Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Agency submitted a request for emergency approval to collect new information on the employment records of full-time Afghan employees from USAID contractors in Afghanistan.

Description of Proposed Use of Information: The information will include employee details such as dates of employment and contract number, which will be used to verify employment as part of the COM approval step of the SIV application process. This information will be collected via email through encrypted Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

The total amount of time estimated for this data collection is less than 1,000 hours (considered at 3 hours per partner for an estimated 300 contractors).

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish a six-month advance notice in the Federal Register of establishment of proposed recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee sites.

A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $20 per night would be charged for Swift Creek campground. A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $100 per night for groups of up to 40 people would be charged for Lynx Creek group campground. Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposal recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Campgrounds could be reserved online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the Federal Register a six-month advance notice of establishment of recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee sites.

A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $5 for 1 day per vehicle, $7 for multiple days per vehicle, and $50 per season or year per vehicle would be charged at Hightop, Rockcastle Ramp, and Mouth of Laurel boating developed recreation sites. In addition, a proposed standard amenity recreation fee of $5 per day per vehicle, $7 for multiple days per vehicle, and $50 per season or year per vehicle would be charged at Paleo, Pioneer, Rock Bridge Recreation Area, Sandstone, Sky Bridge Recreation Area, Stanton Sheltowee, Tarr Kiln, Osborne Bend, Auxier Ridge, Bison Way, Chimney Top Overlook, Indian Creek 1, East Fork Indian Creek 2, Fort Ancient, Grays Arch, Half Moon, Archaic, Martins Fork, and Woodland developed recreation sites. The Daniel Boone National Forest Day Use Pass and the America the Beautiful-the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass would be honored at these standard amenity recreation fee sites.

Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposal recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Developed recreation sites could be reserved online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the Federal Register a six-month advance notice of establishment of recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee sites.

A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $75 per night would be charged for rental of Tincan, Granite 1, Granite 2, Porcupine, and Meridian Lake cabins.

Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Cabins could be reserved online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the Federal Register a six-month advance notice of establishment of recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee sites.

A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $15 per night would be charged for Stonecoal campground. A proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $75 per day for groups of up to 75 people would be charged for Seneca Rocks, Summit Lake, and Cranberry Mountain Nature Center group picnic sites; and a proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $50 per day for groups of up to 75 people would be charged for the Woodbine group picnic site. In addition, a proposed expanded amenity recreation fee of $100 per night would be charged for rental of Red Oak Lookout.

Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposal recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Campgrounds, group picnic sites, and lookouts could be reserved online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6803(b)) requires the Forest Service to publish in the Federal Register a six-month advance notice of establishment of recreation fee sites. In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2309.13, Chapter 30, the Forest Service will publish the proposed recreation fee sites and proposed recreation fees in local newspapers and other local publications for public comment. Most of the proposed recreation fees would be spent where they are collected to enhance the visitor experience at the proposed recreation fee sites.

A proposed standard amenity recreation fee of $5 per day per vehicle would be charged at White Spar, Grief Hill, Bean Peaks, Bignotti, Beasley Flat, Black Canyon, and Skidmore day use developed recreation sites. The Prescott National Forest Day Use Pass and the America the Beautiful—the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass would be honored at these standard amenity recreation fee sites.

Expenditures of recreation fees collected at the proposed recreation fee sites would enhance recreation opportunities, improve customer service, and address maintenance needs. Once public involvement is complete, the proposed recreation fee sites and proposal recreation fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. Day use developed recreation sites could be reserved online at www.recreation.gov or by calling 877-444-6777. Reservations would cost $8.00 per reservation.

On June 5, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids (disposable aluminum containers) from the People's Republic of China (China). 1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than August 9, 2024.

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner  2 makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On July 15, 2024, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary CVD determination. 3 The petitioner stated that it requests postponement “to permit the agency to review the initial questionnaire response and to issue supplemental questionnaires to the respondents and the {Government of China} to clarify responses and to determine accurately the extent to which countervailable subsidies have benefitted the respondents during the period of investigation.”  4

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated, i.e., October 15, 2024. 5 Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

Background: The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-283, 44 U.S.C. 3554) emphasized the importance of information security to the economic and national security interests of the United States. FISMA requires agency heads to report on the adequacy and effectiveness of their enterprise's information security policies, procedures, and practices. For two decades, agencies worked diligently to implement the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130: “Managing Information as a Strategic Resource,” employing Authorization to Operate (ATO) processes reliant on paper-based documentation, manual assessment processes, and non-interoperable proprietary automation processes and tools that do not support security data portability.

NIST initiated the development of the Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL) to support automated (or computer-assisted) assessment and risk management through operationally sustainable means and to fill federal, national, and international gaps in security assessment automation by providing a set of data-centric, regulatory-agnostic, technical specifications capable of expressing security information in machine-readable formats (XML, JSON or YAML), in support of risk management automation.

The NIST OSCAL program has been working with the public to develop a standardized, open-source, actionable data framework referred to as OSCAL, OSCAL models, or OSCAL framework, and a service interface and proof-of-concept tools for representing and exchanging high-fidelity controls-based IT system risk management data between applications hosted by multiple organizations. This OSCAL framework, the service interface, and tools provide the foundation for a high degree of automation around assessing the underlying system implementation state and the extent to which this state ensures that security and privacy controls are implemented and remain effective.

The immediate acceptance and successful international adoption of the OSCAL framework calls for a long-term NIST vision of OSCAL evolution and incremental maturity into open-source standards developed by industry-accepted standards development organizations. OSCAL will also promote innovation around applying machine learning, robotic process automation, and new knowledge domains to the IT system risk management space.

Community Engagement Areas: NIST seeks to identify community members involved in ongoing or planned activities, including but not limited to standardization, education, and adoption, related to OSCAL. Individual and organizational community members with ongoing or planned activities in these areas may respond to this notice to describe these activities and inform NIST's planning and coordination efforts across the OSCAL program.

Exemplary activities could include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Assessing OSCAL maturity level readiness for international standardization. The category could include development of open-source OSCAL content for community's consumption based on the OSCAL latest released set of models (7), development of tests or OSCAL content exercising the latest prototype OSCAL models.

• Developing enhancements or new OSCAL models as deemed necessary by the community.

• Developing OSCAL educational material (tutorials, videos) for all OSCAL-adoption levels, from novice to advanced.

• Organizing OSCAL events such as conferences, webinars, workshops for security experts, assessors, auditors and developers implementing OSCAL-based solutions.

• Establishing OSCAL incubators (labs) that will develop proof of concept implementations (pilots), tools and adoption best practices guidance.

• Implementing OSCAL solutions for internal purpose.

• Implementing OSCAL Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC) tools.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272(b)(10).

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, regulations are promulgated (when applicable), and public notice and an opportunity for public comment are provided.

An authorization for incidental taking 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). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; “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 as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13); 50 CFR 216.103). Level A harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Level B harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 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 (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I authorize NMFS to propose and, if appropriate, promulgate regulations and issue associated LOA(s).

On June 21, 2024, NMFS promulgated a final rule (89 FR 52222) responding to a request from the applicant for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals (39 species comprising 39 stocks). After reviewing the request and making the required findings, NMFS is authorizing the take, by harassment only, of 38 species, representing 38 stocks (19 species by Level A harassment and all 38 species by Level B harassment) incidental to select construction activities occurring in Federal and State waters off of Massachusetts, specifically within and around the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Area OCS-A 0534, OCS-A 0561, the southwest (SW) portion of Lease Area OCS-A 0501 (collectively referred to as the Lease Area), and along an export cable routes to sea-to-shore transition points (collectively, the Project Area) over the course of 5 years (March 27, 2025 through March 26, 2030). The specified activities are impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and drilling of wind turbine generator (WTG) and electrical service platform (ESP) foundations; high-resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization surveys; detonation of unexploded ordnances (UXOs) or munitions and explosives of concern (MECs); fisheries and benthic monitoring surveys; placement of scour protection; trenching, laying, and burial activities associated with the installation of the export cable from the ESP(s) to shore based converter stations and inter-array cables between WTG foundations; vessel transit within the specified geographical region to transport crew, supplies, and materials; and WTG operations.

Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during foundation pile driving and/or UXO/MEC detonation, may be taken by Level A harassment (limited to blue whales, fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, sei whales, sperm whales, dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, Atlantic spotted dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin, long-finned pilot whales, short-finned pilot whale, Risso's dolphin, harbor porpoise, gray seal, harbor seal, and harp seal). Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and drilling during foundation installation, UXO/MEC detonation, and site characterization surveys may be taken by Level B harassment (all 38 stocks). For reasons described in the final rule, no mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is anticipated to occur or authorized. Further, for reasons described in the final rule, no take by Level A harassment of several species, including the North Atlantic right whale, is expected to occur or authorized.

In accordance with the final rule (89 FR 52222, June 21, 2024; see 50 CFR 217.326), we have issued a LOA to Avangrid authorizing the take, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to specified activities within the specified geographical region. As previously stated, no mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal species is anticipated to occur or authorized. The incidental takes authorized herein are the same as those analyzed in the final rule (89 FR 52222, June 21, 2024). Takes of marine mammals will be minimized through the following planned mitigation and monitoring measures, as applicable for each specified activity: (1) implementation of spatio-temporal work restrictions; (2) use of multiple NMFS-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to visually observe for marine mammals (with any detection within specifically designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (3) use of NMFS-approved passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) operators to acoustically detect marine mammals during foundation installation activities, with a focus on detecting baleen whales (with any detection within designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (4) implementation of clearance and shutdown zones; (5) use of soft-start prior to the start of foundation impact pile driving; (6) use of noise attenuation technology; (7) use of situational awareness monitoring for marine mammal presence; (8) conducting sound field verification during foundation installation and UXO/MEC detonation; (9) use of ramp-up acoustic sources during HRG surveys; and (10) implementation of several vessel strike avoidance measures ( e.g., speed and separation distance measures) to reduce the risk of a vessel interaction with a marine mammal. Additionally, Avangrid is required to submit reports frequently to NMFS. Through adaptive management, NMFS may modify the LOA's mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures, based on new information, when appropriate.

As described in the preamble of the final rule, NMFS has determined that the take authorized in the LOA is of small numbers of marine mammals, will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses, and the mitigation measures provide a means of affecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected stocks and their habitat.

This request is for the extension of a current information collection.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a minimum of four meteorological satellite imagery transmission systems, two from geostationary operational environmental (GOES) satellites and two from Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) satellites. In addition, a commercially broadcast data stream and legacy/backup/standby polar-orbiting satellites continue to be operated as their health permits. The data transmitted are available worldwide, and any user can establish a ground receiving station for reception of the data without the prior consent, notification, or other approval from NOAA. With such an open access policy, it is currently not possible to have a comprehensive understanding of the range and numbers of the data users and application of the data received and/or used. The purpose of collecting the information contained in the “Questionnaire” is to satisfy the following objectives: (1) To comply with international agreements such as the Department of Commerce (DOC)/NOAA's memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), so that NOAA can provide environmental satellite data and processed satellite data products to the public domain, and (2) To improve Government efficiencies of data dissemination using cost-saving technologies to minimize the expenditure of personnel and financial resources. The NOAA Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information is also pertinent to this information collection. This policy was developed to strengthen the partnership among government, academia, and the private sector, which provides the nation with high quality environmental information.

The collection of information from a respondent is initiated when an individual contacts National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) via letter, telephone, fax or email, or when they visit a web page. If the nature of the contact indicates the individual may operate a satellite receiving station for the acquisition of NOAA satellite data or may use NOAA satellite data or services, the individual is requested to complete an on-line electronic questionnaire, which is found on a NOAA internet site. The questionnaire is completed at the respondent's discretion. The information received is used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists in complying with the terms of the MOU with the WMO, MOU with DOC, and NOAA on areas of common interest and other international agreements.

Information will be collected via an online questionnaire.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0227.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission [extension of a current information collection].

Affected Public: Federal government, Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Time per Response: 6 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

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 ICR. 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 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 IHA 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 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.

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 NAO 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 IHAs qualify 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 requests.

On January 19, 2024, NMFS received a request from the USCG for two IHAs to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving (installation and removal) associated with construction of two FRC homeporting docks in Seward and Sitka, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, the USCG submitted revised versions on April 3, 2024, June 6, 2024, and June 11, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 11, 2024. The USCG's request is for take of 11 species (18 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for a subset of five these species, Level A harassment. Neither the USCG nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, IHAs are appropriate.

The USCG proposes to construct shore-side facilities and associated infrastructure at Moorings Seward to homeport one FRC located in the Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) boat basin, and demolishing and constructing shore side facilities at Moorings Sitka in Sitka Harbor to support a second FRC. The shore-side facilities and associated infrastructure for Moorings Seward would be constructed parallel to the existing SMIC dock. Construction of a new floating dock at Moorings Sitka would be attached to the existing pier. The projects are needed to provide adequate vessel berthing capability to support modern USCG cutters and ultimately, readiness as part of the USCG's overall mission. The USCG would use a variety of methods, including impact, down-the-hole (DTH), and vibratory pile driving, to install and remove piles, including concrete, steel, plastic, and timber piles. These methods of pile driving would introduce underwater sounds that may result in take, by Level A and Level B harassment, of marine mammals. Pile removal may occur by vibratory, cutting, or clipping methods. Cutting and clipping are not anticipated to have the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals because they are either above water, do not last for sufficient duration to present the reasonable potential for disruption of behavioral patterns, do not produce sound levels with likely potential to result in marine mammal harassment, or some combination of the above.

Each IHA would be effective for 1 year from the date of issuance. Pile extraction and installation activities at Moorings Seward would occur for a total of 22 non-consecutive days, of which pile removal is anticipated to take 2 days and pile installation is anticipated to take a maximum of 20 days (15 days to complete installation plus 5 additional days to account for potential weather-related delays). Pile removal and installation activities at Moorings Sitka would occur for a total of 117 non-consecutive days, of which pile removal is anticipated to take 3 days and pile installation is anticipated to take a maximum of 114 days (89 days to complete installation plus 25 additional days to account for potential weather-related delays).

The current USCG Moorings Seward is located within the City of Seward Harbor while the SMIC (where the new Moorings will be constructed) is located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Seward Harbor on the east side of Resurrection Bay (figure 1). The SMIC currently occupies approximately 200 acres (0.809 square kilometer (km 2 )) on the eastern shore of Resurrection Bay and maintains an enclosed basin protected by rip-rap seawall with a floating dock. Depths in the vicinity of the SMIC are dredged to an approximate depth of −21 feet (ft; −6.4 meters (m)) below mean lower low water (MLLW) in the boat basin and up to −25 ft (−7.6 m) MLLW at the North Dock.

USCG Moorings Sitka is located on the northeast side of Japonski Island within Sitka Harbor on the Sitka Channel separating Japonski Island from the larger Baranof Island (figure 2). The shore side and in-water cutter facilities at Moorings Sitka currently occupy a 1.13-acre (0.005 km 2 ) upland site with adjacent waterside structures on the southeastern shore of Japonski Island. Currently, only one dock is present at Moorings Sitka and supports USCG Cutter Kukui. The bathymetry of the narrow Sitka Channel, less than 1,000 ft (304.8 m) wide at points, is steep at the sides and reaches approximately 30 ft (9.1 m) MLLW at the end of the pier where the moorings facility is located.

At Moorings Seward, reconfiguration of the SMIC floating dock would be required to allow for construction of a new FRC floating dock. Extraction of 10 existing 14-inch (35.56 centimeter (cm)) steel piles would occur over 2 days at a rate of five piles per day, potentially using vibratory methods (table 1), pile cutting, or diamond wire sawing. Pile cutting and diamond wire sawing are not expected to cause take of marine mammals because they occur either above water, do not last for sufficient duration to present the reasonable potential for disruption of behavioral patterns, do not produce sound levels with likely potential to result in marine mammal harassment, or some combination of the above, and are thus not addressed further. Installation of 30 30-inch (76.2 cm) concrete piles would occur over a maximum of 20 days using DTH, vibratory, and impact driving. Installation of a single concrete pile would require the following sequence: up to 3 hours of DTH (rock socketing) drilling to create a socket in the bedrock, followed by 10 minutes using a vibratory pile driver to settle the pile into its socket, and finally proofing the pile using 5 strikes from an impact driver to ensure the pile is fully embedded at an expected rate of two piles per day, plus 5 days of buffer (table 2).

At Moorings Sitka, removal of existing mooring dolphins and float, owned by the City of Sitka, would be required to allow for construction of a new sea-going buoy tender pier and FRC floating dock. Extraction of 10 piles (four 24-inch (60.96 cm) concrete piles and six 14-inch timber piles) would occur over a maximum of 3 days, with vibratory extraction of the timber piles requiring 2 days and 1 day to remove the concrete piles, potentially using vibratory methods (table 3), pile cutting, or diamond wire sawing. Installation of 178 piles (118 30-inch concrete piles, 54 13-inch (33.02 cm) plastic piles, and six 14-inch timber piles) would occur over a maximum of 117 days using DTH, vibratory, and impact driving. Installation of plastic piles and timber piles would only require impact hammers. Installation of a single concrete pile would require the same sequence described above for Moorings Seward: up to 3 hours of DTH drilling to create a socket in the bedrock, followed by 10 minutes using a vibratory pile driver to settle the pile into its socket, and finally proofing the pile using 5 strikes from an impact drive to ensure the pile is fully embedded at an expected rate of two piles per day, plus 25 days of buffer (table 4).

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. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 5 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for the activities at Seward and Sitka, 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. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in either NMFS' U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 5 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments .

As indicated above, all 11 species (with 18 managed stocks) in table 5 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activities to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur at either location. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project areas are included in section 4 and tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the USCG's IHA application. While the AT1 Transient stock of killer whales has been reported in the area of Moorings Seward, the stock consists of only 7 individuals, and the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of this species in the project area during the short proposed project timeframe is such that take is not expected to occur. Therefore, they are not discussed further in this notice. In addition, the southcentral and southeastern stocks of northern sea otter ( Enhydra lutris kenyoni ) may be found in Seward and Sitka, respectively. However, this species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is not considered further in this document.

Gray whale —Two populations of gray whales are recognized, the eastern and a western North Pacific (ENP and WNP). Whales from the WNP are known to feed in the Okhotsk Sea and off of Kamchatka before migrating south to poorly known wintering grounds, possibly in the South China Sea. The ENP stock of gray whales inhabit California and Mexico in the winter months, and the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas in northern Alaska in the summer and fall. The migration pattern of gray whales appears to follow a route along the western coast of Southeast Alaska, traveling northward from British Columbia through Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance, passing the west coast of Baranof Island from late March to May and then return south in October and November (Jones et al., 1984; Ford et al., 2013). The two populations have historically been considered geographically isolated from each other; however, data from satellite-tracked whales indicate that there is some overlap between the stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked from Russian foraging areas along the Pacific rim to Baja California (Mate et al., 2011). Between 22-24 WNP whales are known to have occurred in the eastern Pacific through comparisons of ENP and WNP photo-identification catalogs (Weller et al., 2011). Therefore, a portion of the WNP population is assumed to migrate, at least in some years, to the eastern Pacific during the winter breeding season. However, it is extremely unlikely that a gray whale in close proximity to the proposed project areas would be one of the few WNP whales that have been documented in the eastern Pacific. The likelihood that a WNP whale would be present in the vicinity of Moorings Seward or Moorings Sitka is insignificant and discountable, and WNP gray whales are omitted from further analysis. Sitka Sound is within a gray whale migratory Biologically Important Area (BIA) (March-May; November-January) and a feeding BIA (March-June)(Wild et al., 2023).

Fin whale —The fin whale is widely distributed in all the world's oceans (Gambell, 1985), but typically occurs in coastal, shelf, and oceanic waters in temperate and polar regions from 20-70 degrees north and south of the Equator. Stafford et al. (2009) noted that sea-surface temperature is a suitable predictor for fin whale call detections in the North Pacific. Fin whales appear to have complex seasonal movements and are seasonal migrants; they mate and calve in temperate waters during the winter and migrate to feed at northern latitudes during the summer (Gambell, 1985). The North Pacific population summers from the Chukchi Sea to California and winters from California southwards (Gambell, 1985). Fin whales are generally solitary but can also occur in groups of two to seven individuals.

Humpback whale —Humpback whales are the most commonly observed baleen whale in Alaska and have been observed in Southeast Alaska in all months of the year (Baker et al., 1986). They undergo seasonal migrations in Alaska from spring until fall with other whale species present. There are two potential stocks of humpback whales that may occur in the project area: the Hawai'i stock and the Mexico-North Pacific stock (ESA-threatened). The Hawai'i stock consists of the Southeast Alaska/Northern British Columbia demographically independent population (DIP) and the North Pacific unit. The Southeast Alaska/Northern British Columbia DIP spends the winter months offshore of Hawai'i and the summer months in Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia (Wade et al., 2021). The North Pacific unit migrates between Russia and western and Central Alaska to Hawai'i. The Mexico-North Pacific stock is likely made up of multiple DIPs, though there is insufficient data to delineate or assess DIPs at this time, and spend winter months off Mexico and the Revillagigedo Islands, while spending summer months primarily in Alaska (Martien et al., 2021). Moorings Sitka is within a seasonal humpback whale feeding BIAs (March-May, September-December)(Wild et al., 2023).

Minke whale —Minke whales are found throughout the northern hemisphere in polar, temperate, and tropical waters. The International Whaling Commission has identified three minke whale stocks in the North Pacific: one near the Sea of Japan, a second in the rest of the western Pacific (west of 180 degrees W), and a third less concentrated stock throughout the eastern Pacific. NMFS further splits this third stock between Alaska whales and resident whales of California, Oregon, and Washington (Muto et al., 2018). Minke whales are found in all Alaska waters, however no population estimates are currently available for the Alaska stock.

Minke whales are generally found in shallow, coastal waters within 200 m (656 ft) of shore (Zerbini et al., 2006). Dedicated surveys for cetaceans in southeast Alaska found that minke whales were scattered throughout inland waters from Glacier Bay and Icy Strait to Clarence Strait, with small concentrations near the entrance of Glacier Bay. Surveys took place in spring, summer, and fall, and minke whales were present in low numbers in all seasons and years (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Additionally, minke whales were observed during the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project at the mouth of Sitka Sound (Turnagain Marine Construction, 2018).

Killer whale —Killer whales have been observed in all oceans, but the highest densities occur in colder, more productive waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales occur along the entire coast of Alaska (Consiglieri et al., 1982), inland waterways of British Columbia and Washington (Bigg et al., 1990), and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Forney and Barlow, 1998). Transient killer whales hunt and feed primarily on marine mammals, including harbor seals, Dall's porpoises, harbor porpoises, and sea lions. Resident killer whale populations in the eastern North Pacific feed mainly on salmonids, showing a strong preference for Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) (Muto et al., 2020). Both resident and transient killer whales were observed in southeast Alaska during all seasons during surveys between 1991 and 2007, in a variety of habitats and in all major waterways, including Lynn Canal, Icy Strait, Stephens Passage, Frederick Sound, and upper Chatham Strait (Dahlheim et al., 2009). There does not appear to be strong seasonal variation in abundance or distribution of killer whales, but Dahlheim et al. (2009) observed substantial variability across different years.

Eight stocks of killer whales are recognized within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Young et al., 2023). Of those, five stocks may be present in the project areas: Alaska Resident stock; AT1 Transient stock; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; Northern Resident stock; and West Coast Transient stock. The AT1 Transient stock is small and unlikely to occur in the proposed project area at Moorings Seward during the 22 days of proposed in-water work; only the Alaska Resident and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stocks are expected at Moorings Seward. At Moorings Sitka, the four stocks likely to be present are: Alaska Resident stock; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; Northern Resident stock; and West Coast Transient stock.

Pacific white-sided dolphin —The Pacific white-sided dolphin is found in temperate waters of the North Pacific from the southern Gulf of California to Alaska. Across the North Pacific, it appears to occur between 33 and 47 degrees N (Young et al., 2023; Waite and Shelden, 2018). In the eastern north Pacific Ocean, the Pacific white-sided dolphin is one of the most common cetacean species, occurring primarily in shelf and slope waters (Green et al., 1993). During winter, this species is most abundant in California slope and offshore areas, and as northern waters begin to warm in the spring, individuals move north to slope and offshore waters off Oregon and Washington (Green et al., 1993; Barlow, 2003).

Dall's porpoise —Dall's porpoise is found in temperate to subarctic waters of the North Pacific and adjacent seas. It is widely distributed across the North Pacific over the continental shelf and slope waters, and over deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic waters (Friday et al., 2012; Friday et al., 2013). It may be the most abundant small cetacean in the North Pacific Ocean, and its abundance changes seasonally, likely in relation to water temperature.

Harbor porpoise —The harbor porpoise is common in coastal waters. Individuals frequently occur in coastal waters of southeast Alaska and are observed most frequently in waters less than 107 m deep (Dahlheim et al., 2009). There are six harbor porpoise stocks in Alaska: the Bering Sea stock occurs throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass; the Gulf of Alaska stock occurs from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass; the Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters stock includes Cross Sound, Glacier Bay, Icy Strait, Chatham Strait, Frederick Sound, Stephens Passage, Lynn Canal, and adjacent inlets; the Southern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters stock encompasses Sumner Strait, including areas around Wrangell and Zarembo Islands, Clarence Strait, and adjacent inlets and channels within the inland waters of Southeast Alaska north-northeast of Dixon Entrance; and the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock includes offshore habitats in the Gulf of Alaska west of the Southeast Alaska inland waters and the areas around Yakutat Bay (Young et al., 2023). Only the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock and the Gulf of Alaska stocks are expected in the proposed project areas. The Yakutat/Southeast Alaska Offshore Waters stock's range includes Moorings Sitka, while the Gulf of Alaska stock range includes Moorings Seward.

Northern fur seal —The northern fur seal is endemic to the North Pacific Ocean and occurs from southern California to the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and Sea of Japan. The worldwide population of northern fur seals has declined substantially from 1.8 million animals in the 1950s due to large-scale fur seal harvests on the Pribilof Islands to supply the fur trade (Muto et al., 2020). Two stocks are recognized in U.S. waters: The Eastern Pacific and the California stocks. The Eastern Pacific stock ranges from southern California during winter to the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island in the Bering Sea during summer (Muto et al., 2020; Carretta et al., 2020). The northern fur seal population appears to be greatly affected by El Niño events and most northern fur seals are highly migratory. The northern fur seal spends approximately 90 percent of its time at sea, typically in areas of upwelling along the continental slopes and over seamounts. The remainder of its life is spent on or near rookery islands or haulouts. During the breeding season, most of the world's population of northern fur seals occurs on the Pribilof and Bogoslof Islands, with the main breeding season occurring in July (Gentry, 2009).

Steller sea lion —The Steller sea lion's range extends from northern Japan to California, with areas of abundance in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2020). In 1997, based on demographic and genetic dissimilarities, NMFS identified two distinct population segments (DPSs) of Steller sea lions under the ESA: a western DPS (Western stock) and an eastern DPS (Eastern stock). The western DPS breeds on rookeries located west of 144 degrees W in Alaska and Russia, whereas the eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California. Movement occurs between the western and eastern DPSs of Steller sea lions, and increasing numbers of individuals from the western DPS have been seen in southeast Alaska in recent years (Muto et al., 2020; Fritz et al., 2016). This DPS-exchange is especially evident in the outer southeast coast of Alaska, including Sitka Sound. Hastings et al. (2020) indicates that the Eastern stock is increasing while the Western stock is decreasing, influencing mixing of both populations at new rookeries in northern southeast Alaska.

Steller sea lion critical habitat has been defined in Alaska at major haulouts and major rookeries (50 CFR 226.202) but the project action areas do not overlap with this critical habitat. Designated critical habitat for the Western DPS of Steller sea lions includes two major haulouts south of Moorings Seward at the mouth of Resurrection Bay, one on Resurrection Peninsula and the other at Hive Island.

Harbor seal —Harbor seals are common in the coastal and inside waters of the project areas. Harbor seals in Alaska are typically non-migratory with local movements attributed to factors such as prey availability, weather, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Bigg, 1969; Hastings et al., 2004). Harbor seals haul out of the water periodically to rest, give birth, and nurse their pups.

There are 12 stocks of harbor seals in Alaska, two of which occur in the project areas: (1) the Prince William Sound stock ranges from Elizabeth Island off the southwest tip of the Kenai Peninsula to Cape Fairweather, including Moorings Seward; and (2) the Sitka/Chatham Strait stock ranges from Cape Bingham south to Cape Ommaney, extending inland to Table Bay on the west side of Kuiu Island and north through Chatham Strait to Cube Point off the west coast of Admiralty Island, and as far east as Cape Bendel on the northeast tip of Kupreanof Island, which includes Moorings Sitka.

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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). 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 6.

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 et al., 2013). This division between phocid and otariid pinnipeds is now reflected in the updated hearing groups proposed in Southall et al. (2019).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 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 of Marine Mammals 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 whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

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, 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 activities 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, vibratory pile driving, DTH, pile cutting, and diamond wire sawing. 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; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, pile cutting, diamond wire sawing, 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, 1986; 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; Southall et al., 2007).

Three types of hammers would be used on this project: impact, vibratory, and DTH. 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, 2005b). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10-20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate ( i.e., it is similar to a “hammer drill” hand tool). The sounds produced by the DTH method contain both a continuous non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, we treat DTH systems as both impulsive and non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously.

The likely or possible impacts of the USCG's proposed activity on marine mammals 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 driving activities.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from DTH and pile driving and removal is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the USCG's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and, in limited cases, an auditory threshold shift (TS). 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 noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive versus non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male versus mother 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 ( i.e., TS) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

NMFS defines a noise-induced 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 TS is customarily expressed in dB and 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) (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 TS approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates as, with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal ( e.g., Kastak et al., 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2018).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (see Southall et al., 2007), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum TS clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Finneran et al., 2000; Schlundt et al., 2000, Finneran et al., 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 Masking ). 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.

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran, 2015; Southall et al., 2019 for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter et al., 1966). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) (Southall et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) (Kastak et al., 1999; Kastak et al., 2008; Kastelein et al., 2020b; Reichmuth et al., 2013; Sills et al., 2020). TTS was not observed in spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to single airgun impulse sounds at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound exposure. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times.

The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a; Kastelein et al., 2019b; Kastelein et al., 2020a; Kastelein et al., 2020b). Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; Kastelein et al., 2015). This means that TTS predictions based on the total SEL cum will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga whale, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 2018). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS ( e.g., a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.

Activities for this project include impact and vibratory pile driving and removal. Installing piles requires a combination of impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and DTH. For the proposed project, these activities would not occur at the same time and 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 project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment —Exposure to noise from pile driving and drilling also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response—in other words, not every response qualifies as behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of a higher level, or accrued across a longer duration, have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. 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 may include changing durations of surfacing and dives, changing direction and/or speed; reducing/increasing vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); eliciting a visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fin 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; Southall et al., 2019; 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) and Gomez et al. (2016) for reviews of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2004). Animals are most likely to habituate to sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.

As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; NRC, 2005). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources ( e.g., seismic airguns) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes (Richardson et al., 1995; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Nowacek et al., 2007).

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). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive ( e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a; Goldbogen et al., 2013b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities ( e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.

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.

Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure ( e.g., Kastelein et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2006). For example, harbor porpoise' respiration rate increased in response to pile driving sounds at and above a received broadband SPL of 136 dB (zero-peak SPL: 151 dB re 1 μPa; SEL of a single strike: 127 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s) (Kastelein et al., 2013).

Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003) or vocalizations (Foote et al., 2004), respectively, while North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ) have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease sound production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area once the noise has ceased ( e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Morton and Symonds, 2002). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not occur ( e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006).

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response ( e.g., directed movement, rate of travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996; Bowers et al., 2018). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention ( i.e., when a response consists of increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies involving fishes and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates ( e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Purser and Radford, 2011; Fritz et al., 2002). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reduction of fitness ( e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both ( e.g., Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-day period did not cause any sleep deprivation or stress effects.

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than 1 day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive ( i.e., meaningful) behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive behavioral responses.

In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities ( i.e., pile driving and DTH) at the Kodiak Ferry Dock (see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015). In the marine mammal monitoring report for that project, 1,281 Steller sea lions were observed within the estimated Level B harassment zone during pile driving or drilling. Of these, 19 individuals demonstrated an alert behavior, seven 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 porpoises were also observed within the estimated 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 and the fact the same species are involved, we expect similar behavioral responses of marine mammals to the USCG's specified activity. That is, disturbance, if any, is likely to be temporary and localized ( e.g., small area movements). Monitoring reports from other recent pile driving and DTH projects in Alaska have observed similar behaviors ( e.g., the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-faa-biorka-island-dock-replacement-project-sitka-ak ).

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., Selye, 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 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 vessel traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ). 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 the proposed project based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar projects in the region.

Auditory Masking —Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere 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; Erbe et al., 2016). Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. 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 (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013).

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). Masking can be tested directly in captive species ( e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

Marine mammals at or near the proposed project sites may be exposed to anthropogenic noise which may be a source of masking. Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). For example, in response to loud noise, beluga whales may shift the frequency of their echolocation clicks to prevent masking by anthropogenic noise (Eickmeier and Vallarta, 2023).

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, and sound from pile driving would be within the audible range of pinnipeds and cetaceans present in the proposed action area. While some construction during the USCG's activities may mask some acoustic signals that are relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be impacted.

Airborne Acoustic Effects —Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project areas 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 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. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

The USCG's proposed construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see Masking ) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project area (see discussion below). During DTH, impact, and vibratory pile driving, elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project area where both fish 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. In-water pile driving activities would also cause short-term effects on water quality due to increased turbidity. 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 ft (7.6 m) radius around the pile (Everitt et al., 1980). The sediments of the project site would 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. The USCG would employ other standard construction best management practices (see section 11 in the USCG's application), thereby reducing any impacts. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.

In-Water Construction Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat —The proposed activities would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals and no increases in vessel traffic are expected in either location as a result of the specified activities. The areas likely impacted by the proposed action are relatively small compared to the total available habitat in the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska. The proposed project areas are highly influenced by anthropogenic activities and provides limited foraging habitat for marine mammals. The total seafloor area affected by piling activities is small compared to the vast foraging areas available to marine mammals at either location. At best, the areas impacted provide marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fishes. Furthermore, pile driving at the project locations would not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.

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, and other marine mammals). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location. Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey.

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

Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005a) 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, several of which are based on studies in support of large, multiyear bridge construction projects ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Many 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., Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Paxton et al., 2017). In response to pile driving, Pacific sardines ( Sardinops sagax ) and northern anchovies ( Engraulis mordax ) may exhibit an immediate startle response to individual strikes but return to “normal” pre-strike behavior following the conclusion of pile driving with no evidence of injury as a result (see NAVFAC, 2014). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Wardle et al., 2001; Popper et al., 2005; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Peña et al., 2013).

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. (2012b) 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., 2012a; Casper et al., 2013) and the greatest potential effect on fish during the proposed project would occur during impact pile driving, if it is required. However, the duration of impact pile driving would be limited to a contingency in the event that vibratory driving does not satisfactorily install the pile depending on observed soil resistance. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours allowing fish to forage and transit the project area at night. Vibratory pile driving may elicit behavioral reactions from fish such as temporary avoidance of the area but is unlikely to cause injuries to fish or have persistent effects on local fish populations. In addition, it should be noted that the area in question is low-quality habitat since it is already developed and experiences anthropogenic noise from vessel traffic.

The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving and DTH activities in the project areas would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of the area after pile driving stops is unknown but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. There are times of known seasonal marine mammal foraging when fish are aggregating but the impacted areas are small portions of the total foraging habitats available in the regions. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary. Further, it is anticipated that preparation activities for pile driving and DTH ( i.e., positioning of the hammer) and upon initial startup of devices would cause fish to move away from the affected area where injuries may occur. Therefore, relatively small portions of the proposed project area would be affected for short periods of time, and the potential for effects on fish to occur would be temporary and limited to the duration of sound‐generating activities.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, also have the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area. Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasii ) is a primary prey species of Steller sea lions, humpback whales, and many other marine mammal species that occur in the project areas. As discussed earlier, increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (approximately 25 ft (7.6 m) or less) of construction activities (Everitt et al., 1980). 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. In addition, best management practices would be in effect to limit the extent of turbidity to the immediate project areas. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to be different from the current exposure; fish and marine mammals in the regions are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from glacial sources.

In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with pile driving and DTH, and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving and DTH activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. 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 the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.

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 sources ( i.e., vibratory and impact pile driving, DTH) has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high-frequency species and phocids, because predicted auditory injury zones are large and these species could enter the Level A harassment zones and remain undetected for a sufficient duration to incur auditory injury due to their small size and inconspicuous nature. Although auditory injury could occur for low-frequency species due to large predicted auditory injury zones associated with DTH, due to their large size, conspicuous nature, and proposed mitigation ( i.e., large shutdown zones, boat-based protected species observers (PSOs)), it is assumed that all low-frequency species would be visually detected and, therefore, taking by Level A harassment would be eliminated. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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

For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential 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 estimates.

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

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 microPascal (re 1 μPa)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

The USCG's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory and DTH) and impulsive (impact driving and DTH) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (RMS) thresholds, respectively, are applicable.

Level A Harassment —NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 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 USCG's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact driving and DTH) and non-impulsive (vibratory and DTH) sources.

These thresholds are provided in table 7 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 are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss (TL) 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, vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH).

In order to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for the methods and piles proposed for this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods (tables 8-11). This analysis uses practical spreading loss, a standard assumption regarding sound propagation for similar environments, to estimate transmission of sound through water. For this analysis, the TL factor of 15 (4.5 dB per doubling of distance) is used. A weighting adjustment factor of 2.5 or 2, a standard default value for vibratory pile driving and removal or impact driving and DTH respectively, were used to calculate Level A harassment areas.

NMFS recommends treating DTH systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously. Thus, impulsive thresholds are used to evaluate Level A harassment, and continuous thresholds are used to evaluate Level B harassment. With regards to DTH mono-hammers, NMFS recommends proxy levels for Level A harassment based on available data regarding DTH systems of similar sized piles and holes (Denes et al., 2019; Guan and Miner, 2020; Heyvaert and Reyff, 2021; Reyff, 2020; Reyff and Heyvaert, 2019).

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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA 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 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.

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 NAO 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 September 8, 2022, NMFS received a request from the ACOE for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. Following NMFS' review of the application, the ACOE submitted two revised versions on March 4, 2024 and May 1, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on June 10, 2024. The ACOE's request is for take of eight species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and, for harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ), Level A harassment. Neither ACOE nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

ACOE is planning to conduct pile dike repairs in the Baker Bay system, located in the Columbia River estuary. This system of dikes and channel markers connect the Mouth of the Columbia River Federal navigation channel and the Port of Ilwaco at river mile 3 between jetty A and West Sand Island. This pile dyke system is an important for controlling the tidal flow and sedimentation in the Federal navigation channel to maintain needed depths. Vibratory and impact pile driving would introduce underwater sounds that may result in take, by Level A and Level B harassment, of marine mammals. It is expected to take up to 12 non-consecutive days to complete the pile driving activities from August through October.

The pile dike repairs are expected to take 3- months to complete with in-water work beginning from August 1, 2025 through July 31, 2026. No in-water work would be completed from December through June to avoid potential impacts to endangered species act (ESA) listed fish species and Southern Resident killer whales. It is expected to take up to 12 non-consecutive days to complete the pile driving activities. Pile driving would be completed intermittently throughout daylight hours.

The Baker Bay West pile-dike system contains four pile dikes (figure 1) and is located immediately adjacent to the Baker Bay West Federal navigation channel. The Baker Bay West Federal navigation channel comprises two segments; the segment nearest the Columbia River is 2,000 feet (ft) (609 meters (m)) long, 200 ft. (61-m) wide, and roughly 16 ft. (5 m) deep, and the segment nearest the Port of Ilwaco is 2.5 miles (4 kilometers (km)) long, 150 ft. (46-m) wide, and 16 ft. deep. The Baker Bay West pile dikes are located in the downstream terminus of the Columbia River tidal estuary, which is dominated by freshwater inputs from the Columbia and Willamette rivers. This estuary stretches from the mouth of the river upstream to Bonneville Dam at river mile 146.

The ACOE anticipates that construction contractors will use either the Port of Ilwaco or Port of Chinook to access West Sand Island. Barges will transport all equipment and material to and from West Sand Island and the pile dike. Barges will serve as staging platforms for in-water construction and may be spudded (temporary steel shaft to ancor a barge) or anchored into position. The proposed access area is located between Baker Bay pile dike 0.86 and pile dike 0.70. Staging equipment is not expected to result in take of marine mammals and is not discussed further.

ACOE proposes to construct a material offload facility on West Sand Island to offload materials transported by barges. ACOE, and subsequently NMFS, analyzed two construction options for the material offloading facility, and the construction contractor would select one of these two options. Option 1 would require the use of a cofferdam constructed with 24-inch (in) (61 centimeters (cm)) steel sheet piles that would be set in place with vibratory hammers. Once constructed, the cofferdam would be filled with granular structural material to support the offloading of material. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards (cy) of material would also need to be dredged from the site in order to provide sufficient depth for the rock barge to access the cofferdam. Once construction is complete, the cofferdam would be deconstructed using vibratory hammers to remove the steel sheet piles.

Option 2 would consist of a two-barge system to offload materials on West Sand Island using a transition barge. The contractor would first offload materials from the rock barge onto the transition barge and, those materials would then be offloaded from the transition barge onto West Sand Island The transition barge would be spudded into place for the duration of the construction period. Approximately 2,800 cy of material would be dredged to provide sufficient depth for rock barges to deliver materials to the construction site. ACOE would construct four mooring dolphins out of 16 24-in steel pipe piles. These mooring dolphins would be used to moor rock barges in an area to offload materials onto the transition barge. The 24-in steel pipe piles would be driven using vibratory hammers.

ACOE anticipates that the construction contractor is most likely to select Option 2, due to the high cost associated with Option 1. For either option selected, vibratory pile driving and removal may result in take of marine mammals. While marine mammals may behaviorally respond in some small degree to the noise generated by dredging operations, given the slow, predictable movements of these vessels, and absent any other contextual features that would cause enhanced concern, NMFS does not expect ACOE's proposed dredging in either option to result in the take of marine mammals.

The existing dune along the shoreline at West Sand Island has developed a depression near the proposed location of the project area that needs to be fortified to protect the morphology of the island. To address this risk, ACOE would reinforce the dune by placing material (such as brush, root masses, logs, branches, and sand), grubbed from the staging area into the low spot. NMFS does not expect this activity to result in take of marine mammals due to the activity being conducted on land.

To repair Baker Bay 0.28 Jetty, ACOE would place new rock and remove old timber piles. ACOE will place approximately 550 cy of rock material on top of existing enrockment to bring the enrockment back to elevation 0 at both ends of the Baker Bay 0.28 jetty. Land-based and barge-based excavators and/or cranes will place the rock. An equipment barge will be moored adjacent to a rock barge.

For rock placement below the water surface, ACOE would require the contractor to place rock from a clamshell, orange peel grab, or excavator bucket, and it must not open the bucket for placement until the bucket is below the water surface. ACOE will not permit releasing rocks from a bucket above the water surface. For rock placement near or above the water surface, where opening the bucket below the surface is not possible, the contractor must place the bucket as close as safely possible to the placement location before opening. NMFS does not expect rock placement to result in marine mammal harassment and it is not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Rock placement would occur in a controlled manner, with the rock release occurring close to the rock destination which would minimize the sound produced. It does not require seafloor penetration, and would not affect habitat for marine mammals and their prey beyond that already affected by installation the existing Baker Bay 0.28 Jetty.

During rock placement, ACOE would work closely with the contractor to regularly assess subsurface conditions and grades via conditional hydrographic surveys, taking corrective actions as necessary. The contractor would perform hydrographic and topographic surveys pre-construction and post-construction to ensure proper rock placement. Equipment used to conduct hydrographic and topographic surveys are not anticipated to result in take of marine mammals, as any elevated noise levels produced through these activities are expected to be high-frequency, highly-directional, intermittent, and of short duration.

ACOE will also remove 486 timber piles by pulling, cutting, or snapping the pile at the level of enrockment. Noise levels produced by these activities are not expected to exceed baseline levels produced by other routine sources in the area ( e.g., vessel transit), and any elevated noise levels produced through these activities are expected to be intermittent, of short duration, and with low peak values. Therefore, this activity is not expected to result in take of marine mammals.

Once the new pile dike systems are completed, the enrockment would frequently be just below the surface of the water. This would create a shallow water hazard for river users. The ACOE proposes to place 12 marker piles along the pile dikes in Baker Bay. The maker piles would be steel pipe piles and would range in size from 12 in (30 cm) to 24 in (60 cm) in diameter. The larger piles would be used in areas where the current is stronger. Piles would be driven with either impact or vibratory hammers depending on the substrate at the install location.

Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. It is anticipated that half of the piles will be driven using impact hammers and half would be driven using vibratory hammers. Driving shoes may be used to facilitate driving and reduce driving time. NMFS expects that take of marine mammals may occur during the use of impact and vibratory hammers during the pile maker installation.

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

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. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, all eight species (with nine managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed project areas are included in table 2 of the IHA application. While the following 18 marine mammal species have been sighted in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

The spatial, temporal, and overall occurrence of fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ), minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ), blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus ), sei whale ( Balaenoptera borealis ), Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), Risso's dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), common bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), striped dolphin ( Stenella coeruleoalba ), Short-beaked common dolphin, ( Delphinus delphis ), Northern right-whale dolphin ( Lissodelphis borealis ), Short-finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ), Baird's beaked whale ( Berardius bairdii ), Mesoplodont beaked whale ( Mesoplodon spp.), Cuvier's beaked whale ( Ziphius cavirostris ), Pygmy Sperm whale ( Kogia breviceps ), Dwarf Sperm whale ( Kogia sima ), Sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), and Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ) are such that take is not expected to occur. Many of these species are either rarely present in the proposed project area or typically found in deep offshore waters far from the proposed project site.

Gray whales in the project area would be of the Eastern North Pacific stock. During summer and fall, gray whales of the Eastern North Pacific stock migrate from breeding grounds off the coast of Baja California and Mexico to feeding areas in the Bering Seas.

Gray whales along the Oregon coastline are typically part of the Pacific coast feeding group, and their abundance and residence time in Oregon may correlate with the availability of mysids ( Holmesimysis sculpta ), a major prey item (Newell and Cowles 2006). There are few recorded sightings of gray whales in the Mouth of the Columbia River. In 2021, a mother and calf were spotted just upriver from the proposed project sight (K. Tidwell personal communication).

Humpback whales from the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock and the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock are likely to occur in the project area in the respective percentages of 42 and 58 percent.

Humpback whale feeding groups have begun utilizing the Mouth of the Columbia River as foraging ground, arriving in the lower Columbia estuary as early as mid-June, and have been observed as late as mid-November with a peak abundance coinciding with the peak abundance of forage fish in mid-summer. Humpback whale have been observed in the immediate vicinity of West and East Sand Islands in late summer and fall of 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019 (The Columbian 2016; The Columbian 2019). They were again seen earlier in the season than ever, at the beginning of April in 2020 (Chinook Observer, 2020). Recent monitoring during the Sand Island Test Pile Project reported one humpback whale in the Level B harassment zone during vibratory pile driving. One to two Humpback whales were seen on occasion during the project, with all other detections occurring outside of the Level B harassment zone or while no pile driving was occurring. The whales seemed to come through the area with the incoming tides to forage for food and leave with the outgoing tides (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Based on this information, it is possible that humpback whales may pass through and may forage intermittently in the proposed project area.

The West Coast Transient stock includes animals that range from California to southern Alaska and is genetically distinct from both resident and other transient populations in the region. It is the only killer whale stock that is expected to occur in the project area, and occurrence in the mouth of the Columbia River is linked to the Chinook salmon run in March and April, although some sightings have occurred in the early fall during aerial surveys (Adams, 2014). Southern resident killer whales occur in the offshore waters of Washington and Oregon but have not been documented entering the mouth of the Columbia River. Killer whales were not sighted during the Sand Island Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment L.P., 2020).

The Northern Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor porpoises ranges from Lincoln City, OR, to Cape Flattery, WA (Carretta et al. 2019). Aerial survey data from coastal Oregon and Washington, collected during all seasons, suggest that harbor porpoise distribution varies by depth (Green et al. 1992). Although distinct seasonal changes in abundance along the west coast have been noted and attributed to possible shifts in distribution to deeper offshore waters during late winter (Dohl et al. 1983, Barlow 1988 cited in NOAA 2014), seasonal movement patterns are not fully understood.

Harbor porpoises are usually found in shallow water, most often nearshore, although they occasionally travel over deeper offshore waters (NOAA 2013). Most harbor porpoise groups are small, generally consisting of less than five or six individuals, though for feeding or migration they may aggregate into large, loose groups of 50 to several hundred animals (Halpin, OBIS-SEAMAP 2019). Behavior tends to be inconspicuous, compared to most dolphins, and they feed by seizing prey which consists of wide variety of fish and cephalopods ranging from benthic or demersal (Halpern, OBIS-SEAMAP 2019). Harbor porpoises are sighted year-round in the mouth of the Columbia River (Griffith 2015). Their abundance peaks with the abundance of anchovy presence in the river and nearshore. Groups of one to two harbor porpoise were observed during pre- and post- monitoring activities of the Sand Island Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020).

Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators.

Large numbers of Steller sea lions use the nearby South Jetty for hauling out (Jeffries 2000) and are present, in varying abundances, all year. Use occurs chiefly at the concrete block structure at the terminus, or head of the jetty. According to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (2014), during the summer months it is not uncommon to observe between 500 to 1,000 Steller sea lions present per day. More frequent surveys by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for the same time frame (2000-2014) put the monthly range at 177 to 1,663 animals throughout the year. Steller sea lions are most abundant in the vicinity during the winter months and tend to disperse elsewhere to rookeries during breeding season between May and July (Corps 2007). All population age classes, and both males and females, use the South Jetty to haul out. No Steller sea lions were observed during the monitoring activities of the Sand Island Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020).

Since the mid-1980s, increasing numbers of California sea lions have been documented feeding on fish along the Washington coast and—more recently—in the Columbia River as far upstream as Bonneville Dam, 145 mi (233 km) from the river mouth. Large numbers of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) use the nearby South Jetty for hauling out (Jeffries 2000). According to ODFW (2014) most California sea lions are concentrated near the tip of the South Jetty. California sea lions can intermingle with Steller sea lions. As, reported in the ODFW survey information (2007 and 2014) indicates that California sea lions are relatively less prevalent in the Pacific Northwest during June and July, though in the months just before and after their presence there can be several hundred using the South Jetty. More frequent WDFW surveys (2014) indicate greater numbers in the summer, and use remains concentrated to fall and winter months. During pile driving work at the Sand Island Test Pile Project in 2020, observers identified 60 individuals in 55 separate sightings and of those 60, 13 animals were observed in the Level B harassment zone (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020).

Harbor seals are one of the most abundant pinnipeds in Oregon and typically occur in coastal marine and estuarine waters of the Oregon coast throughout the year. On land, they occur on offshore rocks and islands, along shore, and on exposed flats in the estuary (Harvey 1987). They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction. (Carretta et al. 2019). During pile driving work at the Sand Island Test Pile Project in 2020, observers identified 303 individuals in 209 separate sightings. Of those 303 individuals, 2 animals were observed in the Level A harassment zone and 106 animals were observed in the Level B harassment zone (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020).

The California Breeding Stock of Northern elephant seals breeds and gives birth in California but makes extended foraging trips to areas including coastal Oregon biannually during the fall and spring. They spend about 90 percent of their time at sea underwater, making sequential deep dives. While both males and females may transit areas off the Oregon coast, males seem to have focal forage areas near the continental shelf break while females typically move further offshore and feed opportunistically at numerous sites while in route (Le Beouf et al. 2000). Prior to 1984, only two sightings of Northern elephant seals were recorded near the project site. One was sighted near Tongue Point and another was found dead at river mile 47 (upriver from the project site (Jeffries 1984). Since then, they have been seen at the mouth of the Columbia River infrequently. None have been observed during recent monitoring, but there have been recent sightings upriver from the project area.

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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). 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 et al., 2013).

For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals 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 of Marine Mammals 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 whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

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. 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 to 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, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. 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., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, 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 impulsive and non-impulsive sound sources is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward 1997; Southall et al. 2007).

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). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers generally produce sound pressure levels (SPLs) 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman, et al. 2009). Rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards 2002; Carlson, et al. 2005).

The likely or possible impacts of the Haines Borough's proposed activities on marine mammals could be generated by both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could include the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, given there are no known pinniped haul-out sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site, visual and other non-acoustic stressors would be limited, and any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving or drilling is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Haines Borough 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; Southall et al. 2019). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses, such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions, such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects of pile driving or drilling noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive ), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mother 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 (2018a), 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). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has incurred some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically animals with PTS are not functionally deaf (Richardson et al., 1995; Au and Hastings, 2008). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (Ward et al. 1958 and 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al. 1996; Henderson et al. 2008). PTS criteria for marine mammals are estimates, as with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal (Kastak et al. 2008), there are no empirical data measuring PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing PTS are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS 2018).

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) —TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018). Based on data from cetacean TTS measurements (Southall et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2019), 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; Finneran et al. 2002). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown the amount of TTS increases with SELcum in an accelerating fashion: at low exposures with lower SELcum, the amount of TTS is typically small and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At exposures with higher SELcum, the growth curves become steeper and approach linear relationships with the noise SEL.

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious (similar to those discussed in 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.

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter 2013). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) (Southall et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) (Kastak et al., 1999 and 2007; Kastelein et al. 2019b and 2019c; Reichmuth et al. 2019; Sills et al. 2020; Kastelein et al. 2021; 2022a; and 2022b). These studies examine hearing thresholds measured in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound exposures. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times.

The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al. 2019a; 2019c). Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Mooney et al. 2009; Finneran et al. 2010; Kastelein et al. 2014; 2015). This means that TTS predictions based on the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) and Finneran (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens ) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echo-locating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al. 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS 2018). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al. 1966; Miller 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al. 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al. 2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.

Furthermore, installing piles for this project requires a combination of impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving. For the project, these activities would not occur at the same time and 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 any TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment —Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010; Southall et al. 2021). 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; Southall et al. 2021).

Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007, Southall et al. 2021; Weilgart 2007; Archer et al. 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within exposures of an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al. 2012; Southall et al. 2021), 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. For a review of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound, see: Southall et al. 2007; Gomez et al. 2016; and Southall et al. 2021.

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). In addition, behavioral state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response, such as disruption to foraging ( e.g., Silve et al. 2016; Wensveen et al. 2017). 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 2020, the Sand Island Test Pile Project (84 FR 61026, November 12, 2019) documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities ( i.e., pile driving) on East and West Sand Island. This project is in the same area as the proposed project site. During the 15-days (September-October) of protected species observers documented nine humpback whales and eight harbor porpoise were observed feeding and traveling. There were 309 harbor seals and 61 California sea lions observed during the monitoring period of the project with no behaviors recorded during monitoring activities (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020).

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.

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 near the project site within the range of noise levels exceeding the acoustic thresholds. 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 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 previously have been “taken” because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases 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 proposed project would occur within the same footprint as the current Baker Bay pile dikes. The nearshore habitat where the proposed project would occur is an area of relatively high marine vessel traffic. Most marine mammals do not generally use the area within the immediate vicinity of the project area. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels within the Level A and Level B harassment zones. Effects on marine mammals will be limited to temporary displacement from pile installation and removal noise, and effects on prey species will be similarly limited in time and space.

Water Quality —Temporary and localized reduction in water quality will occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect will occur during the installation and removal of piles when bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation and removal of piles will disturb bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column until gravitational forces cause it to slough off under its own weight. The small resulting sediment plume is expected to settle out of the water column within a few hours. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton 1993).

Impacts to water quality would be localized and temporary and would have negligible impacts on marine mammal habitat. Effects to turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Since the currents are strong in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediments in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the proposed construction activities is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat in the mouth of the Columbia River and surrounding coastal waters.

Construction activities would produce continuous ( i.e., vibratory pile driving) and impulsive ( i.e., impact driving) sounds. Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. 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, Scholik and Yan 2002; Popper and Hastings 2009). Sound pulses at received levels may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson et al. 1992; Skalski et al. 1992). SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality.

Impacts on marine mammal prey ( i.e., fish or invertebrates) of the immediate area due to the acoustic disturbance are possible. The duration of fish or invertebrate avoidance or other disruption of behavioral patterns in this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. Further, significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat are available in the nearby vicinity in the mouth of the Columbia River.

The duration of the construction activities is relatively short, with pile driving and removal activities expected last less than 1-year. Each day, construction would occur for no more than 12 hours during the day and pile driving activities would be restricted to daylight hours. The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe for the project.

Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, have the potential to adversely affect fish in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur in the immediate vicinity (on the order of 10 ft (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 fish are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect, which would limit the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area.

The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in the surrounding waters of the mouth of the Columbia River.

In summary, given the relatively short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving and 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. 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 the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.

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 construction equipment ( i.e., 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) of phocids because predicted auditory injury zones are larger than for other species. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

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

For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential 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 estimates.

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

Level B Harassment —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al. 2007, 2021; Ellison et al. 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)) for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

The ACOE's proposed construction includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.

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

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

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including 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 and vibratory pile driving and removal). The maximum (underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds for behavioral harassment referenced above is 20.72 km 2 (12.87 mi 2 ), and would consist of most of the mouth of the Columbia River immediately south of West Sand Island (figure 2). Additionally, vessel traffic in the project area may contribute to elevated background noise levels which may mask sounds produced by the project.

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:

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions, such as the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.

The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity takes place. In order to calculate the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, the applicant and NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes and methods. The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of steel pipe and sheet piles and vibratory removal of steel sheet piles. Source levels for 24 in steel pipe piles are used as a proxy for all steel piles that may be placed for marker piles of the dike system, though smaller piles may be used during the construction. NMFS consulted multiple sources to determine valid proxy source levels for the impact installation of sheet piles, as indicated in Table 5. This is the best available data for sheet pile source levels and is based on 24-in sheet piles used for a project in California. Source levels for each pile size and driving method are presented in table 5.

The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources such as impact or vibratory, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool are reported below (table 6). The resulting estimated Level A harassment isopleths and the Level B harassment isopleths are reported in table 7.

In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. We describe how the information provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.

When available, peer-reviewed scientific publications were used to estimate marine mammal abundance in the project area. Data from monitoring reports from the previous Sand Island Test Pile Project was used to calculate take for several species. However, scientific surveys and resulting data, such as population estimates, densities, and other quantitative information, are lacking for some species. The ACOE also gathered qualitative information from discussions with knowledgeable local people that frequent the mouth of the Columbia River. Assumptions regarding the size of expected groups of different species, and the frequency of occurrence of those groups, were proposed by the ACOE on the basis of the aforementioned information and are described for each species below.

Since reliable densities are not available, the take numbers are based on the assumed occurrence of a given stock during the activity. The applicant used equation 1, below, to estimate take of killer whales and Steller sea lions, equation 2 to estimate take of humpback whale, harbor porpoise, California sea lions, and harbor seals, and neither equation for gray whale or Northern elephant seals. NMFS concurs with this method. The estimated take calculation for these/this species is explained in the relevant section below.

(1) Estimated Take = number of individuals in a group × groups per day × days of pile-related activity

(2) Estimated Take = total expected duration of the proposed project (minutes) ÷ total duration of the Sand Island Test Pile Project × the total number of animals of a given species observed during the Sand Island Test Pile Project

Historically gray whales have not frequented the mouth of the Columbia River. No gray whales were observed during monitoring activities of the Sand Island Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). In August of 2020, an ACOE biologist observed two gray whales traveling upriver from the project site. Given this recent sighting and the temporal overlap of the project and the most recent sighting, NMFS proposes to authorize two takes of gray whales by the Level B harassment.

The largest Level A harassment zone for gray whales extends 513 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for low-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Therefore, especially in combination with the already low occurrence of gray whales in the area, implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of gray whale. Therefore, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for humpback whales.

Humpback whales have occurred in the lower Columbia River near the proposed project area in recent years. Feeding groups have been using the mouth of the Columbia River as a foraging ground, arriving as early as mid-June, and have been observed as late as mid-November with a peak of abundance coinciding with the peak abundance of forage fish in mid-summer (The Columbian 2019). During pile driving activities of the Sand Island Test Pile Project, seven animals were observed (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). The ACOE estimated take of humpback whales using equation 2 above resulting in a take estimate of 16 takes by Level B harassment (2277 (pile driving minutes for this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 7 observed animals). NMFS agrees with this approach and estimated take. As described above, NMFS anticipates that 42 percent of takes would occur to individuals of the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock and 58 percent of takes would occur to individuals of the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA which would equate to seven and nine takes respectively.

The largest Level A harassment zone for humpback whales extends 513 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for low-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of humpback whale. No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for humpback whales.

Use of the mouth of the Columbia River is rare for killer whales, but in recent years pods of killer whales have been observed in and around the mouth of the Columbia River. During the recent monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile Project, no killer whales were observed (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Aerial seabird marine mammal surveys observed 0 killer whales in January 2011, 0 in February 2012, and 10 in September 2012 within an approximately 1,500 km2 range near the MCR (Adams 2014). A pod of transient killer whales was detected near the Astoria Bridge in May of 2018 (Frankowicz 2018) and in 2022 (Tomlinson 2022). The ACOE estimated the average group sizes from these past observations was seven. Based on the rare occurrence of killer whales in the project area, ACOE expects that one group of seven killer whales may occur during the 12 days of construction in the Level B harassment zone. NMFS concurs and is proposing to authorize 7 takes of killer whale by Level B harassment.

The largest Level A harassment zone for killer whales extends 17.8 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for mid-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of killer whale. No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for killer whales.

Harbor porpoises are regularly observed in the offshore waters near the mouth of the Columbia River and are known to occur there year-round. Porpoise abundance peaks when anchovy ( Engraulis mordax ) abundance in the river and nearshore are highest, which is usually between April and August (Litz et al. 2008). Harbor porpoise tend to occur in groups of one to two individuals. During the recent monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile Project, eight harbor porpoise were observed during construction activities (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Using equation 2 above, ACOE expects that take by Level B harassment of 18 animals would occur over the 12 days of pile driving (2277 (pile driving minutes for this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 8 observed animals). NMFS agrees with this approach and estimated take.

The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor porpoise extends 597 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for high-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities, and it did not request take by Level A harassment of harbor porpoise. For some activities ( i.e., impact driving of 24-in piles), the shutdown zones extends farther than Protected Species Observers (PSO) may be able to reliably detect harbor porpoise. However, given the portion of the zone within which PSOs could reliably detect a harbor porpoise, the infrequency of harbor porpoise observations during the Sand Island Test Pile project monitoring, and harbor porpoise sensitivity to noise, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for harbor porpoise.

Steller sea lion occurrence was estimated using WDFW survey information haulout information from the South Jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River from 2000 to 2014. During the recent monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile Project no Steller sea lions were observed (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Given the close proximity of the haulout it is expect that Steller sea lions could occur near the project site. Occurrence was estimated using the monthly haulout numbers for the months when work would be occurring during the proposed project. In August the average number of Steller sea lions hauled out at the jetty was 72 and in October the average number of sea lions at the jetty was 77. In August construction would occur over 7-days and in October construction would occur over 5 days. Given the daily occurrence rates and days of in-water construction, and using equation 1, the ACOE expects that 889 takes by Level B harassment would occur (daily occurance (72 or 77) × days of activity), and NMFS proposes to authorize 889 takes by Level B harassment of Steller sea lion.

The largest Level A harassment zone for Steller sea lions extends 19.5 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for otariids that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of Steller sea lion. No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for Steller sea lion.

Similar to Steller sea lions, California sea lions use the South Jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River and make frequent trips inside the mouth of the river. Occurrence on the South Jetty peaks in summer and use in the fall and winter is more concentrated. During recent monitoring activities of the Sand Island Test Pile Project 59 animals were observed (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Using equation 2 above, ACOE expects that 144 takes by Level B harassment California sea lions would occur (2277 (pile driving minutes for this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 59 observed animals), and NMFS proposes to authorize 144 takes by Level B harassment of California sea lion.

The largest Level A harassment zone for California sea lions extends 19.5 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for otariids that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of California sea lion. No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for California sea lion.

Harbor seals are the most abundant pinniped in Oregon and occur in the proposed project are year-round. Large numbers of harbor seals move through the mouth of the Columbia River throughout the year and are expected to be present in the proposed project area. During recent monitoring of the Sand Island Test Pile Project, a total of 309 harbor seals were observed during construction activities (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). Take estimates were generated using equation 2 above and the Sand Island Pile Test Project monitoring results. ACOE expects that 679 takes by Level B harassment of harbor seals would occur during the proposed project (2277 (pile driving minutes for this activity)/1037 (pile driving minutes for Sand Island Test Pile Project) × 309 observed animals), and NMFS proposes to authorize 679 takes by Level B harassment of harbor seal.

The Level A harassment zone for harbor seals during impact installation is 268 m (table 7). ACOE would implement a shutdown zone of 150 m given the difficulty of observing harbor seals at greater distances and practicability concerns regarding efficient work production rates that would be associated with a larger shutdown zone (see Proposed Mitigation section). During impact installation ACOE expects that two harbor seals could be present in the Level A harassment zone. Therefore, over the three days of impact pile driving, NMFS anticipates, and proposes to authorize, 6 takes by Level A harassment (2 takes per day * 3 days = 6 takes by Level B harassment).

Northern elephant seals occur infrequently in the mouth of the Columbia River. Recent sightings of elephant seals have occurred in the fall and spring upriver from the proposed project site. Although, no Northern elephant seals were observed during the Sand Island Test Pile Project (Hamer Environment L.P. 2020). ACOE expects that two animals may be present in the Level B harassment zone during the 12-days of construction, and NMFS proposes to authorize 2 takes by Level B harassment of elephant seal.

The largest Level A harassment zone for Northern elephant seals extends 268 m from the noise source (table 7). ACOE is planning to implement shutdown zones for Northern elephant seal that exceed the Level A harassment isopleth for all activities. Implementation of the proposed shutdown zones is expected to eliminate the potential for take by Level A harassment of Northern elephant seal. No take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization for Northern elephant seals.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administers the Trademark Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., which provides for the federal registration of trademarks, service marks, collective trademarks and service marks, collective membership marks, and certification marks. Individuals and businesses that use or intend to use such marks in commerce may file an application to register their marks with the USPTO.

This information collection covers various communications submitted by individuals and businesses to the USPTO after the registration of a trademark. One type of communication is a request to amend a registration to delete goods or services that are no longer being used by the owner. Registered marks remain on the register for 10 years and can be renewed, but will be cancelled unless the owner files with the USPTO a declaration attesting to the continued use (or excusable non-use) of the mark in commerce, and a renewal application, with specific deadlines. Owners may also request to amend or divide a registration, respond to a post-registration office action, and surrender a registration.

The regulations implementing the Act are set forth in 37 CFR part 2. These regulations mandate that each register entry include the mark, the goods and/or services in connection with which the mark is used, ownership information, dates of use, and certain other information. The information in this information collection is used to maintain the quality of the trademark register. The register may be accessed by an individual or by businesses to determine the availability of a mark. By keeping the register current and accurate, parties may reduce the possibility of initiating use of a mark previously adopted by another.

Items in this information collection must be submitted electronically. In limited circumstances, registrants may also be permitted to submit the information in paper form by mail or hand delivery.

OMB Control Number: 0651-0055.

Forms:

Type of Review: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Private sector.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 271,793 respondents.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 271,793 responses.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that the responses in this information collection will take the public approximately between 12 minutes (0.20 hours) and 50 minutes (0.83 hours) to complete. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, create the document, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 162,987 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Hourly Cost Burden: $72,855,189.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Non-hourly Cost Burden: $103,718,072.

There are no capital start-up, maintenance costs, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, the USPTO estimates that the total annual non-hour cost burden for this information collection, in the form of filing fees and postage, is $103,718,072.

Filing fees are charged per class of goods or services and can vary depending on the number of classes. The filing fees shown here are based on the minimum fee of one class per document associated with this information collection.

In limited circumstances, applicants may be permitted to submit the information in paper form by mail or hand delivery. Applicants and registrants incur postage costs when submitting information to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service (USPS). The USPTO estimates that 12 items will be submitted to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for a mailed submission, using a Priority Mail legal flat rate envelope, will be $10.15. Therefore, the USPTO estimates the total mailing costs for this information collection at $122.

The USPTO is soliciting public comments to:

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

(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

All comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. The USPTO will include or summarize each comment in the request to OMB to approve this information collection. Before including an address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in a comment, be aware that the entire comment—including PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask in your comment to withhold PII from public view, the USPTO cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

On May 1, 2024, we published the NIA in the Federal Register (89 FR 35080). Under the NIA, applications were due on July 15, 2024. We are reopening this competition to allow affected applicants (as defined under Eligibility ) more time—until July 30, 2024—to prepare and submit their applications.

Eligibility: The extended application deadline applies only to eligible applicants under the FY 2025 SSS Program competition that are affected applicants. An eligible applicant for this competition is defined in the NIA. To qualify as an affected applicant, the applicant must have a mailing address that is located in the federally declared disaster area and must provide appropriate supporting documentation, if requested.

The applicable federally declared disaster area under this declaration is the area in which assistance to individuals or public assistance has been authorized under FEMA's disaster declaration for Texas Hurricane Beryl DR-4798-TX. See the disaster declaration available at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4798.

Affected applicants that have already timely submitted applications under the FY 2025 SSS Program competition may resubmit applications on or before the extended application deadline of July 30, 2024, but are not required to do so. If a new application is not submitted, the Department will use the application that was submitted by the original deadline. If a new application is submitted, the Department will consider the application that is last submitted and timely received by 11:59:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on July 30, 2024.

Any application submitted by an affected applicant under the extended deadline must contain evidence ( e.g., the applicant organization mailing address) that the applicant is located in the applicable federally declared disaster area and, if requested, the applicant must provide appropriate supporting documentation.

The application period is not reopened for all applicants. Applications from applicants that are not affected, as defined above, will not be accepted past the original July 15, 2024 deadline.

Note: All information in the NIA for this competition remains the same, except for the deadline for the transmittal of applications for affected applicants and the deadline for intergovernmental review.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this notice, the NIA, and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On May 28, 2024, we published the NIA in the Federal Register (89 FR 46098). Under the NIA, applications are due on July 29, 2024. We are extending the deadline for transmittal of applications for affected applicants (as defined under Eligibility ) to allow these applicants more time—until August 5, 2024—to prepare and submit their applications.

Eligibility: The application deadline extension applies only to eligible applicants under the FY 2024 CEVSS Program competition that are affected applicants. An eligible applicant for this competition is defined in the NIA. To qualify as an affected applicant, the applicant must have a mailing address that is located in the federally declared disaster area and must provide appropriate supporting documentation, if requested.

The applicable federally declared disaster area under this declaration is the area in which assistance to individuals or public assistance has been authorized under FEMA's disaster declaration for Texas Hurricane Beryl DR-4798-TX. See the disaster declaration available at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4798.

Affected applicants that have already timely submitted applications under the FY 2024 CEVSS Program competition may resubmit applications on or before the extended application deadline of August 5, 2024, but are not required to do so. If a new application is not submitted, the Department will use the application that was submitted by the original deadline. If a new application is submitted, the Department will consider the application that is last submitted and timely received by 11:59:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on August 5, 2024.

Any application submitted by an affected applicant under the extended deadline must contain evidence ( e.g., the applicant organization mailing address) that the applicant is located in the applicable federally declared disaster area and, if requested, the applicant must provide appropriate supporting documentation.

The application period is not extended for all applicants. Applications from applicants that are not affected, as defined above, will not be accepted past the original July 29, 2024 deadline.

Note: All information in the NIA for this competition remains the same, except for the deadline for the transmittal of applications for affected applicants and the deadline for intergovernmental review.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1161t; 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d; and the explanatory statement accompanying Division D of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Pub. L. 118-47).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this notice, the NIA, and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Title: FERC-725Y, Mandatory Reliability Standard (Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications).

OMB Control No.: 1902-0279.

Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725Y information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

Abstract: The FERC-725Y information collection is intended to help ensure the safe and reliable operation of the interconnected grid through the retention of suitably trained and qualified personnel in positions that can impact the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission uses the FERC-725Y to implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. FERC-725Y ensures that personnel performing or supporting real-time operations on the Bulk Electric System (BES) are trained using a systematic approach. The Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard.

Reliability Standard PER-003-2 purpose is to ensure that System Operators performing the reliability-related tasks of the Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority and Transmission Operator are certified through the NERC System Operator Certification Program when filling a Realtime operating position responsible for control of the Bulk Electric System.

• R1. Each Reliability Coordinator shall staff its Real-time operating positions performing Reliability Coordinator reliability-related tasks with System Operators who have demonstrated minimum competency in the areas listed by obtaining and maintaining a valid NERC Reliability Operator certificate.

• R2. Each Transmission Operator shall staff its Real-time operating positions performing Transmission Operator reliability-related tasks with System Operators who have demonstrated minimum competency in the areas listed by obtaining and maintaining one of the following valid NERC certificates.

• R3. Each Balancing Authority shall staff its Real-time operating positions performing Balancing Authority reliability-related tasks with System Operators who have demonstrated minimum competency in the areas listed by obtaining and maintaining one of the following valid NERC certificates.

Reliability Standard PER-005-2 requires entities to maintain records subject to review by the Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard. This Reliability Standard contains of six Requirements:

• R1 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators to develop and implement a training program for system operators.

• R2 requires transmission owners to develop and implement a training program for system operators.

• R3 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to verify the capabilities of their identified personnel.

• R4 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and transmission owners to provide those personnel with emergency operations training using simulation technology.

• R5 requires reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and transmission operators develop and implement training for system operators whose job functions can impact BES real-time reliability tasks.

• R6 requires applicable generator operators to develop and implement training for certain of their dispatch personnel at a centrally located dispatch center.

Reliability Standard PER-006-1 ensures that personnel are trained on specific topics essential to reliability to perform or support Real-Time operations of the Bulk Electric System.

• R1 identifies generator operator plant personnel responsible for Real-time control and carrying out Operating instructions are trained on the operational functionality of Protection Systems and Remedial Action Schemes that affect the output of generating facility(ies) it operates.

Type of Respondents: Transmission owners and generator owners.

Estimate of Annual Burden   1 : Our estimate below regarding the number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 16, 2024. In general, the number of respondents has increased from previous renewal as each entity may have multiple responsibilities under these standards and those responsibilities are counted separately.

When the original PER-003-0 was approved in Order No. 693 the associated manhours were part of the 83 NERC Reliability Standards approved at one time. 2 In the two revisions done PER-003-1 and PER-003-2 it was determined at that there was no change in burden specific to PER-003. To increase clarity, manhours associated with the original PER-003-0 are being moved from the 725A collection and being added into the 725Y collection. The next update to 725A (2024) will reflect the change in burden associated with PER-003 and moving manhours from 725A into 725Y.

The Commission estimates the additional annual reporting burden and cost as follows: