to be ensonified above the Level A harassment threshold for multiple hours. This is highly unlikely given marine mammal movement throughout the area. If an animal was exposed to accumulated sound energy, the resulting PTS would likely be small ( e.g., PTS onset) at lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated, and unlikely to result in impacts to individual fitness, reproduction, or survival.

The nature of the pile driving project precludes the likelihood of serious injury or mortality. For all species and stocks, take would occur within a limited, confined area (north-central San Francisco Bay including Richardson's Bay) of the stock's range. Level A and Level B harassment will be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further the amount of take proposed to be authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance.

Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile driving and removal would occur across nine months, any harassment would be temporary. There are no other areas or times of known biological importance for any of the affected species.

In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;

• Authorized Level A harassment would be very small amounts and of low degree;

• No important habitat areas have been identified within the project area;

• For all species, San Francisco Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range'

• The ACOE would implement mitigation measures such as bubble curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; and

• Monitoring reports from similar work in San Frnacisco Bay have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.

The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of the estimated stock abundance of all species (in fact, take of individuals is less than 10 percent of the abundance of the affected stocks, see Table 7). This is likely a conservative estimate because they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

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.

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the West Coast Region Protected Resources Division Office, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the ACOE to conduct the Debris Dock Replacement project in Sausalito, CA from September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at https:// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Debris Dock Replacement project. We also request at this time comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:

• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA);

• The request for renewal must include the following:

(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor ( e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take); and

(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized; and

• Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings.

The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.

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.

NMFS plans to adopt the NSF's Environmental Assessment (EA), as we have preliminarily determined that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. NSF's EA is available at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/.

We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.

On February 12, 2021, NMFS received a request from UAGI for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey in the Arctic Ocean. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 6, 2021. UAGI's request is for take of 13 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. No Level A harassment is anticipated. Neither UAGI nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Researchers at UAGI, with funding from NSF, propose to conduct a seismic survey from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq in the Arctic Ocean to document the structure and stratigraphy of the Chukchi Borderland and adjacent Canada basin. The proposed activity is planned to take place in late summer 2021 (August/September) with a total of 30 days of data acquisition. The survey would include both high energy and low energy components. High-energy ocean bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3120 cubic inches (in 3 ) array and consist of ~12 percent of total survey effort (henceforth referred to as high-energy survey). Low-energy multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun array with a total discharge volume of 1040 in 3 and consist of ~88 percent of total survey effort (henceforth referred to as low-energy survey).

The proposed activity will occur between August and September, 2021. The activity is planned to occur for 45 days total, with ~30 days dedicated to seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours a day operations), ~8 days devoted to transit and 7 days used for equipment deployment and recovery.

The proposed surveys would occur within ~73.5-81.0°N, ~139.5-168°W (≥300 kilometer (km) north of Utqiaġvik). Representative survey track lines can be seen in Figure 1. Some deviation in track lines, including the order of survey operations, could be necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment. Thus, the track lines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above and within the study area. Four percent of the surveys will occur within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with the remaining part of the survey occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity will take place in depths ranging from 200-4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq would likely leave and return to Nome, AK.

The low-energy survey activity will begin ~300 km from the Alaskan coastline (North of Utqiagvik) and extend ~800 km north from the initial survey site ( i.e., the survey would occur ~300-1,100 km from the Alaska coastline). The high-energy survey activity will only occur ~530 km from the coastline and occur only in the northeastern part of the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty percent of the total survey will occur in deep waters (>1,000m) with the remainder of the survey occurring in intermediate depth waters (100-1,000 m); no surveying will occur in waters <100 m deep. All high-energy surveys (680 km total) will occur in deep waters, while 67 percent of low-energy surveys will occur in deep waters (3,981 km) with the remainder occurring in intermediate depth waters (1,189 km or 23 percent).

The proposed study would use low-energy two-dimensional (2-D) seismic surveying to document the history, structure, and stratigraphy of the Chukchi Borderland and adjacent Canada Basin, and use high-energy seismic refraction data in the Canada Basin to characterize the deep crustal structure associated with an extinct mid-ocean ridge in the central basin.

The procedures to be used for the proposed marine geophysical survey would include conventional seismic methodology. The survey would involve one source vessel, R/V Sikuliaq, which has a cruising speed of 10 knots (kt), and would tow an array of 6 airguns (520 in 3 (8,521.27 cm 3 ) each) and a total possible discharge volume of ~3,120 in 3 during high-energy surveys. During low-energy reflection surveys, a 2-airgun array (at 520 in 3 each) would be used with a total discharge volume of 1,040 in 3 . Both arrays will be towed at a depth of 9m. During low-energy surveys (~88 percent of total line km), a 1-3 km long hydrophone streamer (depending on ice conditions) would be employed as the receiving system, and high-energy surveys (~12 percent of total line km) would employ nine OBSs as the receiving system. As the airgun arrays are towed along the survey lines, the OBSs would receive and store the returning acoustic signals internally for later analysis, and the hydrophone streamer would transfer the data to the on-board processing system. The airguns would fire at a shot interval of 35 m (~15 seconds (s)) during the low-energy surveys and at a 139-m (~60 s) interval during the high-energy refraction surveys. The airguns would operate at a firing pressure of 2,540 pounds per square inch (psi).

In addition to the aforementioned planned survey lines, some lines, as indicated in Figure 1, will be surveyed twice: Once for low-energy reflection and again for high energy refraction. These surveys would take place near the end of operations in the northeastern part of the survey area (Fig. 1); however, the location of these surveys could shift slightly to ensure one survey occurs over the extinct ridge axis and the other on hyper-extended continental crust. A total of nine OBSs would be deployed twice for a total of 18 deployment sites during high energy survey effort. Nine OBSs would be deployed during low-energy surveying, then high-energy refraction data would be acquired along these same lines, followed by retrieval of the OBS equipment, before R/V Sikuliaq would travel to the next site to deploy all nine OBSs again. Approximately 5,850 total line km would be surveyed, including 5,170 km of low-energy surveys, and 680 km of high-energy surveys. There could be additional seismic operations associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. As a result, a 25 percent buffer has been added in the form of operational days, which is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the proposed line km to be surveyed. Most of the survey (80 percent) would occur in deep water (>1,000 m), and 20 percent would occur in intermediate water (100-1,000 m deep); there would be no effort in shallow water <100 m deep.

In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multibeam echosounder (MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), and an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) would be operated from R/V Sikuliaq continuously during the seismic surveys, but not during transit to and from the survey area. Take of marine mammals is not expected to occur incidental to use of the MBES, SBP, or ADCP because they will be operated only during seismic acquisition, and it is assumed that, during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other sources, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP would already be affected by the airguns. However, whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources, given their characteristics ( e.g., narrow downward-directed beam), marine mammals would experience no more than one or two brief ping exposures, if any exposure were to occur.

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

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's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa. gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Additional information may be found in the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) reports, which are available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals.

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For most species, stock abundance estimates are based on sightings within the U.S. EEZ, however for some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Other species may use survey abundance estimates. Survey abundance (as compared to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. These surveys may also extend beyond U.S. waters. In this case, the proposed survey area outside of the U.S. EEZ does not necessarily overlap with the ranges for stocks managed by NMFS. However, we assume that individuals of these species that may be encountered during the survey would be part of those stocks. Additionally, six species listed in Table 1 indicate Unknown abundance estimates. This may be due to outdated data and population estimates or data is not representative of the entire stock.

All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Alaska and Pacific SARs ( e.g., Muto et al., 2020, Carretta et al., 2020). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2019 SARs (Muto et al., 2020, Carretta et al., 2020) and draft 2020 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports ).

In addition, the Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus divergens ) and the Polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) may be found in the Arctic. However, Pacific walruses and Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

As indicated above, all 13 species (with 14 managed stocks) in Table 1 could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA application.

Beluga whales and ringed seals are the marine mammal species most likely to be encountered during this survey, with bowhead whales and bearded seals also having a higher likelihood of co-occuring in the survey area over the other proposed species in Table 1. However, these four species (beluga whales, ringed seals, bowhead whales and bearded seals) are most common within 100 km of shore, whereas the proposed survey would occur no closer than 300 km from shore, with most effort further north. Thus, despite their prevalence in Arctic waters north of Alaska, we expect there to be a low likelihood of encountering even beluga whales, ringed seals, bowhead whales and bearded seals during the proposed survey given the proposed activity's distance from shore.

Humpbacks, fin and minke whales have rarely been observed as far north in the Arctic Ocean as the planned survey location but have been spotted on rare occasions in areas coinciding with the lower latitudes of the proposed survey area during previous aerial surveys. Similar sightings during the proposed activity are expected to be limited during the proposed survey as the majority of the proposed survey area occurs in higher latitudes and outside typical migratory patterns for these species (Brueggeman, 2009; Haley et al. 2010; Clarke et al., 2011; Schuck et al., 2017). However, Brower et al. (2018) suggest that sightings of these sub-Arctic species are increasing in the eastern Chukchi Sea as of recent years due to climate change. Killer whales, gray whales, humpback whales, fin whales, minke whales and harbor porpoises are minimally sighted in the Chukchi Sea based on ASAMM data and are primarily coastal species, however recent monitoring activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during industry seismic surveys also suggests that some of these species may be increasing in numbers in the Arctic but are still expected to be south of the proposed survey area (Funk et al., 2010). Additionally, there are scattered records of narwhal in Alaskan waters, where the species is considered to be extralimital. However, we do not expect the species to be encountered far north in the proposed survey area (Reeves et al., 2002). Although we do not expect the proposed survey area to coincide with expected ranges of the species described in this paragraph, takes equivalent to the average group size for the species are proposed for authorization at the applicant's request as a precaution due to the potential that they could be encountered.

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS delineated 14 distinct population segments (DPS) with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do not necessarily equate to the existing stocks designated under the MMPA.

Within Alaska waters, four humpback whale DPSs may occur: The Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS (endangered), Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America DPS (endangered). According to Wade (2017), in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, encountered whales are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS (86.8 percent), but could be from the Mexico DPS (11.0 percent) or WNP DPS (2.1 percent). Note that these probabilities reflect the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval of the probability of occurrence; therefore, numbers may not sum to 100 percent for a given area. Because this project occurs north of the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea and in the Arctic, we hypothesize that the Western North Pacific Stock of humpback whales will overlap with the proposed survey area, and thus include animals from the WNP DPS, Hawaii DPS and Mexico DPS as previously mentioned.

At this time, there is no comprehensive abundance estimate available in the SARs for the Alaska stock of minke whales. However, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) reports an abundance estimate of 20,000 minke whales in the North Pacific (North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea) (2003), which is the figure used for analysis. This estimate encompasses the distribution of minke whales throughout the North Pacfic extending to 80 degrees North. 20,000 is the most recent abundance estimate available for minke whales in the North Pacific provided by IWC. In 2017, the IWC Scientific Committee established a new group to review all abundance estimates and ensure quality and consistency across estimates used by IWC. According to the IWC website and the criteria established by this group, the 20,000 whale estimate in the North Pacific from 2003 is considered to be the `best' estimate at this time.

Similarly, although a comprehensive abundance estimate is not available for the northeast Pacific stock of fin whales, provisional estimates representing portions of the range are available. The same 2010 survey of the eastern Bering sea shelf provided an estimate of 1,061 (CV = 0.38) fin whales (Friday et al. 2013). The estimate is not corrected for missed animals, but is expected to be robust as previous studies have shown that only small correction factors are needed for fin whales (Barlow, 1995). Zerbini et al. (2006) produced an estimate of 1,652 (95 percent Confidence Interval (CI): 1,142-2,389) fin whales for the area described above.

Narwhals are found year-round in the Arctic but rarely occur in the western Arctic, in areas including the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas (COSEWIC, 2004). There are three populations of narwhals recognized internationally based on geographic separation, which include the Baffin Bay population, Hudson Bay population, and the East Greenland population. Currently, very little is known about these populations. The primary source for data and knowledge of narwhals in Alaska waters is local observations and traditional ecological knowledge dating back to the 1800s (Noogwook et al., 2007). Individual sightings have occurred in Russian waters of the northern Chukchi Sea (Yablokov and Bel'kovich, 1968; Reeves and Tracey, 1980). Additionally, Alaska Native hunters recorded seven sightings of narwhals between 1989 and 2008, four of which consisted of mixed groups of narwhals and belugas (George and Suydam, unpublished manuscript). Records of narwhals in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas are hypothesized to be whales from the Baffin Bay population, migrating into the Canadian Arctic as ice conditions permit (COSEWIC, 2004). At this time, there are no reliable estimates of abundance for narwhals in Alaskan waters.

Based on previous industry-sponsored monitoring in the Beaufort Sea, harbor porpoises regularly occur in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas (Funk et al., 2011). They have been sighted during several seismic surveys, both nearshore and offshore, between July and November (Funk et al., 2010, 2011; Reiser et al., 2011; Aerts et al., 2013). After gray whales and bowhead whales, they are the most frequently sighted cetacean in the Chukchi Sea (Funk et al., 2011; Reiser et al., 2011). Shipboard visual line-transect surveys occurred biannually from 1999 to 2010, resulting in harbor porpoise abundance estimates for each survey. These surveys demonstrate the distribution of harbor porpoises throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas but are not reliable for estimating abundance estimates in this region.

Bearded seals are widely distributed throughout the summer and fall, following ice coverage northward, while juvenile seals remain near the coasts of the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Burns, 1967, 1981; Heptner et al., 1976; Nelson, 1981; Cameron et al., 2018). At this time, there is no reliable population estimate available for the entire Alaska stock of bearded seals. Recent aerial abundance surveys (Conn et al., 2014) used a sub-sample of data collected in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea to calculate a partial abundance estimate of 301,836 seals (95 percent CI: 238,195-371,147). Future studies plan to combine spring survey results of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea.

Similarly, ringed seals also lack a reliable population estimate for the entire stock. Conn et al. (2014) calculated an abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed seals (95 percent CI: 141,588-201,090) using a sub-sample of data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012. Researchers plan to combine these results with those from spring surveys of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas once complete. During the summer months, ringed seals forage along ice edges or in open water areas of high productivity and have been observed in the northern Beaufort Sea during summer months (Harwood and Stirling, 1992; Freitas et al., 2008; Kelly et al., 2010b; Harwood et al., 2015). This open water movement becomes limited with the onset of ice in the fall forcing the seals to move west and south as ice packs advance, dispersing the animals throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, with only a portion remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Frost and Lowry, 1984; Crawford et al., 2012; Harwood et al., 2012).

In addition to ringed and bearded seals, other pinniped species that could be encountered during the proposed survey include the ribbon seal and spotted seal. The ribbon seal is uncommon in the Chukchi Sea, and there are few sightings in the Beaufort Sea. From late March to early May, ribbon seals inhabit the Bering Sea ice front. They are most abundant in the northern part of the ice front in the central and western parts of the Bering Sea. As the ice recedes in May to mid-July, the seals move farther north in the Bering Sea, where they haul out on the receding ice edge and remnant ice. Spotted seals are more abundant in the Chukchi Sea and occur in small numbers in the Beaufort Sea. As the ice melts, seals become more concentrated, with part of the Bering Sea population moving to the Bering Strait and the southern part of the Chukchi Sea. The distribution of spotted seals is seasonally related to specific life-history events that can be broadly divided into two periods: Late-fall through spring, when whelping, nursing, breeding, and molting occur in association with the presence of sea ice on which the seals haul out, and summer through fall when seasonal sea ice has melted and most spotted seals use land for hauling out. Satellite-tagging studies showed that seals tagged in the northeastern Chukchi Sea moved south in October and passed through the Bering Strait in November. Seals overwintered in the Bering Sea along the ice edge and made east-west movements along the edge. In summer and fall, spotted seals use coastal haul-out sites regularly and may be found as far north as 69-72° N in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Neither of these species would likely be encountered during the proposed activity other than perhaps during transit periods to or from the survey area. Although their encounters this far north in the Arctic are rare, authorization of take has been proposed at the request of the applicant. Clarke et al. (2015) described Biological Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in the Arctic. BIAs were delineated for two baleen whale species, bowhead whales and gray whales, and one toothed whale, the beluga whale. The proposed UAGI survey areas do not coincide with any of the three Arctic BIAs.

A UME is defined under the MMPA as “a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate response.” For more information on UMEs, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-unusual-mortality-events. Currently recognized UMEs in Alaska involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction include those affecting ice seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and gray whales. Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings for bearded, ringed and spotted seals have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with causes undetermined. Through 2020, there were 315 recorded seal strandings. For more information, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska.

Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. As of April 5, 2021, there have been a total of 430 whales reported in the event, with approximately 205 dead whales in Mexico, 209 whales in the United States (including 93 in Alaska), and 16 whales in British Columbia, Canada. For the United States, the historical 18-year 5-month average (Jan-May) is 14.8 whales for this same time-period. Several dead whales have been emaciated with moderate to heavy whale lice (cyamid) loads. Necropsies have been conducted on a subset of whales with additional findings of vessel strike in three whales and entanglement in one whale. In Mexico, 50-55 percent of the free-ranging whales observed in the lagoons in winter have been reported as “skinny” compared to the annual average of 10-12 percent “skinny” whales normally seen. The cause of the UME is as yet undetermined. For more information, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes ( i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS' 2018 Revision to its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance) (NMFS, 2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.

The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Thirteen marine mammal species (9 cetacean and 4 pinniped (all phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species that may be present, 5 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans ( i.e., all mysticete species), 3 are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans ( i.e., all delphinid species), and 1 is classified as high-frequency cetacean ( i.e., harbor porpoise).

This section includes a summary of the ways that UAGI's specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices, including for survey activities using the same methodology and over a similar amount of time, and affecting similar species ( e.g., 83 FR 29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 7, 2020). No significant new information is available, and we refer the reader to these documents for additional detail. The Estimated Take section includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by UAGI's activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the potential effects of the specified activity, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to the discussion of the effects of the specified activity on marine mammals in this document. For general information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment, please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983).

Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the decibel. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal (μPa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude. Therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position (referenced to 1 μPa).

Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.

Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa 2 -s) represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated time interval or event and considers both intensity and duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window containing the entire pulse ( i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse, or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined time window or during an event. Peak sound pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the source and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.

When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.

Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound level of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical ( e.g., wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological ( e.g., sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic ( e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 hertz (Hz) and 50 kilohertz (kHz) (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Precipitation can become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient sound levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly.

The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals. Details of source types are described in the following text.

Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts. The distinction between these two sound types is not always obvious, as certain signals share properties of both pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a source could be categorized as a pulse, but due to propagation effects as it moves farther from the source, the signal duration becomes longer ( e.g., Greene and Richardson, 1988).

Pulsed sound sources ( e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses ( e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems. The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.

Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the source is equal in all directions ( i.e., omnidirectional), but airgun arrays do possess some directionality due to different phase delays between guns in different directions. Airgun arrays are typically tuned to maximize functionality for data acquisition purposes, meaning that sound transmitted in horizontal directions and at higher frequencies is minimized to the extent possible.

Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can include one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).

Animals in the vicinity of UAGI's proposed seismic survey activity are unlikely to incur PTS due to the small estimated auditory injury zones, in conjunction with the anticipated efficacy of the proposed mitigation requirements. Please see Estimated Take and Proposed Mitigation for further discussion.

Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal.

In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural ( e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic ( e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin.

Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton) ( i.e., effects to marine mammal habitat). Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. The most likely impacts (if any) for most prey species in a given area would be temporary avoidance of the area. Surveys using active acoustic sound sources move through an area relatively quickly, limiting exposure to multiple pulses. In all cases, sound levels would return to ambient once a survey ends and the noise source is shut down and, when exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/or physiological responses are expected to end relatively quickly. Finally, the survey equipment will not have significant impacts to the seafloor and does not represent a source of pollution.

Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel, with the probability of death or serious injury increasing as vessel speed increases (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces increase with speed, as does the probability of a strike at a given distance (Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). The chances of a lethal injury decline from approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of lethal injury drop below 50 percent (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007).

Ship strikes generally involve commercial shipping, which is much more common in both space and time than is geophysical survey activity and which typically involves larger vessels moving at faster speeds. Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized ship strikes of large whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred in the open ocean and involved large vessels ( e.g., commercial shipping). Commercial fishing vessels were responsible for three percent of recorded collisions, while no such incidents were reported for geophysical survey vessels during that time period.

For vessels used in geophysical survey activities, vessel speed while towing gear is typically only 4-5 knots. At these speeds, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and the possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality are so low as to be discountable. At average transit speed for geophysical survey vessels (approximately 10 kn), the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting from a strike (if it occurred) is less than 50 percent (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). However, the likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the smaller size of these vessels and generally slower speeds. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving seismic data acquisition vessels towing gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no preventive measures. Given the required mitigation measures, the relatively slow speeds of vessels towing gear, the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals), the presence of marine mammal observers, and the small number of seismic survey cruises relative to commercial ship traffic, we believe that the possibility of ship strike is discountable and, further, that were a strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from ship strike is anticipated or proposed for authorization, and this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed further in the following analysis.

The potential effects of UAGI's specified survey activity are expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment. No permanent auditory effects, or significant impacts to marine mammal habitat, including prey, are expected.

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 be by Level B harassment, as use of seismic airguns may result, either directly or as a result of TTS, in disruption of behavioral patterns of marine mammals. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. Moreover, based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures ( i.e., implementation of extended shutdown distances for certain species)—discussed in detail below in the Proposed Mitigation section—Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.

As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry), the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context), and the distance between the sound source and the animal, and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals may be behaviorally harassed ( i.e., Level B harassment) when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for the impulsive sources ( i.e., seismic airguns) evaluated here.

Level A harassment for non-explosive sources —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). UAGI's proposed seismic survey includes the use of impulsive sources (seismic airgun).

These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and acoustic propagation modeling.

The acoustic propagation modeling methodologies are described in greater detail in Appendix A of UAGI's IHA application. The proposed survey would primarily acquire data using the 2-airgun array with a total discharge volume of 1,040 in 3 and an approximately 15-second shot interval. During approximately 12 percent of the planned survey tracklines, the 6-airgun, 3,120 in 3 array would be used with a 60-second shot interval. All tracklines would be surveyed with a maximum tow depth of 9 m. The modeling assumed an airgun firing pressure of 2,540 psi. Propagation modeling for UAGI's application follows the approach used by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for other, similar IHA applications. L-DEO uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling from the array to the receiver and its associated source ghost (reflection at the air-water interface in the vicinity of the array), in a constant-velocity half-space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded by a seafloor). To validate the model results, L-DEO measured propagation of pulses from a 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m in the Gulf of Mexico, for deep water (~1,600 m), intermediate water depth on the slope (~600-1,100 m), and shallow water (~50 m) (Tolstoy et al., 2009; Diebold et al., 2010).

L-DEO collected a MCS data set from R/V Marcus G. Langseth (with the same 36-airgun array referenced above) on an 8 km streamer in 2012 on the shelf of the Cascadia Margin off of Washington in water up to 200 m deep that allowed Crone et al. (2014) to analyze the hydrophone streamer (>1,100 individual shots). These empirical data were then analyzed to determine in situ sound levels for shallow and upper intermediate water depths. These data suggest that modeled radii were 2-3 times larger than the measured radii in shallow water. Similarly, data collected by Crone et al. (2017) during a survey off New Jersey in 2014 and 2015 confirmed that in situ measurements collected by R/V Langseth hydrophone streamer were 2-3 times smaller than the predicted radii.

L-DEO model results are used to determine the assumed radial distance to the 160-dB rms threshold for these arrays in deep water (>1,000 m) (down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m) (see Table 4). Water depths in the project area may be up to 4,000 m, but marine mammals in the region are generally not anticipated to dive below 2,000 m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The radii for intermediate water depths (100-1000 m) are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5. No survey effort would occur in water depths <100 m.

The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a GIS and then “buffering” the lines by the applicable 160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA application). The resulting ensonified areas were then increased by 25% to allow for any necessary additional operations, such as re-surveying segments where data quality was insufficient. This approach assumes that no marine mammals would move away or toward the trackline in response to increasing sound levels before the levels reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 4/23/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: 2021 Active Duty Spouse Survey, OMB Control Number 0704-0604.

Needs and Uses: The DoD Survey of Active Duty Spouse Survey (ADSS) is the primary source for reliable and generalizable data on the effects of military life on military spouses and their families and the effectiveness of current programs and policies related to military families. The survey is designed to enhance understanding of how spouse and family resilience impact force readiness and retention and is also an indicator informing the effectiveness of programs and policies under the purview of DoD's Military Community and Family Policy (MC&FP) Department. Without this biennial survey, DoD would not have current data to guide limited resources to the appropriate programs, policies, and services related to military spouses, their families and ultimately Service members.

This survey provides an opportunity for military spouses to directly expand policy maker's knowledge by sharing opinions on issues that directly affect them. Success of current efforts and shortfalls in programs and policies are identified through this biennial survey. These survey results ensure decisions based on current and statistically reliable data.

The legislation authorizing the USD(P&R) to conduct these surveys is provided under 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 136, 1782 and 2358, and 37 U.S.C., Section 1008(b).

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 18,175.

Number of Respondents: 72,700.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 72,700.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency: One time.

The Office of People Analytics (OPA) will administer the 2021 Active Duty Spouse Survey (ADSS) to active duty spouses of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force members who are below flag rank. Active duty spouses will receive one of two versions of the ADSS, either a four-question supplemental ADSS or a full ADSS with 74 questions. Only spouses selected as part of the random sample will be asked to complete the full ADSS. The full ADSS quantitative results are generalizable to the entire active duty spouse population, while the supplemental ADSS results will be analyzed for qualitative patterns and themes.

OPA uses a sampling tool developed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to determine the sample size needed to achieve 95% confidence and an associated precision of 5% or less on each reporting category domain. We select a single-stage, non-proportional stratified random sample to ensure statistically adequate expected number of responses for the reporting domains. OPA uses Service, paygrade, gender, and family status to define the initial strata. We collapse these strata when there are fewer than 200 individuals in the stratum. OPA weights the eligible respondents in order to make inferences about the entire population of active duty spouses. The weighting methodology utilizes standard weighting processes.

The full ADSS and supplemental ADSS contain two matching questions which will be used to gauge potential differences between the scientifically sampled and weighted ADSS responses and the convenience sample responding to the supplemental survey. At the end of the supplemental short survey, spouses will be asked if they would like to voluntarily provide their personal email address to be contacted for future spouse surveys.

The supplemental ADSS and full ADSS are administered via the web. The full ADSS also includes a paper survey option and QR code link to the survey to maximize response rates. Respondents may access the survey via the web on a device they select. The web survey will be administered on proprietary software developed by OPA's operations contractor, Data Recognition Corporation (DRC). Digitally signed emails, electronic files, and web-based technology will be used for respondent communications and for data collection.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Telework Agreement; DD Form 2946; OMB Control Number 0704-ATEL.

Type of Request: Regular.

Number of Respondents: 560,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 560,000.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 186,667.

Needs And Uses: Information is collected to register individuals as participants in the DoD alternative workplace program; to manage and document the duties of participants; and to fund, evaluate and report on program activity. All employees who are authorized to telework shall complete a DD Form 2946. The DD Form 2946 shall be signed and dated by the employee's supervisor. Components are encouraged to include a DD Form 2946 in the new employee onboarding packages for those employees occupying telework eligible positions to ensure that they are aware of their telework responsibilities, should telework be offered or requested.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Trusted Capital Digital Marketplace Application; OMB Control Number 0704-0596.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 300.

Average Burden per Response: 90 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 450.

Needs and Uses: Per the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) by Section 1711 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)) has proposed a “Trusted Capital” initiative in the form of a public-private partnership designed to convene trusted sources of private capital with innovative companies critical to the defense industrial base (DIB) and national security. The initiative includes establishment of a Trusted Capital Digital Marketplace (TCDM) to facilitate business relationships between eligible investors (“Capital Providers”) and eligible small and medium-sized businesses that have been “down-selected” by Department of Defense (DoD) Components based on relevancy, technical merit, business viability, or innovativeness (“Capability Providers”). The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the criticality of the security and resiliency of defense supply chains. The Federal emergency enabled DoD to accelerate initiatives to identify constraints and risks in our supply chains that were initially identified in the Executive Order (E.O.) 13806 report, which was published in 2018. One of the risk archetypes identified in the report is foreign dependency on capital and supply chains. Although DoD will always have a diverse, domestic and international supply chain, we recognize that this comes with some risk. COVID-19 magnified that risk and the difficulties of offshore sources of capital and supply in times of global emergencies. The OUSD(A&S) Trusted Capital program offers critical technology companies an alternative to adversarial capital. To accomplish this important national security mission the Trusted Capital program requires the ability to gather data required to conduct national security and supply chain due-diligence to prioritize “trusted” sources of commercial capital to offset direct financial distress in the DIB and support our partners affected by the virus with investments and local job creation. Information collected will be used in determining an applicant's eligibility for TCDM participation. Parties will complete an electronic application and be subjected to a due diligence screening process to assess for adversarial foreign ownership, influence, or control—as well as other national security risks. In the event additional information is necessary to process an application, additional inquiries may be sent to the applicant. Applicants that receive a favorable due diligence screening adjudication by OUSD(A&S) will be approved for TCDM participation. In addition to initial application requirements, participants will be subject to continuous reporting obligations.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Angela Duncan.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.