best research proposal sample in ethiopia

• For students

Thematic Research Proposal Submission Instruction

• First, it is very simple and you can submit yourself.
• Once you compiled all the documents in a file, write the following in your latest browser:  ( research.aau.edu.et ) and you will get the dashboard
• Then, click Submit
• Read the Instructions carefully
• Click Submit here located at the bottom
• Fill all fields — a ll fields are mandatory.
• To attach your document: click browse and attach appropriate file (the proposal)
• While filling the form, please write your university email.

Quick Links

• Research Office

5th Round Call Female Researcher Fund -fRf

• Research Management

Upcoming Events

There are no upcoming events.

• Add to Timely Calendar
• Add to Google
• Add to Outlook
• Add to Apple Calendar
• Add to other calendar
• Export to XML
• Budget and Finance
• Policies and Legislations
• Research and Technology Transfer
• Other Downloads

Partenerships

Emergency services.

• Student Affairs
• Student Activities
• Last 7 Days Visits: 273,398
• Last 30 Days Visits: 854,691
• Total Visits: 12,787,852

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

How to write a phd research proposal.

• What are the Benefits of Generative AI for Academic Writing?
• How to Avoid Plagiarism When Using Generative AI Tools
• What is Hedging in Academic Writing?  

How to Write Your Research Paper in APA Format

The future of academia: how ai tools are changing the way we do research, you may also like, dissertation printing and binding | types & comparison , what is a dissertation preface definition and examples , how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research proposal FINAL34

Related Papers

Asmara Seyoum

ABSTRACT Construction industry is an industry, which is involved in the planning execution and evaluation (monitorin g) of all types of civil works. Physical infrastructures such as buildings, communication & energy related construction works, water supply & sewerage civil works etc. are some of the major projects (program) in the construction industry. Construction industry plays an important role in social, economical & political development of a country. Construction is not only one of the major sectors of an economy but it is also the largest and accounts from 12% to 25% of the GNP of both developed & developing countries. It consumes the higher percentage of the annual budget of a country; specifically in our country Ethiopia, it covers 58% of the annual budget. However, the industry has been experiencing such problems as managing and minimizing wastage of construction n materials due to lack of effective management and planning. One of the very important sections that should specify in the construction project management is managing and minimizing wastage of construction materials at construction projects. The successf ul execution of construction projects within given cost, time and quality, good handling of construction materials on construction site requires systematic planning and controlling of the construction works. This explains also that the management of materials becomes the most pertinent source of construction waste. The type of materials produced to serve the industry range from raw goods such as sand, aggregates, soil and water to manufactured goods such as bricks, cement, plasterboard, metals (steel and iron), timber, concrete, cement, and plaster. Because of a high rate of consumption of these materials, waste is generated in large quantities, which can have significant impact on the environment. Now a day‟s in Ethiopia construction industries are booming due to implementing major infrastructure projects together with many public buildings, commercial building and housing development programmes. Therefore, this research were attempt to assess the current situation of managing and minimizing wastage of construction materials in the Addis Ababa on selected public building construction projects and formulate and give recommendations with respect to handling of construction materials in accordance with the outcome of the paper. The main tools for the collection of data included questionnaires, interviews and site visit were used to identify the various efforts that have been made in the past to evaluate and examine the causes and sources of construction materials waste on building construction project. Simple statistical analysis involving tables and percentages were used in analyze the results from the questionnaire. Secondary sources of data were obtained from relevant literature that covered research, publication on the subject matter. The findings of this research indicate that the level of contribution of the waste sources to the generation of waste saw differences between the perceptions of the respondents (Contractors, consultants and client). The results from analysis ranked from the first to fifth positio n by contractors, consultants and owners that the most significant factors causing construction waste on building construction projects are: - Site supervision factors, Materials handling and storage factors,Design and documentation factors, Site management and practices factors and Operations factors. The results of this study recommended that there is a need to establish a new construction waste department to develop waste management policies and develop the effective strategy to reduce construction waste. The study recommended the owners to take the waste management history of the contractors as a criterion in awarding contracts. The study recommended the consultants to give attention to avoid design and planning errors at the design and planning stages. The study also recommended the contractors to assign qualification staff and workforce in construction projects and to prepare waste management plan. Key words: - Benefits of Waste Minimization, Causes and sources of materials, Construction, Construction m aterials, Construction Materials Management, Waste managing & Waste minimizing.

Andualem Endris

Shimeles Kebede

haragewoin olansa

GETU BOGALE

The major modes of public transportation in the Addis Ababa are anbessa bus, minibus taxis, star alliance bus, higer minibus and salon taxi. In addition, public service bus, white minibuses and cross

Yibeltal Assefa

IRJET Journal

—In Ethiopia, number of roads are constructed from time to time. A number of road networks are increased over time. The historical data of completed road projects shows that no one of the projects were completed as planned and within the estimated cost. No considerable improvement had occurred over time. The objective of this study is to assess the existing system and to identify the factors that affect time and cost overrun in Addis Ababa road projects. This is done based on wide literature review. Findings of this journal will help clients, contractors, consultants and any other concerned bodies to consider and give priorities for better road construction performance in the future.

… JOURNAL OF HEALTH …

eshetu tesfa

Mekbib Negash

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Valentina Linares

seminew asrat

Honelign Endalew

abdeta leta

Tigist Mebere

Getaneh Hailu

Emebet Hailemichael

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 August 2024

Determinants of preeclampsia among women who gave birth at Hiwot Fana Comprehensive Specialized University Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia: a case–control study

• Tadesse Gure Eticha 1 ,
• Solomon Berhe 2 ,
• Alemayehu Deressa 3 ,
• Dawit Firdisa 3 &
• Abera Kenay Tura 4 , 5  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  18744 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Pre-eclampsia
• Public health

Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are the second leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity. It also results in high perinatal mortality and morbidity. Since eclampsia is preceded by preeclampsia and shows the progression of the disease, they share the same pathogenesis and determining factors. The purpose of this study was to determine determinants of preeclampsia, since it is essential for its prevention and/or its associated consequences. An unmatched case–control study was conducted from September 1–30, 2023 among women who gave birth from June 1, 2020, to August 31, 2023, at Hiwot Fana Comprehensive Specialized University Hospital. Women who had preeclampsia were considered cases, while those without were controls. The sample size was calculated using EPI Info version 7 for a case–control study using the following assumptions: 95% confidence interval, power of 80%, case-to-control ratio of 1:2, and 5% non-response rate were 305. Data was collected using Google Form, and analyzed using SPSS version 26. Variables that had a p -value of < 0.05 on multivariable logistic regression were considered statistically significant, and their association was explained using an odds ratio at a 95% confidence interval. A total of 300 women (100 cases and 200 controls) with a mean age of 24.4 years were included in the study. Rural residence (AOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.10–3.76), age less than 20 years (AOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.58–5.85), history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (AOR 5.52, 95% CI 1.76–17.33), and no antenatal care (AOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.19–4.75) were found to be the determinants of preeclampsia. We found that living in a rural areas, previous history of preeclampsia, no antenatal care, and < 20 years of age were significantly associated with preeclampsia. In addition to previous preeclampsia, younger and rural resident pregnant women should be given attention in preeclampsia screening and prevention.

Similar content being viewed by others

The effect of preeclampsia on adverse maternal outcomes in Sidama region, Ethiopia: a prospective open cohort study

Prevalence of preeclampsia and the associated risk factors among pregnant women in Bangladesh

Modeling clinical and non-clinical determinants of intrapartum stillbirths in singletons in six public hospitals in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana: a case–control study

Introduction.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) consist of gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, chronic hypertension, and superimposed preeclampsia on chronic hypertension 1 . Preeclampsia is a multisystem syndrome that develops during the second half of pregnancy and is characterized by a new onset of hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation, or in the absence of proteinuria, the finding of maternal organ dysfunction, which will disappear postnatally. Throughout the world, 2–7% of pregnant mothers develop preeclampsia and its complications 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Eclampsia refers to the occurrence of new-onset, generalized, tonic–clonic seizures or coma in a patient with preeclampsia after ruling out of other causes. It is the convulsive manifestation of preeclampsia and one of several clinical manifestations at the severe end of the preeclampsia spectrum. Since eclampsia is a spectrum of preeclampsia, they have similar pathogenesis and determinant factors 7 . Though the exact pathogenesis of preeclampsia is not yet explained well, there are different proposed theories. Among these, the first is abnormal placental development, in which early placental development characterized by the defective extravillous trophoblast invasion and defective spiral artery remodeling. This will result in decreased blood supply to the placenta, ischemia at the retro placental area, and the release of antiangiogenic factors like soluble fms like tyrosine kinase- 1(sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin. These soluble factors will lead to systemic vasospasm and hypertension. Other theories include systemic endothelial dysfunction, infection or inflammation, genetics, and an increased response to angiotensin II 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 .

Preeclampsia has been classified based on the gestational age by international Society for the study of hypertension in pregnancy (ISSHP) as early onset, preterm, late-onset and term preeclampsia 15 , 16 . American College of Obstetrician and gynecology classifies symptomatically as preeclampsia with and without severity features 17 . The severity features of the preeclampsia include: severe headache, blurring of vision, HELLP(Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzymes, and Low platelet count) syndrome, pulmonary edema, organ derangement, and the last spectrum is occurrence convulsion which will change the name to eclampsia 18 .

Preeclampsia/eclampsia is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity contributing 16–39% of all maternal deaths 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 .

Beyond its burden on maternal health, preeclampsia is also associated with reduced blood supply to the placenta with consequent impairment in fetal growth, oxygenation, and increased risk of stillbirth. Additionally, a high proportion of women with PE require premature delivery for maternal and/or fetal indications and therefore the neonates are subjected to the additional risks arising from prematurity 24 , 25 , 26 . Despite its high impact on maternal and perinatal health, especially in low resource settings like Ethiopia, research on determinants of preeclampsia is limited. This study was conducted to identify determinants of preeclampsia among women who gave birth in a university hospital in eastern Ethiopia.

Study area and period

The study was conducted at Hiwot Fana Comprehensive University Hospital (HFCUH), Harari Regional State, which is 511 km to the east of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. The hospital is an affiliate of Haramaya University, and it is the oldest and major referral center for the eastern part of the country, including the Harari region, East Hararghe zone, Somali region, and Dire Dawa administrative city. Annually, the number of deliveries in this hospital is more than 4500. This study was conducted from September 1 to 30, 2023.

Study design

Institutional-based unmatched case–control study was conducted.

Study population

All women who gave birth in HFCUH from June 1, 2020, to August 31, 2023, diagnosed with preeclampsia, including eclampsia constituted cases whereas those with no hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were controls.

Definition of cases

Any women diagnosed with preeclampsia or eclampsia by the attending clinician regardless of the severity features or organ derangement were considered as a case.

Selection of controls

For each case, two controls (one who gave birth before and one after the case on the same day without any hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) were selected.

Exclusion criteria

Women with incomplete medical records (if more than 25% of major independent variables are absent), or not clearly identified whether the woman has hypertensive disorders of pregnancy or not, was excluded for study.

Sample size determination

The sample size was calculated using EPI Info version 7 for a case–control study using the following assumptions: 95% confidence interval, power of 80%, case-to-control ratio of 1:2, and considering percentage of exposure from the previous study done in Bahir Dar (family history) 27 , the calculated sample size was 290 (97 cases and 193 controls) considering 5% non-response rate, the final sample size became 305 (102 cases, and 203 controls).

Sampling procedure

After identifying medical registration number (MRN) of all women with preeclampsia in the department during the study period was obtained from the delivery logbooks, operation register, admission and discharge registers, and the gynecology ward register, a sampling frame was prepared using their MRN. Then, a simple random sampling was applied to select cases using computer generated random table ( https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/randomN1/ ). For each case, two controls, one preceding and one proceeding controls who gave birth on the same date was identified and included into the study.

Data collection procedure

Data was collected (filled) on google form, from medical records using a pretested checklist by trained OBGYN residents. Data on sociodemographic, obstetrics, and medical characteristics as well as maternal and fetal outcome was collected by review of medical records. The checklist was adapted from similar studies and pre-tested on 5% of medical records from nearby hospital.

Operational definition

Preeclampsia is considered as a case in this study based on the records of Preeclampsia or eclampsia on patients MRN by the attending clinician.

Data quality control

To assure data quality, training was given for data collectors, how to collect, get the right information, and the entire content and scope of the checklist. The checklist was adapted from similar studies and pre-tested in 5% of the medical records from nearby hospital. Data collection was supervised and all completed checklists were checked by authors for accuracy, consistency, and completeness at the conclusion of each data collection day.

Data processing and analysis

All the responses from the google form were downloaded on excel sheet, which was cleaned and exported to SPSS version 26 for analysis. Mean and standard deviation were computed as descriptive statistics and presented using tables. Each potential factor related to the case and the control group was first be subjected to a bivariate analysis. Then, multivariable logistic regression was applied to variables with a p  < 0.25 after checking for multicollinearity. A backward likelihood ratio with a 0.1 probability of removal was used to develop the model. The adjusted odds ratio was estimated with 95% confidence interval (CI) to show the strength of association, and a p value of < 0.05 was used to declare statistical significance association. The goodness of fit of the final model was checked using the Hosmer Lemeshow test.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Health Research Ethics Review Committee (IHRERC) of Haramaya University College of Health and Medical sciences prior to data collection with reference number IHRERC/156/2023. Informed, voluntary, written and signed consent was obtained from the HFSUH administration and heads of the gynecology and obstetrics wards. Information gained from medical record charts and the individuals will be held anonymous and confidential.

Of the 305 records identified, 300 (98.4%) medical records were reviewed: 100 cases and 200 controls. The mean age of participants was 24.4 years (ranging from 16 to 48 years). Majority of the cases were less than 20 years (48%) old while 70 percent of the controls were between 20 and 34 years and more than half (57.3%) were rural residents (Table 1 ). From the cases, 64% were preeclampsia, while 36% were eclampsia.

Details of feto-maternal outcomes at birth and at discharge are indicated in Table 2 . Majority of the cases and controls had alive neonate at birth and discharge. Compared to cases, controls had high low birthweight, intrauterine fetal death, and fetal complications (Table 2 ).

Determinants of preeclampsia

In the bivariate analysis, as age, residence, history of HDP, gravidity, anemia in current pregnancy, ANC follow-up, and sex of the fetus were significantly associated with preeclampsia at p value < 0.25. However, only residence, history of preeclampsia, age, and antenatal care were remained significantly associated with preeclampsia at p  < 0.05 in the multiple logistic regression.

Accordingly, the odd of preeclampsia among women younger than 20 years were 3.04 times higher compared to those who are 20–35 years old (AOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.58–5.85), those who are living in rural areas were 2.04 times more likely to develop preeclampsia/eclampsia when compared to those who were from urban residents (AOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.10–3.76). Similarly, women who had a history of preeclampsia/eclampsia in the previous pregnancy were 5.52 times more likely to develop preeclampsia/eclampsia when compared to those who had no history of preeclampsia/eclampsia in the previous pregnancy (AOR 5.52, 95% CI 1.76–17.33). Moreover, those study participants who had no ANC follow-up were 2.38 times more likely to develop preeclampsia/eclampsia when compared to their counterparts (AOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.19–4.75) (Table 3 ).

This study was conducted at Hiwot Fana Comprehensive University Hospital, eastern Ethiopia to identify determinants of preeclampsia. According to this study, maternal age of < 20 years, rural residence, history of preeclampsia, and no ANC follow-up were found to be independently associated with preeclampsia.

Consistent with previous findings, preeclampsia was found to be more likely among young women (< 20 years) compared with those 20–34 years of age. A similar findings were reported in Washington 28 , Bahir Dar 29 , Colombia 30 , and Gedeo zone 31 . Different studies found that younger age is associated with de novo preeclampsia, while those older than 35 years are associated with superimposed preeclampsia in chronic hypertension 32 , 33 . Young women are exposed to trophoblast for the first time, which will be associated with abnormal placental development (failure of trophoblast invasion or failure of spiral artery remodeling) which leads to the release of antiangiogenic factors like soluble fms like tyrosine kinase-1, which further leads to systemic vasospasm and hypertension 12 , 34 .

We also found that rural residents were more likely to develop preeclampsia compared to those in urban residents. Similar findings have been reported in other hospitals in Ethiopia: Nekemt hospital 35 , Tigray Region 36 , and Chiro Hospital 37 . This might be explained by lack of ANC follow-up, poor health-seeking behavior, and not receiving timely preventive interventions, like aspirin, compared to urban areas 14 . As expected, we found that women with preeclampsia were more likely to have history of preeclampsia. Consistent findings were reported in studies conducted in Addis Ababa 38 , Hosanna 39 , Tigray 40 , sub-Saharan Africa 41 , 42 , the University of Tennessee (Memphis) 43 , 44 , Colombia 30 , and the Netherlands 45 . Despite the common notion that preeclampsia disappears postnatally, this reminds us of the importance of continued support for such women, including counseling about the future risk of recurrence and screening cardiovascular diseases postnatally and preconception for the next pregnancy 46 .

Similarly, women with preeclampsia were more likely to have no ANC compared to their counterparts. This study is consistent with previously reported studies in Bahirdar 27 , a systematic review in sub-Saharan Africa 42 . While ANC will not stop its causation or predict those at risk, it gives the opportunity to give protective prophylaxis (like aspirin) or identify maternal risk factors for timely management or counseling. This indicates that having ANC follow-up will decrease the risk since they receive counseling about nutrition, and those who are at risk of developing it will receive preventive interventions like aspirin.

Generally, similar to this study rural residence and not having ANC follow-up were significantly associated with the studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries, which directly imply the poor and non-equitable health care practice. This indicates that stakeholders in LMIC are expected to work in ensuring health equity. While having history of preeclampsia and younger age is similar with both high- and low-income countries. History of preeclampsia may be related with the same underlying predisposition condition like genetic factors while being young is associated with abnormal placental development and immunological response to the first exposure to trophoblast. For this reason, being younger than 20 years and previous history of preeclampsia is an alarming sign for screening and starting prevention.

Limitations

The limitation of this study is that, since it is a retrospective medical chart review, important variables were missing from the medical registration.

This study found that living in a rural residence, having a previous history of preeclampsia or eclampsia, not having ANC, and being less than 20 years old are significantly associated with preeclampsia and eclampsia. For this reason, in addition to the previous history of preeclampsia, attention should be given to screening and taking preventive action against preeclampsia in younger and more rural pregnant women.

Data availability

All the data generated or analyzed for this objective is included in this article, and non-person-identifying data can also be accessed from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Antenatal Care

Body Mass Index

Hypertensive disorder of pregnancy

Hiwot Fana Comprehensive Specialized University Hospital

Hypertension

Institutional Health Research Ethics Review Committee

Medical registration number

Obstetrics and Gynecology

• Preeclampsia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Urinary tract infection

Sutton, A. L. M., Harper, L. M. & Tita, A. T. N. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 45 , 333–347 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yang, Y. et al. Preeclampsia prevalence, risk factors, and pregnancy outcomes in Sweden and China. JAMA Netw. Open 4 , 1–14 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Robillard, P. Y., Dekker, G., Scioscia, M. & Saito, S. Progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of immunologic maladaptation related to early-onset preeclampsia and metabolic syndrome related to late-onset preeclampsia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 226 , S867–S875 (2022).

Yagel, S., Cohen, S. M. & Goldman-Wohl, D. An integrated model of preeclampsia: A multifaceted syndrome of the maternal cardiovascular-placental-fetal array. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 226 , S963–S972 (2022).

Tanner, M. S., Davey, M. A., Mol, B. W. & Rolnik, D. L. The evolution of the diagnostic criteria of preeclampsia-eclampsia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 226 , S835–S843 (2022).

Erez, O. et al. Preeclampsia and eclampsia: The conceptual evolution of a syndrome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 226 , S786–S803 (2022).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sibai, B. M. Diagnosis, prevention, and management of eclampsia. Obstet. Gynecol. 105 , 402–410 (2005).

Makris, A. et al. Uteroplacental ischemia results in proteinuric hypertension and elevated sFLT-1. Kidney Int. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5002175 (2007).

Redman, C. W. G. & Sargent, I. L. Systemic inflammatory. Response. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2004.07.005 (2004).

Wang, X., Athayde, N. & Trudinger, B. A proinflammatory cytokine response is present in the fetal placental vasculature in placental insufficiency. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00652-5 (2003).

Yinon, Y. et al. Severe intrauterine growth restriction pregnancies have increased placental endoglin levels. Placenta 172 , 77–85 (2008).

Google Scholar  

Article, R. Vascular biology of preeclampsia. J. Thromb. Haemostasis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03259.x (2009).

Maynard, S., Epstein, F. H. & Karumanchi, S. A. Preeclampsia and angiogenic imbalance. Annu. Rev. Med. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.59.110106.214058 (2008).

Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) & ICF. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Final Report . (2021).

Magee, L. A. et al. The 2021 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy classification, diagnosis & management recommendations for international practice. Pregnancy Hypertens. 27 , 148–169 (2022).

Poon, L. C. et al. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) initiative on pre-eclampsia: A pragmatic guide for first-trimester screening and prevention. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 145 , 1–33 (2019).

Espinoza, J., Vidaef, A., Pettker, C. M. & Simhan, H. M. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician – gynecologists. Obstet. Gynecol. 133 , 168–186 (2020).

Press, D. Severe preeclampsia and eclampsia : Incidence , complications , and perinatal outcomes at a low-resource setting , Mpilo Central Hospital ,. 353–357 (2017).

Troiano, N. H. & Witcher, P. M. Maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States: Classification, causes, preventability, and critical care obstetric implications. J. Perinat. Neonatal Nurs. 32 , 222–231 (2018).

Musarandega, R., Nyakura, M., Machekano, R., Pattinson, R. & Munjanja, S. P. Causes of maternal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of studies published from 2015 to 2020. J. Glob. Health 11 , 04048 (2021).

Joseph, K. S. et al. Maternal mortality in the United States: Recent trends, current status, and future considerations. Obstet. Gynecol. 137 , 763–771 (2021).

Thoma, M. E. & Declercq, E. R. All-cause maternal mortality in the US before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw. Open 5 , E2219133 (2022).

Bwana, V. M., Id, S. F. R., Mremi, I. R., Lyimo, E. P. & Mboera, L. E. G. Patterns and causes of hospital maternal mortality in. PLoS One 24 , 1–22 (2019).

Melese, M. F., Badi, M. B. & Aynalem, G. L. Perinatal outcomes of severe preeclampsia/eclampsia and associated factors among mothers admitted in Amhara Region referral hospitals, North West Ethiopia, 2018. BMC Res. Notes 12 , 1–6 (2019).

Meazaw, M. W., Chojenta, C., Taddele, T. & Loxton, D. Audit of clinical care for women with preeclampsia or eclampsia and perinatal outcome in Ethiopia: Second National EmONC Survey. Int. J. Womens. Health 14 , 297–310 (2022).

Irene, K. et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with eclampsia by mode of delivery at Riley mother baby hospital: A longitudinal case-series study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21 , 1–14 (2021).

Tesfa, E., Munshea, A., Nibret, E. & Gizaw, S. T. Determinants of pre-eclampsia among pregnant women attending antenatal care and delivery services at Bahir Dar public hospitals, northwest Ethiopia: A case-control study. Heal. Sci. Reports 6 , 1–11 (2023).

Lisonkova, S. & Joseph, K. S. Incidence of preeclampsia: Risk factors and outcomes associated with early- versus late-onset disease. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.019 (2013).

Endeshaw, M. et al. Obesity in young age is a risk factor for preeclampsia : A facility based case-control study, northwest Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1029-2 (2016).

Ayala-ramírez, P. et al. Heliyon Risk factors and fetal outcomes for preeclampsia in a Colombian cohort. Heliyon 6 , e05079 (2020).

Mareg, M., Molla, A., Dires, S., Mamo, Z. B. & Hagos, B. Determinants of preeclampsia among pregnant mothers attending antenatal care (ANC) and delivery service in Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Case control-study. Int. J. Womens. Health 12 , 567–575 (2020).

Jasovic, V. & Stoilova, S. Previous pregnancy history, parity, maternal age and risk of pregnancy induced hypertension. Bratisl Lek Listy 112 , 188–191 (2011).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sheen, J. et al. Maternal age and risk for adverse outcomes. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 219 (390), e1-390.e15 (2018).

Maynard, S. E. & Karumanchi, S. A. Angiogenic Factors. Preeclampsia. 31 , 33–46 (2011).

Hinkosa, L. BMC Pregnancy and childbirth risk factors associated with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in Nekemte referral Hospital, from July 2015 to June 2017, Ethiopia: Case control study" hypertensive disorders in pregnancy in Nekemte referral Hospital. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 9 , 1–9 (2017).

Kahsay, H. B., Gashe, F. E. & Ayele, W. M. Risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy among mothers in Tigray region, Ethiopia: Matched case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18 , 1–10 (2018).

Katore, F. H., Gurara, A. M. & Beyen, T. K. Determinants of preeclampsia among pregnant women in chiro referral hospital, oromia regional state, Ethiopia: Unmatched case– control study. Integr. Blood Press. Control 14 , 163–172 (2021).

Grum, T., Seifu, A., Abay, M., Angesom, T. & Tsegay, L. Determinants of pre-eclampsia/Eclampsia among women attending delivery Services in Selected Public Hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A case control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17 , 1–7 (2017).

Babore, G. O., Aregago, T. G., Ermolo, T. L., Nunemo, M. H. & Habebo, T. T. Determinants of pregnancy-induced hypertension on maternal and foetal outcomes in Hossana town administration, Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia: Unmatched case-control study. PLoS One 16 , 1–16 (2021).

Haile, T. G. et al. Determinants of preeclampsia among women attending delivery services in public hospitals of central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: A case-control study. J. Pregnancy 2021 , 4654828 (2021).

Tesfa, E. et al. Prevalence and determinants of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 15 , 1–21 (2020).

Meazaw, M. W., Chojenta, C., Muluneh, M. D. & Loxton, D. Systematic and meta-analysis of factors associated with preeclampsia and eclampsia in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS One 15 , 1–23 (2020).

Sibai, B. M., El-Nazer, A. & Gonzalez-Ruiz, A. Severe preeclampsia-eclampsia in young primigravid women: Subsequent pregnancy outcome and remote prognosis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 155 , 1011–1016 (1986).

van Rijn, B. B., Hoeks, L. B., Bots, M. L., Franx, A. & Bruinse, H. W. Outcomes of subsequent pregnancy after first pregnancy with early-onset preeclampsia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 195 , 723–728 (2006).

Gaugler-Senden, I. P. M., Berends, A. L., de Groot, C. J. M. & Steegers, E. A. P. Severe, very early onset preeclampsia: Subsequent pregnancies and future parental cardiovascular health. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 140 , 171–177 (2008).

Turbeville, H. R. & Sasser, J. M. Preeclampsia beyond pregnancy. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 11 , 315 (2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Haramaya University for funding this research.

This research was funded by Haramaya University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia

Tadesse Gure Eticha

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

Solomon Berhe

School of Public Health, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia

Alemayehu Deressa & Dawit Firdisa

School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia

Abera Kenay Tura

Department of International Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

T.G.E., S.B., and A.K.T.: Contributed in conceptualization and writing of proposal, methodology; ethical acquisition, supervision; data curation; formal analysis; writing the original draft; and review and editing. D.F., and A.D.: Data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing the original draft and final draft, and editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript and agreed for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tadesse Gure Eticha .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Eticha, T.G., Berhe, S., Deressa, A. et al. Determinants of preeclampsia among women who gave birth at Hiwot Fana Comprehensive Specialized University Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia: a case–control study. Sci Rep 14 , 18744 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69622-x

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2024

Accepted : 07 August 2024

Published : 13 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69622-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Determinants
• Case–control

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Office of Naval Research's Arctic Research Activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Year 7)

A Notice by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 08/14/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 30 days. (09/13/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Commerce Department for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Commerce Department has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at /documents/2024/08/14/2024-18130/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-the .

• What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

• Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
• Tell us about yourself! I am... *
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
• Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
• Organization Name *
• You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
• I read and understand the statement above.
• Preview Comment

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agencies Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Agency/Docket Number RTID 0648-XE173 Document Citation 89 FR 66068 Document Number 2024-18130 Document Type Notice Pages 66068-66091 (24 pages) Publication Date 08/14/2024 Published Content - Document Details
• View printed version (PDF)
• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Comments Close 09/13/2024 Dates Text Comments and information must be received no later than September 13, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information: ( print page 66069), national environmental policy act, summary of request, description of proposed activity, dates and duration, geographic region, detailed description of the specified activity, research vessels, glider surveys, moored and drifting acoustic sources, activities not likely to result in take, description of marine mammals in the area of specified activities, beluga whale, ringed seal, critical habitat, marine mammal hearing, potential effects of specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat, description of sound sources, acoustic impacts, estimated take of marine mammals, acoustic thresholds, level b harassment, level a harassment, quantitative modeling, non-impulsive acoustic analysis, marine mammal occurrence and take estimation, proposed mitigation, proposed monitoring and reporting, negligible impact analysis and determination, unmitigable adverse impact analysis and determination, peer review of the monitoring plan, endangered species act, proposed authorization, request for public comments.

Comments are being accepted - Submit a public comment on this document .

Additional information is not currently available for this document.

• Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18130 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
• Print this document

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/13/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 13 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

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-XE173]

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.

NMFS has received a request from the Office of Naval Research (ONR) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities (ARA) in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea. 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. The ONR's activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (2004 NDAA).

Comments and information must be received no later than September 13, 2024.

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 [email protected] . 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-military-readiness-activities . In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed below.

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/​permit/​incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. 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.

Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

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

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

The 2004 NDAA ( Pub. L. 108-136 ) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as applied to a “military readiness activity.” The activity for which incidental take of marine mammals is being requested qualifies as a military readiness activity.

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.

In 2018, the U.S. Navy prepared an Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) analyzing the project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the first year of this project, NMFS reviewed the 2018 EA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in support of the issuance of an IHA ( 83 FR 48799 , September 27, 2018).

In 2019, the Navy prepared a supplemental OEA. Prior to issuing the IHA in 2019, NMFS reviewed the supplemental OEA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued a NMFS FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA ( 84 FR 50007 , September 24, 2019).

In 2020, the Navy submitted a request for a renewal of the 2019 IHA. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application and determined that the proposed action was identical to that considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns had been identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the supplemental OEA and FONSI from 2019 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2020 ( 85 FR 41560 , July 10, 2020).

In 2021, the Navy submitted a request for an IHA for incidental take of marine mammals during continuation of ARA. NMFS reviewed the Navy's OEA and determined it to be sufficient for taking into consideration the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from continuation of the ARA. NMFS subsequently adopted that OEA and signed a FONSI ( 86 FR 54931 , October 5, 2021).

In 2022, the Navy submitted a request for an IHA for incidental take of marine mammals during continuation of ARA and prepared an OEA analyzing the project. Prior to issuing the IHA for the project, we reviewed the 2022-2025 OEA and the public comments received, determined that a separate NEPA analysis was not necessary, and subsequently adopted the document and issued our own FONSI in support of the issuance of an IHA ( 87 FR 57458 , September 20, 2022).

In 2023, the ONR requested a renewal of the 2022 IHA for ongoing ARA from September 2023 to September 2024, and the 2022 IHA monitoring report. Prior to issuing the renewal IHA, NMFS reviewed ONR's application and determined that the proposed action was identical to that considered in the previous IHA. Because no significantly new circumstances or information relevant to any environmental concerns were identified, NMFS determined that the preparation of a new or supplemental NEPA document was not necessary and relied on the supplemental OEA and FONSI from 2022 when issuing the renewal IHA in 2023 ( 88 FR 65657 , September 18, 2023).

Accordingly, NMFS preliminarily has determined to adopt the Navy's OEA for ONR ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas 2022-2025, provided our independent evaluation of the document finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing the IHA. NMFS is a not cooperating agency on the U.S. Navy's OEA.

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

On March 29, 2024, NMFS received a request from the ONR for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Following NMFS' review of the application, the ONR submitted a revised version on July 23, 2024. The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 5, 2024. The ONR's request is for take of beluga whales and ringed seals by Level B harassment only. Neither the ONR nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

This proposed IHA would cover the seventh year of a larger project for which ONR obtained prior IHAs and renewal IHAs ( 83 FR 48799 , September 27, 2018; 84 FR 50007 , September 24, 2019; 85 FR 53333 , August 28, 2020; 86 FR 54931 , October 5, 2021; 87 FR 57458 , September 20, 2022; 88 FR 65657 , September 18, 2023). ONR has complied with all the requirements ( e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHAs.

The ONR proposes to conduct scientific experiments in support of ARA using active acoustic sources within the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Project activities involve acoustic testing and a multi-frequency navigation system concept test using left-behind active acoustic sources. The proposed experiments involve the deployment of moored, drifting, and ice-tethered active acoustic sources from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq. Recovery of equipment may be from R/V Sikuliaq, ( print page 66070) U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) HEALY, or another vessel, and icebreaking may be required. Underwater sound from the active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking may result in Level B harassment of marine mammals.

The proposed action would occur from September 2024 through September 2025 and include up to two research cruises. Acoustic testing would take place during the cruises, with the first cruise beginning September 2, 2024, and a potential second cruise occurring in summer or fall 2025, which may include up to 8 days of icebreaking activities.

The proposed action would occur across the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, partially in the high seas north of Alaska, the Global Commons, and within a part of the Canadian EEZ (in which the appropriate permits would be obtained by the Navy) (figure 1). The proposed action would primarily occur in the Beaufort Sea but the analysis considers the drifting of active sources on buoys into the eastern portion of the Chukchi Sea. The closest point of the study area to the Alaska coast is 204 kilometers (km; 110 nautical miles (nm)). The proposed study area is approximately 639,267 square kilometers (km 2 ).

The ONR ARA Global Prediction Program supports two major projects: Stratified Ocean Dynamics of the Arctic (SODA) and Arctic Mobile Observing System (AMOS). The SODA and AMOS projects have been previously discussed in association with previously issued IHAs ( 83 FR 40234 , August 14, 2018; 84 FR 37240 , July 31, 2019). However, only activities relating to the AMOS project will occur during the period covered by this proposed action.

The proposed action constitutes the development of a modified system under the ONR AMOS involving very-low-, low-, and mid-frequency (VLF, LF, MF) transmissions (35 Hertz (Hz), 900 Hz, and 10 kilohertz (kHz), respectively). The AMOS project utilizes acoustic sources and receivers to provide a means of performing under-ice navigation for gliders and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). This would allow for the possibility of year-round scientific observations of the environment in the Arctic. As an environment that is particularly affected by climate change, year-round observations under a variety of ice conditions are required to study the ( print page 66072) effects of this changing environment for military readiness, as well as the implications of environmental change to humans and animals. VLF technology is important in extending the range of navigation systems and has the potential to allow for development and use of navigational systems that would not be heard by some marine mammal species and, therefore, would be less impactful overall.

Up to six moorings (four fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz, two fixed VLF sources transmitting at 35 Hz) and two drifting ice gateway buoys (IGBs) would be configured with active acoustic sources and would operate for a period of up to 1 year. Four gliders with passive acoustics would be used to support drifting IGBs. No UUV use is planned during the September 2024 research cruise; however, there is the potential for one UUV (without active acoustic sources) to be deployed and up to 8 days of icebreaking activities to occur on a potential research cruise in summer/fall 2025, which would require the use of a vessel with ice-breaking capabilities ( e.g., CGC HEALY).

During the research cruise, acoustic sources would be deployed from the vessel for intermittent testing of the system components, which would take place in the vicinity of the source locations (figure 1). During this testing, 35 Hz, 900 Hz, 10 kHz, and acoustic modems would be employed. The six fixed moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys.

Autonomous vehicles would be able to navigate by receiving acoustic signals from multiple locations and triangulating. This is needed for vehicles that are under ice and cannot communicate with satellites. Source transmits would be offset by 15 minutes from each other ( i.e., sources would not be transmitting at the same time). All navigation sources would be recovered. The purpose of the navigation sources is to orient UUVs and gliders in situations when they are under ice and cannot communicate with satellites.

The proposed action would utilize non-impulsive acoustic sources, although not all sources will cause take of marine mammals (tables 1, 2). Marine mammal takes would arise from the operation of non-impulsive active sources. Although not currently planned, icebreaking could occur as part of this proposed action if a research vessel needs to return to the study area before the end of the IHA period to ensure scientific objectives are met. In this case, icebreaking could result in Level B harassment.

Below are descriptions of the platforms and equipment that would be deployed at different times during the proposed activity.

The R/V Sikuliaq would perform the research cruise in September 2024 and conduct testing of acoustic sources during the cruise, as well as leave sources behind to operate as a year-round navigation system observation. The vessel to be used in a potential 2025 cruise is yet to be determined but the most probable option would be the CGC HEALY.

The R/V Sikuliaq has a maximum speed of approximately 12 knots (22.2 km per hour (km/hr)) with a cruising speed of 11 knots (20.4 km/hr). The R/V Sikuliaq is not an icebreaking ship but an ice strengthened ship. It would not be icebreaking and therefore acoustic signatures of icebreaking for the R/V Sikuliaq are not relevant. CGC HEALY travels at a maximum speed of 17 knots (31.5 km/hr) with a cruising speed of 12 knots (22.2 km/hr) and a maximum speed of 3 knots (5.6 km/hr) when traveling through 1.07 m (3.5 ft) of sea ice. While no icebreaking cruise on the CGC HEALY is scheduled during the IHA period, need may arise. Therefore, for the purposes of this IHA application, an icebreaking cruise is considered.

The R/V Sikuliaq, CGC HEALY, or any other vessel operating a research cruise associated with the Proposed Action may perform the following activities during their research cruises:

• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered passive sensors (oceanographic measurement devices, acoustic receivers);
• Deployment of moored and/or ice-tethered active acoustic sources to transmit acoustic signals;
• Deployment of UUVs;
• Deployment of drifting buoys, with or without acoustic sources; or,
• Recovery of equipment.

Glider surveys are proposed for the research cruise. All gliders would be recovered; some may be recovered during the cruise, but the remainder would be recovered at a later date. Up to four gliders would be deployed during the research cruise as part of on-ice operations (one to two gliders would be associated with each on-ice station).

Long-endurance, autonomous sea gliders are intended for use in extended missions in ice-covered waters. Gliders are buoyancy-driven, equipped with satellite modems providing two-way communication, and are capable of transiting to depths of up to 1,000 m (3,280 ft). Gliders would collect data in the area of the shallow water sources and moored sources, moving at a speed of 0.25 meters per second (m/s; 23 kilometers per day (km/day)). A combination of recent advances in sea glider technology would provide full-year endurance. When operating in ice-covered waters, gliders navigate by trilateration (the process of determining location by measurement of distances, using the geometry of circles, spheres or triangles) from moored acoustic sound sources (or dead reckoning should navigation signals be unavailable); they do not contain any active acoustic sources. Hibernating gliders would continue to track their position, waking to reposition should they drift too far from their target region. Gliders would measure temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, rates of dissipation of temperature variance (and vertical turbulent diffusivity), and multi-spectral down welling irradiance.

During the September 2024 cruise, active acoustic sources would be lowered from the cruise vessel while stationary, deployed on gliders and UUVs, or deployed on fixed AMOS and VLF moorings for intermittent testing of the system components. The testing would take place in the vicinity of the source locations in figure 1. During this testing, 35 Hz, 900 Hz, 10 kHz, and acoustic modems would be employed. No UUV use is planned during the September 2024 research cruise but UUV use may be included in future test plans covered by this IHA.

Up to four fixed acoustic navigation sources transmitting at 900 Hz would remain in place for a year. These moorings would be anchored on the seabed and held in the water column with subsurface buoys. All sources would be deployed by shipboard winches, which would lower sources and receivers in a controlled manner. Anchors would be steel “wagon wheels” typically used for this type of deployment. Two VLF sources transmitting at 35 Hz would be deployed in a similar manner. Two drifting IGBs would also be configured with active acoustic sources. ( print page 66073)

The following activities have been determined to be unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. These activities are described here but they are not discussed further in this notice.

De minimis Sources—The ONR characterizes de minimis sources as those with the following parameters: low source levels (SLs), narrow beams, downward directed transmission, short pulse lengths, frequencies outside known marine mammal hearing ranges, or some combination of these factors (Navy, 2013). NMFS concurs with the ONR's determination that the sources they have identified here as de minimis are unlikely to result in take of marine mammals. The following are some of the planned de minimis sources which would be used during the proposed action: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) micromodem, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), ice profilers, and additional sources below 160 decibels referenced to 1 microPascal (dB re 1 μPa) used during towing operations. ADCPs may be used on moorings. Ice-profilers measure ice properties and roughness. The ADCPs and ice-profilers would all be above 200 kHz and therefore out of marine mammal hearing ranges, with the exception of the 75 kHz ADCP which has the characteristics and de minimis justification listed in table 2. They may be employed on moorings or UUVs.

A WHOI micromodem will also be employed during the leave behind period. In contrast with the WHOI micromodem usage described in table 1, which covers the use of the micromodem during research cruises, the use of the source during the leave behind period differs in nature. During this period, it is being used for very intermittent communication with vehicles to communicate vehicle status for safety of navigation purposes, and is treated as de minimis while employed in this manner.

Drifting Oceanographic Sensors—Observations of ocean-ice interactions require the use of sensors that are moored and embedded in the ice. For the proposed action, it will not be required to break ice to do this, as deployments can be performed in areas of low ice-coverage or free floating ice. Sensors are deployed within a few dozen meters of each other on the same ice floe. Three types of sensors would be used: autonomous ocean flux buoys, Integrated Autonomous Drifters, and ice-tethered profilers. The autonomous ocean flux buoys measure oceanographic properties just below the ocean-ice interface. The autonomous ocean flux buoys would have ADCPs and temperature chains attached, to measure temperature, salinity, and other ocean parameters the top 6 m (20 ft) of the water column. Integrated Autonomous Drifters would have a long temperate string extending down to 200 m (656 ft) depth and would incorporate meteorological sensors, and a temperature spring to estimate ice thickness. The ice-tethered profilers would collect information on ocean temperature, salinity, and velocity down to 250 m (820 ft) depth.

Up to 20 Argo-type autonomous profiling floats may be deployed in the central Beaufort Sea. Argo float drift at 1,500 m (4,921 ft) depth, profiling from 2,000 m (6,562 ft) to the sea surface once every 10 days to collect profiles of ( print page 66074) temperature and salinity. Moored Oceanographic Sensors—Moored sensors would capture a range of ice, ocean, and atmospheric conditions on a year-round basis. These would be bottom anchored, sub-surface moorings measuring velocity, temperature, and salinity in the upper 500 m (1,640 ft) of the water column. The moorings also collect high-resolution acoustic measurements of the ice using the ice profilers described above. Ice velocity and surface waves would be measured by 500 kHz multibeam sonars from Nortek Signatures. The moored oceanographic sensors described above use only de minimis sources and are therefore not anticipated to have the potential for impacts on marine mammals or their habitat. On-ice Measurements—On-ice measurement systems would be used to collect weather data. These would include an Autonomous Weather Station and an Ice Mass Balance Buoy. The Autonomous Weather Station would be deployed on a tripod; the tripod has insulated foot platforms that are frozen into the ice. The system would consist of an anemometer, humidity sensor, and pressure sensor. The Autonomous Weather Station also includes an altimeter that is de minimis due to its very high frequency (200 kHz). The Ice Mass Balance Buoy is a 6 m (20 ft) sensor string, which is deployed through a 5 centimeter (cm; 2 inch (in)) hole drilled into the ice. The string is weighted by a 1 kilogram (kg; 2.2 pound (lb)) lead weight and is supported by a tripod. The buoy contains a de minimis 200 kHz altimeter and snow depth sensor. Autonomous Weather Stations and Ice Mass Balance Buoys will be deployed and will drift with the ice, making measurements until their host ice floes melt, thus destroying the instruments (likely in summer, roughly 1 year after deployment). After the on-ice instruments are destroyed they cannot be recovered and would sink to the seafloor as their host ice floes melted.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​national/​marine-mammal-protection/​marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/​find-species ).

Table 3 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. Alaska SARs (Young et al., 2023). All values presented in table 3 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 .

As indicated above, both species (with three managed stocks) in table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. While bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ), gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ), bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), spotted seals ( Phoca largha ), and ribbon seals ( Histriophoca fasciata ) have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these ( print page 66075) species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided below.

Due to the location of the study area ( i.e., northern offshore, deep water), there were no calculated exposures for the bowhead whale, gray whale, bearded seal, spotted seal, and ribbon seal from quantitative modeling of acoustic sources. Bowhead and gray whales are closely associated with the shallow waters of the continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea and are unlikely to be exposed to acoustic harassment from this activity (Young et al., 2023). Gray whales feed primarily in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Northwestern Bering Sea during the summer and fall, but migrate south to winter in Baja California lagoons (Young et al., 2023). Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders (Swartz et al., 2006) in water depths of less than 60 m (196.9 ft) (Pike, 1962). Therefore, on the rare occasion that a gray whale does overwinter in the Beaufort Sea (Stafford et al., 2007), we would expect an overwintering individual to remain in shallow water over the continental shelf where it could feed. Spotted seals tend to prefer pack ice areas with water depths less than 200 m (656.2 ft) during the spring and move to coastal habitats in the summer and fall, found as far north as 69-72 degrees N (Muto et al., 2021). Although the study area includes some waters south of 72 degrees N, the acoustic sources with the potential to result in take of marine mammals are not found below that latitude and spotted seals are not expected to be exposed. Ribbon seals are found year-round in the Bering Sea but may seasonally range into the Chukchi Sea (Muto et al., 2021). The proposed action occurs primarily in the Beaufort Sea, outside of the core range of ribbon seals, thus ribbon seals are not expected to be behaviorally harassed. Narwhals ( Monodon monoceros ) are considered extralimital in the project area and are not expected to be encountered. As no harassment is expected of the bowhead whale, gray whale, spotted seal, bearded seal, ribbon seal, and narwhal, these species will not be discussed further in this proposed notice.

The ONR utilized Conn et al. (2014) in their IHA application as an abundance estimate for ringed seals, which is based upon aerial abundance and distribution surveys conducted in the U.S. portion Bering Sea in 2012 (171,418 ringed seals) (Muto et al., 2021). This value is likely an underestimate due to the lack of accounting for availability bias for seals that were in the water at the time of the surveys as well as not including seals located within the shore-fast ice zone (Muto et al., 2021). Muto et al. (2021) notes that an accurate population estimate is likely larger by a factor of two or more. However, no accepted population estimate is present for Arctic ringed seals. Therefore, NMFS will also adopt the Conn et al. (2014) abundance estimate (171,418) for further analyses and discussions on this proposed action by ONR.

In addition, the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) and Pacific walrus ( Odobenus rosmarus ) may be found both on sea ice and/or in the water within the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. These species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rather than NMFS and, therefore, they are not considered further in this document.

Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere (Gurevich, 1980), and are closely associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions (Hazard, 1988). Belugas may be either migratory or residential (non-migratory), depending on the population. Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access to prey, temperature, and human interaction (Frost et al., 1985; Hauser et al., 2014).

There are five beluga whale stocks recognized within U.S. waters: Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea. Two stocks, the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea stocks, have the potential to occur in the location of this proposed action.

Migratory Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for belugas in the eastern Chukchi and Alaskan Beaufort Sea overlap the southern and western portion of the Study Area (Clarke et al., 2023). A migration corridor for both stocks of beluga whale includes the eastern Chukchi Sea through the Beaufort Sea, with the Beaufort Sea stock utilizing the migratory BIA in April-May and the Eastern Chukchi Sea stock utilizing portions of the area in November. There are also feeding BIAs for both stocks throughout the Arctic region (Clarke et al., 2023). During the winter, they can be found foraging in offshore waters associated with pack ice. When the sea ice melts in summer, they move to warmer river estuaries and coastal areas for molting and calving (Muto et al., 2021). Annual migrations can span over thousands of kilometers. The residential Beaufort Sea populations participate in short distance movements within their range throughout the year. Based on satellite tags (Suydam et al., 2001; Hauser et al., 2014), there is some overlap in distribution with the eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock.

During the winter, eastern Chukchi Sea belugas occur in offshore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring, they migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers where they may molt (Finley, 1982; Suydam, 2009), give birth to, and care for their calves (Sergeant and Brodie, 1969). Eastern Chukchi Sea belugas move into coastal areas, including Kasegaluk Lagoon (outside of the proposed project site), in late June and animals are sighted in the area until about mid-July (Frost and Lowry, 1990; Frost et al., 1993). Satellite tags attached to eastern Chukchi Sea belugas captured in Kasegaluk Lagoon during the summer showed these whales traveled 1,100 km (593 nm) north of the Alaska coastline, into the Canadian Beaufort Sea within three months (Suydam et al., 2001). Satellite telemetry data from 23 whales tagged during 1998-2007 suggest variation in movement patterns for different age and/or sex classes during July-September (Suydam et al., 2005). Adult males used deeper waters and remained there for the duration of the summer; all belugas that moved into the Arctic Ocean (north of 75 degrees N) were males, and males traveled through 90 percent pack ice cover to reach deeper waters in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Ocean (79-80 degrees N) by late July/early August. Adult and immature female belugas remained at or near the shelf break in the south through the eastern Bering Strait into the northern Bering Sea, remaining north of Saint Lawrence Island over the winter.

Ringed seals are the most common pinniped in the Study Area and have wide distribution in seasonally and permanently ice-covered waters of the Northern Hemisphere (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 2004). Throughout their range, ringed seals have an affinity for ice-covered waters and are well adapted to occupying both shore-fast and pack ice (Kelly, 1988). Ringed seals can be found further offshore than other pinnipeds since they can maintain breathing holes in ice thickness greater than 2 m (6.6 ft) (Smith and Stirling, 1975). The breathing holes are maintained by ringed seals using their sharp teeth and claws found on their fore flippers. They remain in contact with ice most of the year and use it as a platform for molting in late spring to early summer, for pupping and nursing in late winter to ( print page 66076) early spring, and for resting at other times of the year (Muto et al., 2018).

Ringed seals have at least two distinct types of subnivean lairs: Haulout lairs and birthing lairs (Smith and Stirling, 1975). Haul-out lairs are typically single-chambered and offer protection from predators and cold weather. Birthing lairs are larger, multi-chambered areas that are used for pupping in addition to protection from predators. Ringed seals pup on both shore-fast ice as well as stable pack ice. Lentfer (1972) found that ringed seals north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, build their subnivean lairs on the pack ice near pressure ridges. Since subnivean lairs were found north of Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in pack ice, they are also assumed to be found within the sea ice in the proposed project site. Ringed seals excavate subnivean lairs in drifts over their breathing holes in the ice, in which they rest, give birth, and nurse their pups for 5-9 weeks during late winter and spring (Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). Ringed seals are born beginning in March but the majority of births occur in early April. About a month after parturition, mating begins in late April and early May.

In Alaskan waters, during winter and early spring when sea ice is at its maximum extent, ringed seals are abundant in the northern Bering Sea, Norton and Kotzebue Sounds, and throughout the Chukchi and Beaufort seas (Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988). Passive acoustic monitoring of ringed seals from a high frequency recording package deployed at a depth of 240 m (787 ft) in the Chukchi Sea 120 km (65 nm) north-northwest of Utqiaġvik, Alaska detected ringed seals in the area between mid-December and late May over the 4 year study (Jones et al., 2014). In addition, ringed seals have been observed near and beyond the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ (Beland and Ireland, 2010). During the spring and early summer, ringed seals may migrate north as the ice edge recedes and spend their summers in the open water period of the northern Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (Frost, 1985). Foraging-type movements have been recorded over the continental shelf and north of the continental shelf waters (Von Duyke et al., 2020). During this time, sub-adult ringed seals may also occur in the Arctic Ocean Basin (Hamilton et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2017).

With the onset of fall freeze, ringed seal movements become increasingly restricted and seals will either move west and south with the advancing ice pack with many seals dispersing throughout the Chukchi and Bering Seas, or remaining in the Beaufort Sea (Crawford et al., 2012; Frost and Lowry, 1984; Harwood et al., 2012). Kelly et al. (2010a) tracked home ranges for ringed seals in the subnivean period (using shore-fast ice); the size of the home ranges varied from less than 1 up to 279 km 2 (median = 0.62 km 2 for adult males, 0.65 km 2 for adult females). Most (94 percent) of the home ranges were less than 3 km 2 during the subnivean period (Kelly et al., 2010a). Near large polynyas, ringed seals maintain ranges, up to 7,000 km 2 during winter and 2,100 km 2 during spring (Born et al., 2004). Some adult ringed seals return to the same small home ranges they occupied during the previous winter (Kelly et al., 2010a). The size of winter home ranges can vary by up to a factor of 10 depending on the amount of fast ice; seal movements were more restricted during winters with extensive fast ice, and were much less restricted where fast ice did not form at high levels (Harwood et al., 2015).

Of the five recognized subspecies of ringed seals, the Arctic ringed seal occurs in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the only stock that occurs in U.S. waters. NMFS listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies as threatened under the ESA on December 28, 2012 ( 77 FR 76706 ), primarily due to anticipated loss of sea ice through the end of the 21st century. Climate change presents a major concern for the conservation of ringed seals due to the potential for long-term habitat loss and modification (Muto et al., 2021). Based upon an analysis of various life history features and the rapid changes that may occur in ringed seal habitat, ringed seals are expected to be highly sensitive to climate change (Laidre et al., 2008; Kelly et al., 2010b).

Critical habitat for the ringed seal was designated in May 2022 and includes marine waters within one specific area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas ( 87 FR 19232 , April 1, 2022). Essential features established by NMFS for conservation of ringed seals are (1) snow-covered sea ice habitat suitable for the formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering pups during whelping and nursing, which is defined as waters 3 m (9.8 ft) or more in depth (relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)) containing areas of seasonal land-fast (shore-fast) ice or dense, stable pack ice, that have undergone deformation and contain snowdrifts of sufficient depth to form and maintain birth lairs (typically at least 54 cm (21.3 in) deep); (2) sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting, which is defined as areas containing sea ice of 15 percent or more concentration in waters 3 m (9.8 ft) or more in depth (relative to MLLW); and (3) primary prey resources to support Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to be small, often schooling, fishes, in particular Arctic cod ( Boreogadus saida ), saffron cod ( Eleginus gracilis ), and rainbow smelt ( Osmerus dentex ); and small crustaceans, in particular, shrimps and amphipods.

The Study Area does not overlap with ringed seal critical habitat ( 87 FR 19232 , April 1, 2022). However, as stated in NMFS' final rule for the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arctic Subspecies of the Ringed Seal ( 87 FR 19232 , April 1, 2022), the area excluded from the critical habitat contains one or more of the essential features of the Arctic ringed seal's critical habitat, therefore, even though this area is excluded from critical habitat designation, habitat with the physical and biological features essential for ringed seal conservation is still available to the species, although data are limited to inform NMFS' assessment of the relative value of this area to the conservation of the species. As described later and in more detail in the Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat section, we expect minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat as a result of the ONR's ARA, including impacts to ringed seal sea ice habitat suitable as a platform for basking and molting and impacts on prey availability.

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) and Southall et al. (2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low- ( print page 66077) 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 4.

Table 4—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, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, & ) 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 ( all species within the group), where individual species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on approximately 65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall 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 et al., 2013). This division between phocid and otariid pinnipeds is now reflected in the updated hearing groups proposed in Southall et al. (2019).

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

This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

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

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

Active acoustic sources and icebreaking, if necessary, are proposed for use in the Study Area. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds ( e.g., ice explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) are typically transient, brief (less than 1 second), broadband, and consist of high peak sound pressure with rapid rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). Non-impulsive sounds ( e.g., aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, pile cutting, diamond wire sawing, and active sonar systems) can be broadband, narrowband, or tonal, brief or prolonged (continuous or intermittent), and typically do not have the high peak sound pressure with raid rise/decay time that impulsive sounds do (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998; NMFS, 2018). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing ( e.g., Ward, 1997; Southall et al., 2007).

The likely or possible impacts of the ONR's proposed action on marine mammals involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of vessels, equipment, and personnel ( e.g., icebreaking impacts, vessel and in-water vehicle strike, and bottom disturbance); however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature ( e.g., non-impulsive acoustic sources, noise from icebreaking vessel (“icebreaking noise”), and vessel noise).

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from active acoustic sources and noise from icebreaking is the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the ONR's specified activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience behavioral, physiological, and/or physical effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007). In general, exposure to pile driving noise has the potential to result in behavioral reactions ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior) and, in limited cases, an auditory threshold shift (TS). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can also lead to non-observable physiological responses such an increase in stress hormones. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used by marine mammals to carry out daily functions such as communication and predator and prey detection. The effects ( print page 66078) of pile driving noise on marine mammals are dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive versus non-impulsive), the species, age and sex class ( e.g., adult male versus mother with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the pile and the animal, received levels, behavior at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). Here we discuss physical auditory effects ( i.e., TS) followed by behavioral effects and potential impacts on habitat.

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

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

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

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

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

The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a; Kastelein et al., 2019b; Kastelein et al., 2020a; Kastelein et al., 2020b). Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014; Kastelein et al., 2015). This means that TTS predictions based on the total SEL cum will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga whale, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )) when a relatively loud sound was preceded by a warning ( print page 66079) sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that might allow for conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures and placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 2018). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

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

Activities for this project include active acoustics, equipment deployment and recovery, and, potentially, icebreaking. For the proposed action, 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 Study Area and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.

Behavioral Harassment—Exposure to noise from pile driving and drilling also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response—in other words, not every response qualifies as behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of a higher level, or accrued across a longer duration, have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses may include changing durations of surfacing and dives, changing direction and/or speed; reducing/increasing vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); eliciting a visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fin slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. (2016) for reviews of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

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

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

Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive ( e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a; Goldbogen et al., 2013b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions ( print page 66080) in biologically significant activities ( e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behavioral Responses to Icebreaking Noise—Ringed seals on pack ice showed various behaviors when approached by an icebreaking vessel. A majority of seals dove underwater when the ship was within 0.93 km (0.5 nm) while others remained on the ice. However, as icebreaking vessels came closer to the seals, most dove underwater. Ringed seals have also been observed foraging in the wake of an icebreaking vessel (Richardson et al., 1995) and may have preferentially established breathing holes in the ship tracks after the ice-breaker moved through the area. Previous observations and studies using icebreaking ships provide a greater understanding in how seal behavior may be affected by a vessel transiting through the area.

Adult ringed seals spend up to 20 percent of the time in subnivean lairs during the winter season (Kelly et al., ( print page 66081) 2010a). Ringed seal pups spend about 50 percent of their time in the lair during the nursing period (Lydersen and Hammill, 1993). During the warm season ringed seals haul out on the ice. In a study of ringed seal haul out activity by Born et al. (2002), ringed seals spent 25-57 percent of their time hauled out in June, which is during their molting season. Ringed seal lairs are typically used by individual seals (haulout lairs) or by a mother with a pup (birthing lairs); large lairs used by many seals for hauling out are rare (Smith and Stirling, 1975). If the non-impulsive acoustic transmissions are heard and are perceived as a threat, ringed seals within subnivean lairs could react to the sound in a similar fashion to their reaction to other threats, such as polar bears (their primary predators), although the type of sound would be novel to them. Responses of ringed seals to a variety of human-induced sounds ( e.g., helicopter noise, snowmobiles, dogs, people, and seismic activity) have been variable; some seals entered the water and some seals remained in the lair. However, in all instances in which observed seals departed lairs in response to noise disturbance, they subsequently reoccupied the lair (Kelly et al., 1988).

Ringed seal mothers have a strong bond with their pups and may physically move their pups from the birth lair to an alternate lair to avoid predation, sometimes risking their lives to defend their pups from potential predators. If a ringed seal mother perceives the proposed acoustic sources as a threat, the network of multiple birth and haulout lairs allows the mother and pup to move to a new lair (Smith and Stirling, 1975; Smith and Hammill, 1981). The acoustic sources from this proposed action are not likely to impede a ringed seal from finding a breathing hole or lair, as captive seals have been found to primarily use vision to locate breathing holes and no effect to ringed seal vision would occur from the acoustic disturbance (Elsner et al., 1989; Wartzok et al., 1992). It is anticipated that a ringed seal would be able to relocate to a different breathing hole relatively easily without impacting their normal behavior patterns.

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

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

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

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

Auditory Masking—Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises such as from human sources interfere with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al., 2016). Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013).

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect ( print page 66082) (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).

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

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

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. Energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, and sound from pile driving would be within the audible range of pinnipeds and cetaceans present in the proposed action area. While icebreaking during the ONR's proposed action may mask some acoustic signals that are relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration (up to 8 days) and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be impacted.

Potential Effects on Prey—The marine mammal species in the Study Area feed on marine invertebrates and fish. Studies of sound energy effects on invertebrates are few, and primarily identify behavioral responses. It is expected that most marine invertebrates would not sense the frequencies of the acoustic transmissions from the acoustic sources associated with the proposed action. Although acoustic sources used during the proposed action may briefly impact individuals, intermittent exposures to non-impulsive acoustic sources are not expected to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of widespread marine invertebrate populations.

The fish species residing in the study area include those that are closely associated with the deep ocean habitat of the Beaufort Sea. Nearly 250 marine fish species have been described in the Arctic, excluding the larger parts of the sub-Arctic Bering, Barents, and Norwegian Seas (Mecklenburg et al., 2011). However, only about 30 are known to occur in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea (Christiansen and Reist, 2013). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 32,000 named fish species, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 100 Hz, with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper, 2008). It is believed that most fish have the best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003). Fish species in the study area are expected to hear the low-frequency sources associated with the proposed action, but most are not expected to detect sound from the mid-frequency sources. Human generated sound could alter the behavior of a fish in a manner than would affect its way of living, such as where it tries to locate food or how well it could find a mate. Behavioral responses to loud noise could include a startle response, such as the fish swimming away from the source, the fish “freezing” and staying in place, or scattering (Popper, 2003). Misund (1997) found that fish ahead of a ship showed avoidance reactions at ranges of 49-149 m (160-489 ft). Avoidance behavior of vessels, vertically or horizontally in the water column, has been reported for cod and herring, and was attributed to vessel noise. While acoustic sources associated with the proposed action may influence the behavior of some fish species, other fish species may be equally unresponsive. Overall effects to fish from the proposed action would be localized, temporary, and infrequent.

Effects to Physical and Foraging Habitat—Ringed seals haul out on pack ice during the spring and summer to molt (Reeves et al., 2002; Born et al., 2002). Additionally, some studies suggested that ringed seals might preferentially establish breathing holes in ship tracks after vessels move through the area (Alliston, 1980; Alliston, 1981). The amount of ice habitat disturbed by activities is small relative to the amount of overall habitat available and there will be no permanent or longer-term loss or modification of physical ice habitat used by ringed seals. Vessel movement would have minimal effect on physical beluga habitat as beluga habitat is solely within the water column. Furthermore, the deployed sources that would remain in use after the vessels have left the survey area have low duty cycles and lower source levels, and any impacts to the acoustic habitat of marine mammals would be minimal.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determinations and impacts on subsistence uses.

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where the behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of direct behavioral disturbances and/or TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to active acoustic transmissions and icebreaking. 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 ( print page 66083) above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimates.

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed identifying the received level of in-air sound above which exposed pinnipeds would likely be behaviorally harassed.

Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2021; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB 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 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.

In this case, NMFS is proposing to adopt the ONR's approach to estimating incidental take by Level B harassment from the active acoustic sources for this action, which includes use of dose response functions. The ONR's dose response functions were developed to estimate take from sonar and similar transducers, but are not applicable to icebreaking. Multi-year research efforts have conducted sonar exposure studies for odontocetes and mysticetes (Miller et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012). Several studies with captive animals have provided data under controlled circumstances for odontocetes and pinnipeds (Houser et al., 2013b; Houser et al., 2013a). Moretti et al. (2014) published a beaked whale dose-response curve based on passive acoustic monitoring of beaked whales during U.S. Navy training activity at Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center during actual Anti-Submarine Warfare exercises. This information necessitated the update of the behavioral response criteria for the U.S. Navy's environmental analyses.

Southall et al. (2007), and more recently (Southall et al., 2019), synthesized data from many past behavioral studies and observations to determine the likelihood of behavioral reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the sound source the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear that the proximity of a sound source and the animal's experience, motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the response (Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019). After examining all of the available data, the authors felt that the derivation of thresholds for behavioral response based solely on exposure level was not supported because context of the animal at the time of sound exposure was an important factor in estimating response. Nonetheless, in some conditions, consistent avoidance reactions were noted at higher sound levels depending on the marine mammal species or group allowing conclusions to be drawn. Phocid seals showed avoidance reactions at or below 190 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m; thus, seals may actually receive levels adequate to produce TTS before avoiding the source.

Odontocete behavioral criteria for non-impulsive sources were updated based on controlled exposure studies for dolphins and sea mammals, sonar, and safety (3S) studies where odontocete behavioral responses were reported after exposure to sonar (Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2012; Antunes et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2013b). For the 3S study, the sonar outputs included 1-2 kHz up- and down-sweeps and 6-7 kHz up-sweeps; source levels were ramped up from 152-158 dB re 1 μPa to a maximum of 198-214 re 1 μPa at 1 m. Sonar signals were ramped up over several pings while the vessel approached the mammals. The study did include some control passes of ships with the sonar off to discern the behavioral responses of the mammals to vessel presence alone versus active sonar.

The controlled exposure studies included exposing the Navy's trained bottlenose dolphins to mid-frequency sonar while they were in a pen. Mid-frequency sonar was played at six different exposure levels from 125-185 dB re 1 μPa (RMS). The behavioral response function for odontocetes resulting from the studies described above has a 50 percent probability of response at 157 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (20 km for MF cetaceans) were applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses is considered to be unlikely.

The pinniped behavioral threshold was updated based on controlled exposure experiments on the following captive animals: hooded seal ( Cystophora cristata ), gray seal ( Halichoerus grypus ), and California sea lion (Götz et al., 2010; Houser et al., 2013a; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Hooded seals were exposed to increasing levels of sonar until an avoidance response was observed, while the grey seals were exposed first to a single received level multiple times, then an increasing received level. Each individual California sea lion was exposed to the same received level ten times. These exposure sessions were combined into a single response value, with an overall response assumed if an animal responded in any single session. The resulting behavioral response function for pinnipeds has a 50 percent probability of response at 166 dB re 1 ( print page 66084) μPa. Additionally, distance cutoffs (10 km for pinnipeds) were applied to exclude exposures beyond which the potential of significant behavioral responses is considered unlikely. For additional information regarding marine mammal thresholds for PTS and TTS onset, please see NMFS (2018) and table 6.

Empirical evidence has not shown responses to non-impulsive acoustic sources that would constitute take beyond a few km from a non-impulsive acoustic source, which is why NMFS and the Navy conservatively set distance cutoffs for pinnipeds and mid-frequency cetaceans (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a). The cutoff distances for fixed sources are different from those for moving sources, as they are treated as individual sources in ONR's modeling given that the distance between them is significantly greater than the range to which environmental effects can occur. Fixed source cutoff distances used were 5 km (2.7 nm) for pinnipeds and 10 km (5.4 nm) for beluga whales (table 5). As some of the on-site drifting sources could come closer together, the drifting source cutoffs applied were 10 km (5.4 nm) for pinnipeds and 20 km (10.8 nm) for beluga whales (table 5). Regardless of the received level at that distance, take is not estimated to occur beyond these cutoff distances. Range to thresholds were calculated for the noise associated with icebreaking in the study area. These all fall within the same cutoff distances as non-impulsive acoustic sources; range to behavioral threshold for both beluga whales and ringed seal were under 5 km (2.7 nm), and range to TTS threshold for both under 15 m (49.2 ft) (table 5).

Table 5—Cutoff Distances and Acoustic Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Behavioral Disturbance, TTS, and PTS for Non-Impulsive Sound Sources

Hearing group	Species	Fixed source behavioral threshold cutoff distance	Drifting source behavioral threshold cutoff distance	Behavioral criteria: Non-impulsive acoustic sources	Icebreaking source behavioral threshold cutoff distance	Behavioral criteria: icebreaking sources	Physiological criteria: onset TTS	Physiological criteria: onset PTS
Mid-frequency cetaceans	Beluga whale	10 km (5.4 nm)	20 km (10.8 nm)	Mid-frequency BRF dose-response function *	5 km (2.7 nm)	120 dB re 1 µPa step function	178 dB SEL	198 dB SEL .
Phocidae (in water)	Ringed seal	5 km (2.7 nm)	10 km (5.4 nm)	Pinniped dose-response function *	5 km (2.7 nm)	120 dB re 1 µPa step function	181 dB SEL	201 dB SEL .
The threshold values provided are assumed for when the source is within the animal's best hearing sensitivity. The exact threshold varies based on the overlap of the source and the frequency weighting (see figure 6-1 in IHA application).
Take is not estimated to occur beyond these cutoff distances, regardless of the received level.
Range to TTS threshold for both hearing groups for the noise associated with icebreaking in the Study Area is under 15 m (49.2 ft).

NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The ONR's proposed action includes the use of non-impulsive (active sonar and icebreaking) sources; however, Level A harassment is not expected as a result of the proposed activities based on modeling, as described below, nor is it proposed to be authorized by NMFS.

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 6—Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift

Hearing group PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level) Impulsive Non-impulsive Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans 219 dB; 183 dB 199 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans 230 dB; : 185 dB 198 dB. High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans 202 dB; 155 dB 173 dB. Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) 218 dB; 185 dB 201 dB. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) 232 dB; 203 dB 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Peak sound pressure ( ) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level ( ) has a reference value of 1 μPa s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript “flat” is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways ( varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals likely to be exposed to underwater acoustic transmissions above the previously described threshold criteria during the proposed action. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates obtained from the Kaschner et al. (2006) habitat suitability model and (Cañadas et al., 2020), marine mammal depth occurrence (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b), oceanographic and mammal hearing data, and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential effects. The quantitative analysis consists of computer modeled estimates and a post-model analysis to determine the number of potential animal exposures. The model calculates sound energy propagation from the proposed non-impulsive acoustic sources, the sound received by animat (virtual animal) dosimeters representing marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled activity, and whether the sound received by animats exceeds the thresholds for effects.

The Navy developed a set of software tools and compiled data for estimating acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. These tools and data sets serve as integral components of the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO). In NAEMO, animats are distributed non-uniformly based on species-specific density, depth distribution, and group size information and animats record energy received at their location in the water column. A fully three-dimensional environment is used for calculating sound propagation and animat exposure in NAEMO. Site-specific bathymetry, sound speed profiles, wind speed, and bottom properties are incorporated into the propagation modeling process. NAEMO calculates the likely propagation for various levels of energy (sound or pressure) resulting from each source used during the training event.

NAEMO then records the energy received by each animat within the energy footprint of the event and calculates the number of animats having received levels of energy exposures that fall within defined impact thresholds. Predicted effects on the animats within a scenario are then tallied and the highest order effect (based on severity of criteria; e.g., PTS over TTS) predicted for a given animat is assumed. Each scenario, or each 24-hour period for scenarios lasting greater than 24 hours is independent of all others, and therefore, the same individual marine mammal (as represented by an animat in the model environment) could be impacted during each independent scenario or 24-hour period. In few instances, although the activities themselves all occur within the proposed study location, sound may propagate beyond the boundary of the study area. Any exposures occurring outside the boundary of the study area are counted as if they occurred within the study area boundary. NAEMO provides the initial estimated impacts on marine species with a static horizontal distribution ( i.e., animats in the model environment do not move horizontally).

There are limitations to the data used in the acoustic effects model, and the results must be interpreted within this context. While the best available data and appropriate input assumptions have been used in the modeling, when there is a lack of definitive data to support an aspect of the modeling, conservative modeling assumptions have been chosen ( i.e., assumptions that may result in an overestimate of acoustic exposures):

• Animats are modeled as being underwater, stationary, and facing the source and therefore always predicted to receive the maximum potential sound level at a given location ( i.e., no porpoising or pinnipeds' heads above water);
• Animats do not move horizontally (but change their position vertically within the water column), which may overestimate physiological effects such as hearing loss, especially for slow moving or stationary sound sources in the model;
• Animats are stationary horizontally and therefore do not avoid the sound source, unlike in the wild where animals would most often avoid exposures at higher sound levels, especially those exposures that may result in PTS;
• Multiple exposures within any 24-hour period are considered one continuous exposure for the purposes of calculating potential threshold shift, because there are not sufficient data to estimate a hearing recovery function for the time between exposures; and
• Mitigation measures were not considered in the model. In reality, sound-producing activities would be reduced, stopped, or delayed if marine mammals are detected by visual monitoring.

Due to these inherent model limitations and simplifications, model-estimated results should be further analyzed, considering such factors as the range to specific effects, avoidance, and the likelihood of successfully implementing mitigation measures. This analysis uses a number of factors in addition to the acoustic model results to predict acoustic effects on marine mammals, as described below in the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation section.

The underwater radiated noise signature for icebreaking in the central Arctic Ocean by CGC HEALY during different types of ice-cover was characterized in Roth et al. (2013). The radiated noise signatures were characterized for various fractions of ice cover. For modeling, the 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover were used. Each modeled day of icebreaking consisted of 16 hours of 8/10 ice cover and 8 hours of 3/10 ice cover. The sound signature of the 5/10 icebreaking activities, which would correspond to half-power icebreaking, was not reported in Roth et al. (2013); therefore, the full-power signature was used as a conservative proxy for the half-power signature. Icebreaking was modeled for 8 days total. Since ice forecasting cannot be predicted more than a few weeks in advance, it is unknown if icebreaking would be needed to deploy or retrieve the sources after 1 year of transmitting. Therefore, the potential for an icebreaking cruise on CGC HEALY was conservatively analyzed within the ONR's request for an IHA. As the R/V Sikuliaq is not capable of icebreaking, acoustic noise created by icebreaking is only modeled for the CGC HEALY. Figures 5a and 5b in Roth et al. (2013) depict the source spectrum level versus frequency for 8/10 and 3/10 ice cover, respectively. The sound signature of each of the ice coverage levels was broken into 1-octave bins (table 7). In the model, each bin was included as a separate source on the modeled vessel. When these independent sources go active concurrently, they simulate the sound signature of CGC HEALY. The modeled source level summed across these bins was 196.2 dB for the 8/10 signature and 189.3 dB for the 3/10 ice signature. These source levels are a good approximation of the icebreaker's observed source level (provided in figure 4b of Roth et al. (2013). Each frequency and source level was modeled as an independent source, and applied simultaneously to all of the animats within NAEMO. Each second was summed across frequency to estimate SPL RMS. Any animat exposed to sound levels greater than 120 dB was considered a take by Level B harassment. For PTS and TTS, determinations, sound exposure levels were summed over the duration of the ( print page 66086) test and the transit to the deep water deployment area. The method of quantitative modeling for icebreaking is considered to be a conservative approach; therefore, the number of takes estimated for icebreaking are likely an overestimate and would not be expected to reach that level.

Table 7—Modeled Bins for 8/10 Ice Coverage (Full Power) and 3/10 Ice Coverage (Quarter Power) Icebreaking on CGC HEALY

Frequency (Hz) 8/10 source level (dB) 3/10 source level (dB) 25 189 187 50 188 182 100 189 179 200 190 177 400 188 175 800 183 170 1,600 177 166 3,200 176 171 6,400 172 168 12,800 167 164

Most likely, individuals affected by acoustic transmission would move away from the sound source. Ringed seals may be temporarily displaced from their subnivean lairs in the winter, but a pinniped would have to be within 5 km (2.7 nm) of a moored source or within 10 km (5.4 nm) of a drifting source for any behavioral reaction. Any effects experienced by individual pinnipeds are anticipated to be short-term disturbance of normal behavior, or temporary displacement or disruption of animals that may be near elements of the proposed action.

Of historical sightings registered in the Ocean Biodiversity Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP database) (Halpin et al., 2009) in the ARA Study Area, nearly all (99 percent) occurred in summer and fall seasons. However, there is no documentation to prove that this is because ringed seals would all move out of the Study Area during the cold season, or if the lack of sightings is due to the harsh environment and ringed seal behavior being prohibitive factors for cold season surveying. OBIS-SEAMAP reports 542 animals sighted over 150 records in the ARA Study Area across all years and seasons. Taking the average of 542 animals in 150 records aligns with survey data from previous ARA cruises that show up to three ringed seals (or small, unidentified pinnipeds assumed to be ringed seals) per day sighted in the Study Area. To account for any unsighted animals, that number was rounded up to 4. Assuming that four animals would be present in the Study Area, a rough estimate of density can be calculated using the overall Study Area size:

4 ringed seals ÷ 48,725 km 2 = 0.00008209 ringed seals/km 2

The area of influence surrounding each moored source would be 78.5 km 2 , and the area of influence surrounding each drifting source would be 314 km 2 . The total area of influence on any given day from non-impulsive acoustic sources would be 942 km 2 . The number of ringed seals that could be taken daily can be calculated:

0.00008209 ringed seals/km 2 × 942 km 2 = 0.077 ringed seals/day

To be conservative, the ONR has assumed that one ringed seal would be exposed to acoustic transmissions above the threshold for Level B harassment, and that each would be exposed each day of the proposed action (365 days total). Unlike the NAEMO modeling approach used to estimate ringed seal takes in previous ARA IHAs, the occurrence method used in this ARA IHA request does not support the differentiation between behavioral or TTS exposures. Therefore, all takes are classified as Level B harassment and not further distinguished. Modeling for all previous years of ARA activities did not result in any estimated Level A harassment. NMFS has no reason to expect that the ARA activities during the effective dates of this IHA would be more likely to result in Level A harassment. Therefore, no Level A harassment is anticipated due to the proposed action.

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

The beluga whale density numbers utilized for quantitative acoustic modeling are from the Navy Marine Species Density Database (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). Where available ( i.e., June through 15 October over the continental shelf primarily), density estimates used were from Duke density modeling based upon line-transect surveys (Cañadas et al., 2020). The remaining seasons and geographic area were based on the habitat-based modeling by Kaschner (2004) and Kaschner et al. (2006). Density for beluga whales was not distinguished by stock and varied throughout the project area geographically and monthly; the range of densities in the Study Area is shown in table 8. The density estimates for ringed seals are based on the habitat suitability modeling by Kaschner (2004) and Kaschner et al. (2006) and shown in table 8.

Table 8—Density Estimates of Impacted Species

Common name Stock Density (animals/km ) Beluga whale Beaufort Sea 0.000506 to 0.5176 Beluga whale Eastern Chukchi Sea 0.000506 to 0.5176 Ringed seal Arctic 0.1108 to 0.3562

Take of all species would occur by Level B harassment only. NAEMO was previously used to produce a qualitative estimate of PTS, TTS, and behavioral exposures for ringed seals. For this proposed action, a new approach that utilizes sighting data from previous surveys conducted within the Study Area was used to estimate Level B harassment associated with non-impulsive acoustic sources (see section 6.4.3 of the IHA application). NAEMO modeling is still used to provide estimated takes of beluga whales associated with non-impulsive acoustic sources, as well as provide take estimations associated with icebreaking for both species. Table 9 shows the total number of requested takes by Level B harassment that NMFS proposes to authorize for both beluga whale stocks and the Arctic ringed seal stock based upon NAEMO modeled results. ( print page 66087)

Density estimates for beluga whales are equal as estimates were not distinguished by stock (Kaschner, 2004; Kaschner et al., 2006). The ranges of the Beaufort Sea and Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whales vary within the study area throughout the year (Hauser et al., 2014). Based upon the limited information available regarding the expected spatial distributions of each stock within the study area, take has been apportioned equally to each stock (table 9). In addition, in NAEMO, animats do not move horizontally or react in any way to avoid sound, therefore, the current model may overestimate non-impulsive acoustic impacts.

Table 9—Proposed Take by Level B Harassment

Species	Stock	Active acoustics	Icebreaking (behavioral)	Icebreaking (TTS)	Total proposed take	SAR abundance	Percentage of population
Beluga whale	Beaufort Sea	177	21	0	99	39,258	<1
Beluga whale	Chukchi Sea	177	21	0	99	13,305	<1
Ringed seal	Arctic	365	538	1	904	UND (171, 418)	<1
Acoustic and icebreaking exposures to beluga whales were not modeled at the stock level as the density value is not distinguished by stock in the Arctic for beluga whales (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014). Estimated take of beluga whales due to active acoustics is 177 and 21 due to icebreaking activities, totaling 198 takes of beluga whales. The total take was evenly distributed among the two stocks.
A reliable population estimate for the entire Arctic stock of ringed seals is not available and NMFS SAR lists it as Undetermined (UND). Using a sub-sample of data collected from the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea (Conn 2014), an abundance estimate of 171,418 ringed seals has been calculated but this estimate does not account for availability bias due to seals in the water or in the shore-fast ice zone at the time of the survey. The actual number of ringed seals in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea is likely much higher. Using the minimum population size (N = 158,507) based upon this negatively biased population estimate, the PBR is calculated to be 4,755 seals, although this is also a negatively biased estimate.

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) ). The 2004 NDAA amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

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, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

The following measures are proposed for this IHA:

• All vessels operated by or for the Navy must have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times while underway. Watch personnel must employ visual search techniques using binoculars. While underway and while using active acoustic sources/towed in-water devices, at least one person with access to binoculars is required to be on watch at all times.
• Vessel captains and vessel personnel must remain alert at all times, proceed with extreme caution, and operate at a safe speed so that the vessel can take proper and effective action to avoid any collisions with marine mammals.
• During moored and drifting acoustic source deployment and recovery, ONR must implement a mitigation zone of 55 m (180 ft) around the deployed source. Deployment and recovery must cease if a marine mammal is visually deterred within the mitigation zone. Deployment and recovery may recommence if any one of the following conditions are met:

○ The animal is observed exiting the mitigation zone;

○ The animal is thought to have exited the mitigation zone based on a determination of its course, speed, and movement relative to the sound source;

○ The mitigation zone has been clear from any additional sightings for a period of 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans.

• Vessels must avoid approaching marine mammals head-on and must maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 457 m (500 yards) around all observed cetaceans and 183 m (200 yards) around all other observed marine mammals, provided it is safe to do so.
• Activities must cease if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, is observed approaching or within the mitigation zone (table 10). Activities must not resume until the animal is confirmed to have left the area.
• Vessel captains must maintain at-sea communication with subsistence hunters to avoid conflict of vessel transit with hunting activity.

Table 10—Proposed Mitigation Zones

Activity and/or effort type Species Mitigation zone Acoustic source deployment and recovery, stationary Beluga whale 55 m (180 ft). ( print page 66088) Acoustic source deployment and recovery, stationary Ringed seal 55 m (180 ft). Transit Beluga whale 457 m (500 yards). Transit Ringed seal 183 m (200 yards).

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, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.

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);
• 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.

The Navy has coordinated with NMFS to develop an overarching program plan in which specific monitoring would occur. This plan is called the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program (ICMP) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011). The ICMP has been developed in direct response to Navy permitting requirements established through various environmental compliance efforts. As a framework document, the ICMP applies by regulation to those activities on ranges and operating areas for which the Navy is seeking or has sought incidental take authorizations. The ICMP is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across all regions and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort based on a set of standardized research goals, and in acknowledgement of regional scientific value and resource availability.

The ICMP is focused on Navy training and testing ranges where the majority of Navy activities occur regularly as those areas have the greatest potential for being impacted. ONR's ARA in comparison is a less intensive test with little human activity present in the Arctic. Human presence is limited to the deployment of sources that would take place over several weeks. Additionally, due to the location and nature of the testing, vessels and personnel would not be within the study area for an extended period of time. As such, more extensive monitoring requirements beyond the basic information being collected would not be feasible as it would require additional personnel and equipment to locate seals and a presence in the Arctic during a period of time other then what is planned for source deployment. However, ONR will record all observations of marine mammals, including the marine mammal's species identification, location (latitude/longitude), behavior, and distance from project activities. ONR will also record date and time of sighting. This information is valuable in an area with few recorded observations.

Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Navy's ICMP and the proposed IHA:

• While underway, all vessels must have at least one person trained through the U.S. Navy Marine Species Awareness Training Program on watch during all activities;
• Watch personnel must use standardized data collection forms, whether hard copy or electronic. Watch personnel must distinguish between sightings that occur during transit or during deployment or recovery of acoustic sources. Data must be recorded on all days of activities, even if marine mammals are not sighted;
• At minimum, the following information must be recorded:

○ Vessel name;

○ Watch personnel names and affiliation;

○ Effort type ( i.e., transit, deployment, recovery); and

○ Environmental conditions (at the beginning of watch stander shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort Sea State (BSS) and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon.

• Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded:

○ Date/time of sighting;

○ Identification of animal ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified) and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

○ Location (latitude/longitude) of sighting;

○ Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);

○ Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);

○ Detailed behavior observations ( e.g., number of blows/breaths, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, ( print page 66089) diving, feeding, traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; length of time observed in the mitigation zone, note any observed changes in behavior);

○ Distance from vessel to animal;

○ Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;

○ Platform activity at time of sighting ( i.e., transit, deployment, recovery); and

○ Weather conditions ( i.e., BSS, cloud cover).

○ During icebreaking, the following information must be recorded:

○ Start and end time of icebreaking; and

○ Ice cover conditions.

• During deployment and recovery of acoustic sources or UUVs, visual observation must begin 30 minutes prior to deployment or recovery and continue through 30 minutes following the source deployment or recovery.
• The ONR must submit its draft report(s) on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of monitoring or 60 calendar days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHA for research activities at the same location, whichever comes first. A final report must be prepared and submitted within 30 calendar days following receipt of any NMFS comments on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of the draft report, the report shall be considered final.
• All draft and final monitoring reports must be submitted to [email protected] and [email protected] .
• The marine mammal report, at minimum, must include:

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

○ Acoustic source use or icebreaking;

○ Watch stander location(s) during marine mammal monitoring;

○ Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of watch standing shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including BSS 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 watch stander who sighted the animal(s), the watch stander location, and activity at time of sighting;

Time of sighting;

Identification of the animal(s) ( e.g., genus/species, lowest possible taxonomic level, or unidentified), watch stander confidence in identification, and the composition of the group if there is a mix of species;

Distance and location of each observed marine mammal relative to the acoustic source or icebreaking for each 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; and

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 shutdowns during monitoring, if any;

○ Marine mammal sightings (including the marine mammal's location (latitude/longitude));

○ Number of individuals of each species observed during source deployment, operation, and recovery; and

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

• The ONR must submit all watch stander data electronically in a format that can be queried, such as a spreadsheet or database ( i.e., digital images of data sheets are not sufficient).
• Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:

○ In the event that personnel involved in the specified activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the ONR must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS ( [email protected] and [email protected] ) and to the Alaska regional stranding network (877-925-7773) as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, the ONR must immediately cease the activities until NMFS OPR is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of this IHA. The ONR must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.

○ The report must include the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.

• Vessel Strike: In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, the ONR shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding coordinator (877-925-7773) as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:

○ Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

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

○ Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;

○ Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);

○ Status of all sound sources in use;

○ Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;

○ Environmental conditions ( e.g., wind speed and direction, BSS, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the strike;

○ Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;

○ Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;

○ If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;

○ Estimated fate of the animal ( e.g., dead, injured but alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status unknown, disappeared); and

○ To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).

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 ( print page 66090) 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 beluga whales and ringed seals, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.

Underwater acoustic transmissions associated with the proposed ARA, as outlined previously, have the potential to result in Level B harassment of beluga seals and ringed seals in the form of behavioral disturbances. No serious injury, mortality, or Level A harassment are anticipated to result from these described activities. Effects on individual belugas or ringed seals taken by Level B harassment could include alteration of dive behavior and/or foraging behavior, effects to breathing rates, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. More severe behavioral responses are not anticipated due to the localized, intermittent use of active acoustic sources. Exposure duration is likely to be short-term and individuals will, most likely, simply be temporarily displaced by moving away from the acoustic source. Exposures are, therefore, unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for affected individuals or adverse impacts to stocks as a whole.

Arctic ringed seals are listed as threatened under the ESA. The primary concern for Arctic ringed seals is the ongoing and anticipated loss of sea ice and snow cover resulting from climate change, which is expected to pose a significant threat to ringed seals in the future (Muto et al., 2021). In addition, Arctic ringed seals have also been experiencing a UME since 2019 although the cause of the UME is currently undetermined. As mentioned earlier, no mortality or serious injury to ringed seals is anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. Due to the short-term duration of expected exposures and required mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts, we do not expect the proposed ARA to compound or exacerbate the impacts of the ongoing UME.

A small portion of the Study Area overlaps with ringed seal critical habitat. Although this habitat contains features necessary for ringed seal formation and maintenance of subnivean birth lairs, basking and molting, and foraging, these features are also available throughout the rest of the designated critical habitat area. Any potential limited displacement of ringed seals from the proposed ARA study area would not be expected to interfere with their ability to access necessary habitat features, given the availability of similar necessary habitat features nearby.

The Study Area also overlaps with beluga whale migratory and feeding BIAs. Due to the small amount of overlap between the BIAs and the proposed ARA study area as well as the low intensity and short-term duration of acoustic sources and required mitigation measures, we expect minimal impacts to migrating or feeding belugas. Shutdown zones are expected to avoid the potential for Level A harassment of belugas and ringed seals, and to minimize the severity of any Level B harassment. The requirements of trained dedicated watch personnel and speed restrictions will also reduce the likelihood of any ship strikes to migrating belugas.

In all, the proposed activities are expected to have minimal adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. While the activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities, this would encompass a relatively small area of habitat leaving large areas of existing fish and marine mammal foraging habitat unaffected. As such, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to impact the health or fitness of any marine mammals.

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 or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Impacts would be limited to Level B harassment only;
• Only temporary and relatively low-level behavioral disturbances are expected to result from these proposed activities; and
• Impacts to marine mammal prey or habitat will be minimal and short term.

The anticipated and authorized take is not expected to impact the reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammals, much less rates of recruitment or survival. 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.

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.

Subsistence hunting is important for many Alaska Native communities. A study of the North Slope villages of Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Utqiaġvik identified the primary resources used for subsistence and the locations for harvest (Stephen R. Braund & Associates, 2010), including terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, and marine mammals (bowhead whale, ringed seal, ( print page 66091) bearded seal, and walrus). Ringed seals and beluga whales are likely located within the project area during this proposed action, yet the proposed action would not remove individuals from the population nor behaviorally disturb them in a manner that would affect their behavior more than 100 km farther inshore where subsistence hunting occurs. The permitted sources would be placed far outside of the range for subsistence hunting. The closest active acoustic source (fixed or drifting) within the proposed project site that is likely to cause Level B harassment is approximately 204 km (110 nm) from land. This ensures a significant standoff distance from any subsistence hunting area. The closest distance to subsistence hunting (130 km (70 nm)) is well beyond the largest distance from the sound sources in use at which behavioral harassment would be expected to occur (20 km (10.8 nm)) described above. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that any behavioral disturbance of beluga whales or ringed seals that occurs far offshore (we do not anticipate any Level A harassment) would affect their subsequent behavior in a manner that would interfere with subsistence uses should those animals later interact with hunters.

In addition, ONR has been communicating with the Native communities about the proposed action. The ONR-sponsored chief scientist for AMOS gave a briefing on ONR research planned for 2024-2025 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) meeting on December 15, 2023 in Anchorage, Alaska. No questions were asked from the commissioners during the brief or in subsequent weeks afterwards. The AEWC consists of representatives from 11 whaling villages (Wainwright, Utqiaġvik, Savoonga, Point Lay, Nuiqut, Kivalina, Kaktovik, Wales, Point Hope, Little Diomede, and Gambell). These briefings have communicated the lack of any effect on subsistence hunting due to the distance of the sources from hunting areas. ONR-supported scientists also attend Arctic Waterways Safety Committee (AWSC) and AEWC meetings on a regular basis to discuss past, present, and future research activities. While no take is anticipated to result during transit, points of contact for at-sea communication will also be established between vessel captains and subsistence hunters to avoid any conflict of ship transit with hunting activity.

Based on the description of the specified activity, distance of the study area from subsistence hunting grounds, 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 ONR's proposed activities.

The MMPA requires that monitoring plans be independently peer reviewed where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses ( 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III) ). Given the factors discussed above, NMFS has also determined that the activity is not likely to affect the availability of any marine mammal species or stock for taking for subsistence uses, and therefore, peer review of the monitoring plan is not warranted for this project.

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 ( 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 (AKR).

NMFS is proposing to authorize take of ringed seals, which are listed under the ESA. The Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the AKR for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the ONR for conducting a seventh year of ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from September 2024 to September 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-military-readiness-activities .

We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed ARA. 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: August 8, 2024.

Kimberly Damon-Randall,

Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[ FR Doc. 2024-18130 Filed 8-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information