Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XD515]
 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
 SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Trident Seafoods Corporation (Trident) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal activities associated with the Bunkhouse Dock replacement project in Kodiak, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
 DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January 25, 2024.
 ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to 
                        *ITP.wachtendonk@noaa.gov.*
                         Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: 
                        *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.*
                         In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above. *Instructions:*
                         NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted online at 
                        *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.*
                         All personal identifying information (
                        *e.g.,*
                         name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Background The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are 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 mitigation, monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below. National Environmental Policy Act To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 
                    *et seq.*) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action (
                    *i.e.,*
                     the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for 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. Summary of Request On June 15, 2023, NMFS received a request from Trident for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to vibratory 
                    ( print page 88875)
                    and impact pile driving to replace the Bunkhouse Dock at their facility in Kodiak, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, Trident submitted a revised version on September 1, 2023. The application was deemed adequate and complete on October 26, 2023. Trident's request is for take of six species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither Trident nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. Description of Proposed Activity Overview Trident proposes to remove and replace the Bunkhouse Dock on the shore of Near Island Channel in Kodiak, Alaska. The purpose of this project is to remove the degraded dock and replace it with a new structure to provide safe housing and waterfront infrastructure for seafood processing. The activity includes the removal of existing piles and the installation of both temporary and permanent piles of various sizes. Takes of marine mammals by Level B harassment would occur due to down-the-hole (DTH) drilling and vibratory pile driving and removal. This project would occur Kodiak, Alaska along the western shore of Near Island Channel within Township 27S. Construction activities are expected to occur over 8 weeks starting in March 2024. Dates and Duration The proposed activities are expected to start in March 2024 and last 8 weeks. It is expected to take 94 hours over 55 non-consecutive days. All pile driving and removal would be completed during daylight hours. Specific Geographic Region The proposed activities would take place at the Trident Seafoods facility along the City of Kodiak's downtown working waterfront. It is located on the western shore of Near Island Channel in Kodiak, Alaska within Township 27S. All construction would occur within the footprint of the existing Trident-owned Bunkhouse Dock. The timing of this work is planned to not interfere with the commercial fishing season.  Detailed Description of the Specified Activity The Bunkhouse Dock replacement will include the removal of 100 14-inch (in) (36 centimeter (cm)) diameter timber piles, 75 14-in (36-cm) steel H-piles, and 60 16-in (41 cm) diameter steel pipe piles. Once the existing piles are removed, 26 16-in (41 cm) diameter steel pipe piles and 52 24-in (61 cm) diameter steel pipe piles would be installed to support the new pier. The installation and removal of 52 temporary 24-in (61 cm) diameter steel pipe piles would be completed to support permanent pile installation. All piles will be removed with the deadpull method with the vibratory hammer being used if the deadpull method is unsuccessful. Temporary and permanent piles will be initially installed with the vibratory hammer followed by the DTH drill to embed them to their final depth. The work would be completed within the footprint of the existing Bunkhouse Dock in Kodiak, Alaska.
                    ( print page 88876) Table 1—Number and Type of Piles To Be Installed and Removed
Existing pipe pile removal
                             (steel)
Existing H-pile removal
                             (steel)
Existing pile removal
                             (timber)
Temporary pile installation
                             (steel)
Temporary pile removal
                             (steel)
Permanent pipe pile
                             installation 
                             (steel)
Permanent pipe pile
                             installation 
                             (steel)Pile Diameter size (in)
16
14
14
24
24
16
24**Vibratory Pile Driving/Removal**Total Quantity
60
75
100
20
20
26
52Max # of Piles per day
20
20
25
6
8
5
4Vibratory time per pile (min)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2Number of Days
3
4
4
3
3
5
13**Down the Hole Drilling**Total Quantity
n/a
n/a
n/a
20
n/a
26
52Piles per day
n/a
n/a
n/a
6
n/a
6
4Duration time per pile (min)
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
n/a
45
60Number of Days
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
n/a
4
13
 Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting). Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. 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 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 NMFS' U.S. 2022 SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at: 
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessments.* Table 2—Marine Mammal Species 4
                         Likely To Occur Near the Project Area That May Be Taken by Trident's Activities
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
ESA/MMPA status; strategic
                             
                                (Y/N) 1
Stock abundance
                             
                                (CV, N
                                min
                                , most recent
                             
                             
                                abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual M/SI 3**Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Mysticeti (baleen whales)***Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):*Humpback Whale
*Megaptera novaeangliae*
Hawai'i 5
-, -, N
11,278 (0.56, 7,265, 2020)
127
27.09Mexico-North Pacific 6
T, D, Y
N/A (N/A, N/A, 2006)
UND
0.57**Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)***Family Delphinidae:*Killer Whale
*Orcinus orca*
Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident 7
-, -, N
1,920 (N/A, 1,920, 2019)
19
1.3Eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea Transient 7
-, -, N
587 (N/A, 587, 2012)
5.9
0.8*Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):*Dall's Porpoise
*Phocoenoides dalli*
AK 8
-, -, N
UND (UND, UND, 2015)
UND
37Harbor Porpoise
*Phocoena phocoena*
Gulf of Alaska
-, -, Y
31,046 (0.21, N/A, 1998)
UND
72( print page 88877)**Order Carnivora—Pinnipedia***Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions):*Steller Sea Lion
*Eumetopias jubatus*
Western 9
E, D, Y
52,932 (N/A, 52,932, 2019)
318
254*Family Phocidae (earless seals):*Harbor Seal
*Phoca vitulina*
South Kodiak
-, -, N
26,448 (N/A, 22,351, 2017)
939
1271
                         Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.2
                         NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 
                        *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.*
                         CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.3
                         These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (
                        *e.g.,*
                         commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.4
                         Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy (
                        *https://marinemammalscience.org/​science-and-publications/​list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/​;*
                         Committee on Taxonomy (2022)).5
                         New SAR in 2022 following North Pacific humpback whale stock structure changes.6
                         Abundance estimates are based upon data collected more than 8 years ago and, therefore, current estimates are considered unknown.7
                         Nest is based upon counts of individuals identified from photo-ID catalogs.8
                         The best available abundance estimate is likely an underestimate for the entire stock because it is based upon a survey that covered only a small portion of the stock's range.9
                        Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys.9
                         Nest is best estimate of counts, which have not been corrected for animals at sea during abundance surveys.
 As indicated above, all six species (with eight 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 area are included in table 5 of the IHA application. While gray whales, North Pacific right whales, minke whales, fin whales, Cuvier's beaked whales, sperm whales, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and northern fur seals 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. These species are all considered to be rare (no sightings in recent years) within the project area. Take of these species has not been requested nor is proposed to be authorized and these species are not considered further in this document. Additional information relevant to our analyses (beyond that included above, in the application, and on NMFS website) is included below, as appropriate. Humpback Whale On September 8, 2016, NMFS divided the once single species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS) under the ESA, removed the species-level listing as endangered, and, in its place, listed 4 DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016). The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. There are four DPSs in the North Pacific, including Mexico, which is listed as threatened, and Hawaii, which is not listed. The 2022 Alaska and Pacific SARs described a revised stock structure for humpback whales which modifies the previous stocks designated under the MMPA to align more closely with the ESA-designated DPSs (Caretta 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023; Young 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023). Specifically, the three previous North Pacific humpback whale stocks (Central and western North Pacific stocks and a CA/OR/WA stock) were replaced by five stocks, largely corresponding with the ESA-designated DPSs. These include Western North Pacific and Hawaii stocks and a Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock (which corresponds with the Central America DPS). The remaining two stocks, corresponding with the Mexico DPS, are the Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mexico-North Pacific stocks (Caretta 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023; Young 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023). The former stock is expected to occur along the west coast from California to southern British Columbia, while the latter stock may occur across the Pacific, from northern British Columbia through the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea region to Russia. The Hawai'i stock consists of one demographically independent population (DIP)—Hawai'i-southeast Alaska/northern British Columbia DIP and one unit—Hawai'i-north Pacific unit, which may or may not be composed of multiple DIPs (Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021). The DIP and unit are managed as a single stock at this time, due to the lack of data available to separately assess them and lack of compelling conservation benefit to managing them separately (NMFS, 2023; NMFS, 2019; NMFS, 2022b). The DIP is delineated based on two strong lines of evidence: genetics and movement data (Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021). Whales in the Hawai'i-southeast Alaska/northern British Columbia DIP winter off Hawai'i and largely summer in southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021). The group of whales that migrate from Russia, western Alaska (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands), and central Alaska (Gulf of Alaska excluding southeast Alaska) to Hawai'i have been delineated as the Hawai'i-North Pacific unit (Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021). There are a small number of whales that migrate between Hawa'i and southern British Columbia/Washington, but current data and analyses do not provide a clear understanding of which unit these whales belong to (Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021; Caretta 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023; Young 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023). The Mexico-North Pacific unit is likely composed of multiple DIPs, based on movement data (Martien 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021; Wade, 2021, Wade 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021). However, because currently available data and analyses are not sufficient to delineate or assess DIPs within the unit, it was designated as a single stock (NMFS, 2023a; NMFS, 2019; NMFS, 2022c). Whales in this stock winter off Mexico and the Revillagigedo Archipelago and summer primarily in Alaska waters (Martien 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021; Carretta 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023; Young 
                    *et al.,*
                     2023).
                    ( print page 88878) Wild 
                    *et al.*
                     (2023) identified the waters around and to the East of Kodiak Island (including the proposed project area) as a Biologically Important Area (BIA) for humpback whales for feeding during the months of May through September, with an importance score of 1 (the lowest of three possible scores (1, 2, or 3), reflecting an Intensity score of 2 (indicating an area of moderate comparative significance) and a Data Support score of 1 (lower relative confidence in the available supporting data). While the majority of sightings occur outside of the Near Island Channel, a singular humpback whale was documented transiting the channel during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal construction in March 2016 (NMFS 2017). Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Steller sea lions were subsequently partitioned into the western and eastern Distinct Population Segments (DPSs; western and eastern stocks) in 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). The eastern DPS remained classified as threatened until it was delisted in November 2013. The western DPS (those individuals west of the 144° W longitude or Cape Suckling, Alaska) was upgraded to endangered status following separation of the DPSs, and it remains endangered today. There is regular movement of both DPSs across this 144° W longitude boundary (Jemison 
                    *et al.,*
                     2013) however, due to the distance from this DPS boundary, it is likely that only western DPS Steller sea lions are present in the project area. Therefore, animals potentially affected by the project are assumed to be part of the western DPS. Sea lions from the eastern DPS, are not likely to be affected by the proposed activity and are not discussed further. Steller sea lions do not follow traditional migration patterns, but will move from offshore rookeries in the summer to more protected haulouts closer to shore in the winter. They use rookeries and haulouts as resting spots as they follow prey movements and take foraging trips for days, usually within a few miles of their rookery or haulout. They are generalist marine predators and opportunistic feeders based on seasonal abundance and location of prey. Steller sea lions forage in nearshore as well as offshore areas, following prey resources. They are highly social and are often observed in large groups while hauled out but alone or in small groups when at sea (NMFS 2022). Steller sea lions are frequent in the proposed project area as many have become habituated to the human activity at the seafood processing facilities. Steller sea lions regularly haul out on the Dog Bay float in St. Herman Harbor, which is approximately 792 m (2,600 ft) from the proposed project area. A bi-weekly census of Steller sea lions at the Dog Bay float conducted from November 2015 to June 2016, in association with the Kodiak Ferry Terminal project, revealed maximum numbers (>100) from mid-March through mid-June, with 5,111 total observations from November 2015 to June 2016 (NMFS 2019a). The highest average hourly number (11-15/hour) of sea lions within the entire Kodiak Ferry Terminal observation area occurred from February through April 2016 (NMFS 2019a). Marine Mammal Hearing 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.*). Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (
                    *i.e.,*
                     low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall 
                    *et al.*
                     (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3. Table 3—Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales)
7 Hz to 35 kHz.Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales)
150 Hz to 160 kHz.High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, 
                            *Kogia,*
                             river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid,
                             
                                *Lagenorhynchus cruciger*
                                 & 
                                *L. australis*)
275 Hz to 160 kHz.Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals)
50 Hz to 86 kHz.Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals)
60 Hz to 39 kHz.* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (
                        *i.e.,*
                         all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall 
                        *et al.,*
                         2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
 The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall 
                    *et al.*
                     (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemilä 
                    *et al.,*
                     2006; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 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 section later in this 
                    ( print page 88879)
                    document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and 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. Description of Sound Sources 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 vibratory pile driving, vibratory pile removal, and DTH drilling. 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 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). 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 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). DTH systems would also be used during the proposed construction. 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 methods contain both a continuous non-impulsive component from the drilling action and an impulsive component from the hammering effect. Therefore, NMFS treats DTH systems as both impulsive and continuous, non-impulsive sound source types simultaneously. The likely or possible impacts of Trident's proposed activities on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, 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. Acoustic Effects 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 or drilling 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. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok 
                    *et al.,*
                     2004; Southall 
                    *et al.,*
                     2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects (threshold shifts) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat. Auditory Effects 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 
                    ( print page 88880)
                    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). When considering auditory effects for Trident's proposed activities, vibratory pile driving is considered a non-impulsive source, while DTH drilling are considered to have both non-impulsive and impulsive components. *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, Ward 
                    *et al.,*
                     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)*
                    —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 cumulative SEL (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 auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that takes place during a time when the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
                    *et al.,*
                     2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost. 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; Kastak 
                    *et al.,*
                     2007; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2019b; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2019c; Reichmuth 
                    *et al.,*
                     2019; Sills 
                    *et al.,*
                     2020; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2021; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     2022a; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     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; Kastelein 
                    *et al.,*
                     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) 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.
                    ( print page 88881) 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 vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling. 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 Effects Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005; 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). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences is informed by 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. The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in the surrounding waters of the Near Island Channel. *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. *Auditory 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; Erbe 
                    *et al.,*
                     2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (
                    *e.g.,*
                     snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (
                    *e.g.,*
                     shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. 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 
                    ( print page 88882)
                    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. 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 man-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. 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, 2009; 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 (Houser and Moore, 2014). 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). Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
                    *e.g.,*
                     from vessel traffic), contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking. Background sound levels in the project area are generally already elevated due to the cruise ships, passenger ferries, charter and commercial fishing vessels, barges, and freight vessels that frequent the area. Marine Mammal Habitat Effects. The proposed project would occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. 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 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 and bedrock removal when bottom sediments are disturbed. The installation and removal of piles and bedrock removal 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 from DTH hammers are expected to be similar to those described for pile driving. 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 southeast Alaska. *Effects on Prey*
                    —Construction activities would produce continuous (
                    *i.e.,*
                     vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (
                    *i.e.,*
                     impact driving) sounds and a both continuous and impulsive sounds from DTH installation. 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, 
                    ( print page 88883)
                    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 Near Island Channel. The duration of the construction activities is relatively short, with pile driving and removal activities expected last less than one-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. 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. Estimated Take This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations. Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving activities. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. 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. Acoustic Thresholds NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). *Level B Harassment*
                    —Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other 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. Trident's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL threshold of 120 dB re 1 μPa is applicable. DTH drilling has both continuous and intermittent (impulsive) components as discussed in the 
                    *Description of Sound Sources*
                     section above. When evaluating Level B harassment, NMFS recommends treating DTH as a continuous source and applying the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 dB re 1 μPa. *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). Trident's proposed activity includes the use of non-impulsive 
                    ( print page 88884)
                    (vibratory pile driving) sources. As described above, DTH includes both impulsive and non-impulsive characteristics. When evaluating Level A harassment, NMFS recommends treating DTH as an impulsive source. 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.* Table 4—Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
Hearing group
PTS onset thresholds *
                             (received level)Impulsive
Non-impulsiveLow-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans
*Cell 1: L*p,
                            0-pk,flat*:*
                             219 dB; 
                            *L*E,
                            p,
                            LF,24h*:*
                             183 dB
*Cell 2: L*E,
                            p,
                            LF,24h*:*
                             199 dB.Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans
*Cell 3: L*p,
                            0-pk,flat*:*
                             230 dB; 
                            *L*E,
                            p,
                            MF,24h*:*
                             185 dB
*Cell 4: L*E,
                            p,
                            MF,24h*:*
                             198 dB.High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans
*Cell 5: L*p,
                            0-pk,flat*:*
                             202 dB; 
                            *L*E,
                            p,
                            HF,24h*:*
                             155 dB
*Cell 6: L*E,
                            p,
                            HF,24h*:*
                             173 dB.Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)  (Underwater)
*Cell 7: L*p,
                            0-pk,flat*:*
                             218 dB; 
                            *L*E,
                            p,
                            PW,24h*:*
                             185 dB
*Cell 8: L*E,
                            p,
                            PW,24h*:*
                             201 dB.Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)
*Cell 9: L*p,
                            0-pk,flat*:*
                             232 dB; 
                            *L*E,
                            p,
                            OW,24h*:*
                             203 dB
*Cell 10: L*E,
                            p,
                            OW,24h*:*
                             219 dB.* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.**Note:**
                         Peak sound pressure level (
                        *L*p,
                        0-pk
                        ) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (
                        *L*E,
                        p
                        ) has a reference value of 1μPa2
                        s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript “flat” is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range of marine mammals (
                        *i.e.,*
                         7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (
                        *i.e.,*
                         varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.
 Ensonified Area 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.,*
                     vibratory pile driving and removal, DTH drilling). The maximum (underwater) area ensonified above the thresholds for behavioral harassment referenced above is 125 km2
                     (48.26 mi2
                    ), that would be truncated by land masses that would obstruct underwater sound transmission and would extend into Near Island Channel and St. Paul Harbor (see figure 5 in Trident's application). Additionally, vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities 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: *TL*
                     = B * Log10
                     (R1
                    /R2), where *TL*
                         = transmission loss in dB B = transmission loss coefficient *R*1
                         = the distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile, and *R*2
                         = the distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). 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 DTH pile installation of steel pipe piles and vibratory removal of steel pipe piles, steel H-piles, and timber piles. Source levels for each pile size and driving method are presented in table 5.
                    ( print page 88885) Table 5—Proxy Sound Source Levels for Pile Sizes and Driving Methods
Pile type
Installation or removal
RMS SPL
                             (re 1 μPa)
SEL
                             
                                (re 1 μPa2
                                -sec)
Source**Vibratory Pile Driving**14-in timber pile
Removal
162
NA
Caltrans 2020.14-in H-pile
Removal
150

Caltrans 2020.16-in steel pile
Installation
161

NAVFAC 2015.16-in steel pile
Removal


NAVFAC 2015.24-in steel pile
Installation


NAVFAC 2015.**DTH Drilling**
                             116-in steel pile
Installation
162
141
Heyvaert & Reyff 2021, Guan & Miner 2020.24-in steel pile
Installation

154
Heyvaert & Reyff 2021.1
                         Sound source levels for DTH were adjusted by −5 dB to reflect the use of the bubble curtain.
 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 pile driving, 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, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below. Table 6—NMFS User Spreadsheet Inputs
Pile size and type
Spreadsheet tab used
Weighting
                             factor 
                             adjustment 
                             (kHz)
Transmission loss coefficient
Number of piles per day
Activity
                             duration 
                             (minutes)14-in timber pile vibratory removal
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
25
214-in steel H-pile vibratory removal
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
20
216-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
20
216-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
5
224-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation (temporary)
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
6
224-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal (temporary)
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
8
224-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
A.1 Vibratory pile driving
2.5
15
4
216-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
E.2 DTH pile driving
2
15
6
4524-in steel pipe pile DTH installation (temporary)
E.2 DTH pile driving
2
15
6
3024-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
E.2 DTH pile driving
2
15
4
60
 Table 7—Calculated Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths
Activity
Level A harassment zone (m)
Level B
                             harassment 
                             zone 
                             (m)LF-cetaceans
MF-cetaceans
HF-cetaceans
Otariids
Phocids14-in timber pile vibratory removal
7.1
0.6
10.4
4.3
0.3
6,31014-in steel H-pile vibratory removal
1.0
0.1
1.4
0.6
0.0
1,00016-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal
5.2
0.5
7.7
3.2
0.2
5,41516-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
2.1
0.2
3.1
1.3
0.124-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation (temporary)
2.3
0.2
3.5
1.4
0.124-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal (temporary)
2.8
0.3
4.2
1.7
0.124-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
1.8
0.2
2.6
1.1
0.116-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
47.0
1.7
56.0
1.8
25.2
6,31024-in steel pipe pile DTH installation (temporary)
264.1
9.4
314.5
10.3
141.324-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
319.9
11.4
381.0
12.5
171.2
 
 
 Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. When available, peer-reviewed scientific publications were used to estimate marine mammal abundance in the project area. Data from monitoring reports from projects on the Kodiak Ferry Terminal were used as well as reports from other projects in Kodiak, Alaska. Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization. Tables for each species are presented to show the calculation of take during the project. Both density and occurrence data was considered in incidental take estimations. Density data were used when there was no occurrence data available, or when occurrence and density data were similar. The take calculations for this project are: Incidental take estimate = group size * days of pile driving activity Or Incidental take estimate = (Activity Level B harassment area [km2
                    ] × estimated density [individuals/km2
                    ]) × days of pile driving activity Humpback Whale Humpback whales are present in Kodiak year-round with peaks in the spring and fall. They are considered common in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every month, so they could occur daily in the project's action. In the proposed project area humpback whales are expected to occur at a density of 0.093 individuals per square kilometer area (Halpin 
                    *et al.*
                     2009). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for humpback whales would be 14. In the action area it is estimated that the majority of whales (89 percent) will be from the Hawaii DPS, 11 percent will be from the Mexico DPS, and 1 percent will be from the endangered Western North Pacific DPS (Wade 2021; Muto 
                    *et al.*
                     2022). Therefore 13 takes are assumed to be from the Hawaii DPS and 1 take from the Mexico DPS. The largest Level A harassment zone for humpback whales extends 319.9 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a humpback whale entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the infrequent occurrence of humpback whales in the project area and proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for humpback whales. Killer Whale Killer whales are present in Kodiak year-round and are considered common in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every month, so they could occur daily in the project's action. A single group of up to six killer whales are expected to occur in the proposed project area daily (Halpin 
                    *et al.*
                     2009). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for killer whales would be 330. In the action area it is estimated that the majority of killer whales (80 percent) will be from the Alaska resident stock and 20 percent will be from the Gulf of Alaska/Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea transient stock (Muto 
                    *et al.*
                     2022). Therefore 264 takes are assumed to be from the Alaska resident stock and 66 takes firm the Gulf of Alaska/Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea transient stock. The largest Level A harassment zone for killer whales extends 11.4 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a killer whale entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the small size of the Level A harassment zone and proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for killer whale. Harbor Porpoise Harbor porpoises are present in Kodiak year-round and are occur frequently in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every year, so they could occur monthly in the project's action. In the proposed project area harbor porpoises are expected to occur at a density of 0.4547 individuals per square kilometer area (Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for harbor porpoises would be 65. The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor porpoise extends 381 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a harbor porpoise entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the relatively low anticipated exposure in the project area and the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for harbor porpoise. Dall's Porpoise Dall's porpoises are present in Kodiak year-round and are occur frequently in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every year, so they could occur monthly in the project's action. In the proposed project area Dall's porpoises are expected to occur at a density of 0.218 individuals per square kilometer area (Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for Dall's porpoise would be 31. The largest Level A harassment zone for Dall's porpoise extends 381 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a Dall's porpoise entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the relatively low anticipated exposure in the project area and the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for Dall's porpoise. Harbor Seal Harbor seals are present in Kodiak year-round and are considered common in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every month, so they could occur daily in the project's action. In the proposed project area Dall's porpoises are expected to occur at a density of 0.1689 individuals per square kilometer area (Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for harbor seals would be 24. The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor seals extends 171.2 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a harbor seal entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the relatively low anticipated exposure in the project area and the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for harbor seals. Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lions are present in Kodiak year-round and are considered common in the project area, meaning there are multiple sightings every month, so they could occur daily in the project's action. During construction at the Kodiak Ferry 
                    ( print page 88887)
                    Terminal (82 FR 10894, February 26, 2017) Steller sea lions were encountered daily during construction. Up to 40 Steller sea lions are expected to occur in the proposed project area daily (Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab 2021). Therefore, using the equation given above, the total number of Level B harassment takes for Steller sea lions would be 2,200. The largest Level A harassment zone for harbor seals extends 12.5 m from the noise source (table 7). All construction work would be shut down prior to a Steller sea lion entering the Level A harassment zone specific to the in-water activity underway at the time. In consideration of the small Level A harassment isopleth and proposed shutdown requirements, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for Steller sea lions. Table 8—Estimated Take by Level A and Level B Harassment, by Species and Stock
Common name
Stock
Stock
                             
                                abundance a
Level A
                             harassment
Level B
                             harassment
Total proposed take
Proposed take as percentage of stockHumpback whale
Central North Pacific
10,103
0
12
13
0.1CA/OR/WA
4,973
0
2
1
0.07Killer Whale
Alaska Resident
1,920
0
264
264
13.8Gulf of Alaska/Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea Transient
587
0
66
66
11.2Harbor porpoise
Gulf of Alaska
31,946
0
65
65
0.08Dall's porpoise
Alaska
13,110
0
31
31
0.24Steller sea lion
Western U.S
52,932
0
2,200
2,200
4.2Harbor seal
South Kodiak Island
26,448
0
24
24
0.09a
                         
                        *Stock size is Nbest according to NMFS 2022 Stock Assessment Reports.*
 Proposed Mitigation In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and; (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations. In addition to the measures described later in this section, Trident would employ the following standard mitigation measures: At the start of each day, the Contractor(s) would hold a briefing with the Lead Protected Species Observer (PSO) to outline the activities planned for that day.
                If poor weather conditions restrict the PSO's ability to make observations within the Level A harassment zone of pile driving (*e.g.,*
                     if there is excessive wind or fog), pile installation and removal would be halted. The following measures would apply to Trident's mitigation requirements: Shutdown and Monitoring Zones Trident must establish shutdown zones and Level B monitoring zones for all pile driving activities. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine animal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones are based on the largest Level A harassment zone for each pile size/type and driving method, and behavioral monitoring zones are meant to encompass Level B harassment zones for each pile size/type and driving method, as shown in table 9. A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine mammals. Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted during all pile driving activities to ensure that marine mammals do not enter Level A shutdown zones, that marine mammal presence in the isopleth does not exceed authorized take. Proposed shutdown zones for each activity type are shown in table 9. Prior to pile driving, shutdown zones and monitoring zones will be established based on zones represented in table 9. Observers will survey the shutdown zones for at least 30 minutes before pile driving activities start. If marine mammals are found within the shutdown zone, pile driving will be delayed until the animal has moved out of the shutdown zone, either verified by an observer or by waiting until 15 minutes has elapsed without a sighting. If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during pile driving, the activity will be halted. Pile driving may resume after the animal has moved out of and is moving away from the shutdown zone or after at least 15 minutes has passed since the last observation of the animal. All marine mammals would be monitored in the Level B harassment zones and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can take place. If a marine mammal enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water activities would continue and PSOs would document the animal's presence within the estimated harassment zone.
                    ( print page 88888) If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone, pile driving activities will be shutdown immediately. Activities will not resume until the animal has been confirmed to have left the area or 15 minutes has elapsed with no sighting of the animal. Table 9—Shutdown and Level B Harassment Zones by Activity
Pile size, type, and method
Minimum shutdown zone
Level B
                             harassment 
                             zoneLow-frequency
Mid-frequency
High-
                             frequency
Phocid
OtariidBarge movements, pile positioning, ect.
10
10
10
10
10
1014-in timber pile vibratory removal
10
10
15
10
10
6,31014-in steel H-pile vibratory removal
10
10
10
10
10
1,00016-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal
10
10
10
10
10
5,41516-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
10
10
10
10
10
5,41524-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation (temporary)
10
10
10
10
10
5,41524-in steel pipe pile vibratory removal (temporary)
10
10
10
10
10
5,41524-in steel pipe pile vibratory installation
10
10
10
10
10
5,41516-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
50
10
60
30
10
6,31024-in steel pipe pile DTH installation (temporary)
265
10
315
145
15
6,31024-in steel pipe pile DTH installation
320
15
385
175
15
6,310
 Protected Species Observers The placement of PSOs during all pile driving activities (described in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section) would ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that the entire shutdown zone would not be visible (
                    *e.g.,*
                     fog, heavy rain), pile driving would be delayed until the PSO is confident marine mammals within the shutdown zone could be detected. PSOs would monitor the full shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. Pre- and Post-Activity Monitoring Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activities (
                    *i.e.,*
                     pre-clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving. Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, PSOs would observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone would be considered cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for a 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zones, pile driving activity would be delayed or halted. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of the shutdown zones would commence. A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
                    *i.e.,*
                     the entire shutdown zone and surrounding waters must be visible to the naked eye). Bubble Curtain A bubble curtain must be employed during all impact DTH activities to interrupt the acoustic pressure and reduce impact on marine mammals. The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling circumference for the full depth of the water column. The lowest bubble ring must be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring. The weights attached to the bottom ring must ensure 100 percent substrate contact. No parts of the ring or other objects may prevent full substrate contact. Air flow to the bubblers must be balanced around the circumference of the pile. Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Proposed Monitoring and Reporting In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following: Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (*e.g.,*
                     presence, abundance, distribution, density);
                Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (*e.g.,*
                     source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (
                    *e.g.,*
                     life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the activity; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (
                    *e.g.,*
                     age, calving or feeding areas);
                    ( print page 88889)
                Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
                How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
                Effects on marine mammal habitat (*e.g.,*
                     marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and,
                Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. Visual Monitoring Monitoring shall be conducted by NMFS-approved observers in accordance with the monitoring plan and Section 5 of the IHA. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start, and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species in the project area), description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible). Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving/removal activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes. Between one and five PSOs will be on duty depending on the size of the monitoring zone. Locations from which PSOs would be able to monitor for marine mammals are readily available from publicly accessible shoreside areas at the Near Island Channel and surrounding waters. Monitoring locations would be selected by the Contractor during pre-construction. PSOs would monitor for marine mammals entering the Level B harassment zones; the position(s) may vary based on construction activity and location of piles or equipment. PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and would use a handheld range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs would be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring would be conducted by qualified observers, who would be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator via a radio. Trident would adhere to the following observer qualifications: (i) Independent observers (
                    *i.e.,*
                     not construction personnel) are required; (ii) One PSO would be designated as the lead PSO or monitoring coordinator and that observer must have prior experience working as an observer; (iii) Other observers may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience; and (iv) Trident must submit observer Curriculum Vitaes for approval by NMFS. Additional standard observer qualifications include: Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
                Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
                Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
                Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
                Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary. Data Collection PSOs would use approved data forms to record the following information: Dates and times (beginning and end) of all marine mammal monitoring.
                PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring. Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were driven or removed and by what method (
                    *i.e.,*
                     vibratory or DTH). Weather parameters and water conditions.
                The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting.
                Distance and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed.
                Description of marine mammal behavior patterns, including direction of travel.
                Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed.
                Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation triggered (such as shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal if any. Reporting A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities. It would include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include: Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring.
                Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method (*i.e.,*
                     vibratory driving) and the total equipment duration for cutting for each pile.
                PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
                Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
                Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; Time of sighting; Identification( print page 88890)
                    of the animal(s) (
                    *e.g.,*
                     genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species; Distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each sighting (if pile driving was occurring at time of sighting); Estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate); Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, 
                    *etc.*); Animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone; Description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
                    *e.g.,*
                     observed behaviors such as feeding or traveling), including an assessment of behavioral responses thought to have resulted from the activity (
                    *e.g.,*
                     no response or changes in behavioral state such as ceasing feeding, changing direction, flushing, or breaching);
                Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species.
                Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (*e.g.,*
                     shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting changes in behavior of the animal(s), if any. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report would constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, Trident would immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the following information: Description of the incident;
                Environmental conditions (*e.g.,*
                     Beaufort sea state, visibility);
                Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
                Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
                Fate of the animal(s); and
                Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available). Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Trident to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Trident would not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. In the event that Trident discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
                    *e.g.,*
                     in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), Trident would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report would include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Trident to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate. In the event that Trident discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
                    *e.g.,*
                     previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Trident would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. Trident would provide photographs, video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
                    *i.e.,*
                     population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any impacts or responses (
                    *e.g.,*
                     intensity, duration), the context of any impacts or responses (
                    *e.g.,*
                     critical reproductive time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the baseline (
                    *e.g.,*
                     as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 2, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity. Pile driving and removal activities associated with the project as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Level A harassment is extremely unlikely given the small size of the Level A harassment isopleths and the required mitigation measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals (see Proposed Mitigation section). No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity. Pile installation and removal activities are likely to result in the Level B harassment of marine mammals that move into the ensonified zone, primarily in the form of disturbance or displacement of marine mammals. Take would occur within a limited, confined area of each stock's range. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further, the amount of take authorized is small when compared to stock abundance. Based on reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar 
                    ( print page 88891)
                    activities, behavioral disturbance (
                    *i.e.,*
                     level B harassment) would likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
                    *e.g.,*
                     Thorson and Reyff, 2006; HDR, Inc. 2012; Lerma, 2014; ABR, 2016). Most likely for pile driving, individuals would simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. The pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to, or less impactful than, numerous other construction activities conducted in Alaska, which have taken place with no observed severe responses of any individuals or known long-term adverse consequences. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein and, if sound produced by project activities is sufficiently disturbing, animals are likely to simply avoid the area while the activity is occurring. While vibratory driving associated with the proposed project may produce sound at distances of many kilometers from the project site, thus overlapping with some likely less-disturbed habitat, the project site itself is located in a busy harbor and the majority of sound fields produced by the specified activities are close to the harbor. Animals disturbed by project sound would be expected to avoid the area and use nearby higher-quality habitats. The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish or invertebrates to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities, the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, and the availability of nearby habitat of similar or higher value, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. The waters around Kodiak Island are part of the Alaska humpback whale feeding BIA (Ferguson 
                    *et al.,*
                     2015). Humpback whales are present around Kodiak, although the majority of sightings have occurred outside of Near Island Channel. The area of the BIA that may be affected by the proposed project is small relative to the overall area of the BIA. The humpback whale feeding BIA is active between May and November while the proposed project is scheduled to occur between March and June, resulting in only 2 months of overlap. Additionally, pile driving associated with the project is expected to take only 55 days, further reducing the temporal overlap with the BIA. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on the foraging of Alaska humpback whale. No areas of specific biological importance (
                    *e.g.,*
                     ESA critical habitat, other BIAs, or other areas) for any other species are known to co-occur with the project area. In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival: No serious injury, mortality, or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized;
                The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
                The ensonifed areas from the project are very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species and stocks;
                The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat or any other areas of known biological importance; and
                The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable adverse impact. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Table 8 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B harassment for the proposed work in Kodiak, Alaska. Our analysis shows that less than 14 percent of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. The numbers of animals proposed to be taken for these stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stock's abundances, even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks. Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met. In the Kodiak area sea lions and harbor seals are available for subsistence harvest under the MMPA. Limited subsistence harvests of marine mammals outside of Near Island Channel has occurred in the past, with the most recent recorded/documented harvests of marine mammals in Kodiak in 2011. The proposed activity will take place in Near Island Channel, and no activities overlap with current subsistence hunting areas; therefore, 
                    ( print page 88892)
                    there are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals adversely impacted by this action. The proposed project is not likely to adversely impact the availability of any marine mammal species or stocks that are commonly used for subsistence purposes or to impact subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the region. Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from Trident's proposed activities. Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 
                    *et seq.*) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species, in this case with the Alaska Regional Office. NMFS is proposing to authorize take of western DPS of Steller sea lions, which are listed under the ESA. The Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the Alaska Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Trident for conducting Bunkhouse Dock replacement project in Kodiak, Alaska between March 1, 2024 and February 29, 2025, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at: 
                    *https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.* Request for Public Comments We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed construction project. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the 
                    *Dates and Duration*
                     section of this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met: A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
                The request for renewal must include the following: (1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
                    *e.g.,*
                     reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take). (2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid. Dated: December 19, 2023. Kimberly Damon-Randall, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.


[FR Doc. 2023-28336 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P