Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022) 2022 Federal Register, 87 FR 33500-33511; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33500-33511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11848]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0168; FXES111607MRG01-223-FF07CAMM00]

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities;
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for Southeast Alaska Stock
of Northern Sea Otters in Ketchikan, Alaska

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; draft environmental assessment; request for
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended,
from the United States Coast Guard, propose to authorize nonlethal,
incidental take by harassment of small numbers of the Southeast Alaska
stock of northern sea otters between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023.
The applicant requested this authorization for take that may result
from activities associated with a floating dock expansion project in
the Tongass Narrows at the U.S. Coast Guard Base Ketchikan. We estimate
that this project may result in the nonlethal incidental take of up to
five northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock. This proposed
authorization, if finalized, will be for up to 35 takes of 5 northern
sea otters by Level B harassment only. No injury or mortality is
expected or will be authorized.

DATES: Comments on the proposed incidental harassment authorization and
the accompanying draft environmental assessment must be received by
July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view this proposed
authorization, draft environmental assessment, the application package,
supporting information, and the lists of references cited herein at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0168, or
these documents may be requested as described under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on this proposed
authorization by one of the following methods:
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2021-0168, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803.
Electronic submission: Federal eRulemaking Portal at:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2021-0168. We will post all comments
at https://www.regulations.gov. You may request that we withhold
personal identifying information from public review; however, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. See Request for Public
Comments for more information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sierra Franks, Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS-341, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, by email at R7mmmregulatory@fws.gov; or
by telephone at 1-800-362-5148. Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may
dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 33501]]

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals in
response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR 18.27(c))
engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within
a specific geographic region for periods of not more than 1 year. The
Secretary has delegated authority for implementation of the MMPA to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we). According to the MMPA,
the Service shall authorize this harassment if we find that such taking
for the 1-year period:
(1) Is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we will issue an authorization
that sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) Permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
``Harassment'' means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
in the wild (the MMPA defines this as ``Level A harassment''), or (ii)
has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in
the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (the MMPA defines this as ``Level B harassment'').
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows:
``Negligible impact'' is 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. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means 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.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impact'' as separate and distinct considerations when
reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) under
the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d
1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers
determination, we estimate the likely number of takes of marine mammals
and evaluate if that take is small relative to the size of the species
or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of project activities, but they are
not so restrictive as to make project activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we will issue an IHA, which
will set forth the following, where applicable: (i) Permissible methods
of taking; (ii) 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 subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting such taking by harassment.

Summary of Request

On September 10, 2021, the United States Coast Guard (hereafter
``USCG'' or ``the applicant'') submitted an adequate and complete
request to the Service for authorization to take by Level B harassment
a small number of northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
(hereafter ``sea otters'' or ``otters'' unless another species is
specified) from the Southeast Alaska stock. The USCG expects take by
harassment may occur during the construction of their floating dock in
the Tongass Narrows at the USCG Base Ketchikan in Ketchikan, Alaska.

Description of Specified Activities and Specific Geographic Region

The specified activity (the ``project'') involves installation of
ten 61-centimeter (cm) (24-inch (in)) steel guide pipes for a floating
dock section at the USCG Base Ketchikan. Pipes will be installed over a
period of up to 30 days between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023. The
project will entail three phases of sound-producing construction.
First, depending upon the overburden thickness and bedrock bottom
conditions, pre-drilling sockets for each guide pile would be drilled.
Two piles are expected to be drilled per day, taking 60 minutes each,
for a total of 2 hours of rock-socket drilling noise per day. Following
pre-drilling, 61-cm (24-in) steel pipes would be inserted into the rock
sockets and a vibratory hammer would be used to insert and position the
pile within individual sockets. Finally, an impact driver would be used
to proof the newly installed piles by tapping each pile five times and
then stabilizing using tremie concrete in the pile socket.
Additional project details may be reviewed in the application
materials available as described under ADDRESSES or may also be
requested as described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

[[Page 33502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JN22.000

Description of Marine Mammals in the Specific Geographic Region

The northern sea otter is the only marine mammal under the
Service's jurisdiction that normally occupies the Northeast Pacific
Ocean. Sea otters in Alaska are represented by three stocks: The
Southwest Alaska stock, the Southcentral Alaska stock, and the
Southeast Alaska stock. Those in the Northeast Pacific Ocean belong to
the Southeast Alaska stock. Detailed information about the biology of
the Southeast Alaska stock can be found in the most recent stock
assessment report (USFWS 2014), which can be found in https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0019.
Sea otters may be distributed anywhere within the specific
geographic region other than upland areas; however, they generally
occur in shallow water near the shoreline. They are most commonly
observed within the 40-meter (m) (131-foot (ft)) depth contour (USFWS
2014), although they can be found in areas with deeper water. Ocean
depth is generally correlated with distance to shore, and sea otters
typically remain within 1 to 2 kilometers (km) (0.62 to 1.24 miles
(mi)) of shore (Riedman and Estes 1990). They tend to be found closer
to shore during storms, but they venture farther out during good
weather and calm seas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969). In the 14 aerial
surveys conducted from 1995 to 2012 in Southeast Alaska, 95 percent of
otters were found in areas shallower than 40 m (131 ft) (Tinker et al.
2019). Areas important to mating for the Southeast Alaska stock include
marine coastal regions containing adequate food resources within the
40-m (131-ft) depth contour.
The 1995-2012 survey data was incorporated into a spatiotemporal
model of ecological diffusion using a Bayesian hierarchical framework
(Eisaguirre et al. 2021). This model was used to develop the most
recent estimate of 26,347 otters in the Southeast Alaska stock and
generated otter abundance estimates at a resolution of 400 m by 400 m.
Abundance values within the project area ranged from 0.13 to 0.27
otters per 0.16 square kilometer (km\2\) (0.062 square miles (mi\2\)).
Distribution of the population during the proposed project is likely to
be similar to that detected during sea otter surveys, as work will
occur during the same time of the year that these surveys were
conducted.
The documented home range sizes and movement patterns of sea otters
illustrate the types of movements that could be seen among otters
responding to the proposed activities. Sea otters are nonmigratory and
generally do not disperse over long distances (Garshelis and Garshelis
1984). They usually remain within a few kilometers of their established
feeding grounds (Kenyon 1981). Breeding males stay for all or part of
the year in a breeding territory covering up to 1 km (0.62 mi) of
coastline while adult females have home ranges of approximately 8 to 16
km (5 to 10 mi), which may include one or more male territories.
Juveniles move greater distances between resting and foraging areas
(Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969; Riedman and Estes 1990; Estes and Tinker
1996). Although sea otters generally remain local to an area, they are
capable of long-distance travel. Otters in Alaska have shown daily
movement distances greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) at speeds up to 5.5 km
per hour (km/hr) (3.4 mi per hour (mi/h)) (Garshelis and Garshelis
1984).

Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals

Exposure of Sea Otters to Noise

The specified activities have the potential to result in take of
sea otters by harassment from noise. Here, we characterize ``noise'' as
sound released into the environment from human activities that exceeds
ambient levels or

[[Page 33503]]

interferes with normal sound production or reception by sea otters. The
terms ``acoustic disturbance'' or ``acoustic harassment'' are
disturbances or harassment events resulting from noise exposure.
Potential effects of noise exposure are likely to depend on the
distance of the otter from the sound source and the level of sound the
otter receives. Temporary disturbance or localized displacement
reactions are the most likely to occur. No lethal take or Level A
harassment are anticipated, nor can the Service authorize lethal take
through an IHA. Therefore, none will be authorized.
Whether a specific noise source will affect a sea otter depends on
several factors, including the distance between the animal and the
sound source, the sound intensity, background noise levels, the noise
frequency, the noise duration, and whether the noise is pulsed or
continuous. The actual noise level perceived by individual sea otters
will depend on distance to the source, whether the animal is above or
below water, atmospheric and environmental conditions, and aspects of
the noise emitted.
We expect the actual number of otters experiencing Level B
harassment by noise to be five or fewer. While individual otters may be
taken more than once, the total number of incidental takes of sea
otters is expected to be less than 35.

Sea Otter Hearing

Pile-driving activities produce sound frequencies that fall within
the hearing range of sea otters. Controlled sound exposure trials on
southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) indicate that otters can
hear frequencies between 125 hertz (Hz) and 38 kilohertz (kHz) with
best sensitivity between 1.2 and 27 kHz (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2014).
Aerial and underwater audiograms for a captive adult male southern sea
otter in the presence of ambient noise suggest the sea otter's hearing
was less sensitive to high-frequency (greater than 22 kHz) and low-
frequency (less than 2 kHz) sound than terrestrial mustelids but was
similar to that of a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).
However, the subject otter was still able to hear low-frequency sounds,
and the detection thresholds for sounds between 0.125-1 kHz were
between 116-101 decibels (dB), respectively. Dominant frequencies of
southern sea otter vocalizations are between 3 and 8 kHz, with some
energy extending above 60 kHz (McShane et al. 1995; Ghoul and Reichmuth
2012a).
Exposure to high levels of sound may cause changes in behavior,
masking of communications, temporary or permanent changes in hearing
sensitivity, discomfort, and injury to marine mammals. Unlike other
marine mammals, sea otters do not rely on sound to orient themselves,
locate prey, or communicate underwater; therefore, masking of
communications by anthropogenic sound is less of a concern than for
other marine mammals. However, sea otters do use sound for
communication in air (especially mothers and pups; McShane et al. 1995)
and may avoid predators by monitoring underwater sound (Davis et al.
1987).

Exposure Thresholds

Noise exposure criteria for identifying underwater noise levels
capable of causing Level A harassment (injury) to marine mammal species
have been established for ``other marine carnivores,'' which includes
sea otters using the same methods as those used by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Southall et al. 2019). These criteria are
based on estimated levels of sound exposure capable of causing a
permanent shift in sensitivity of hearing (e.g., a permanent threshold
shift (PTS) (NMFS 2018)). A PTS occurs when noise exposure causes hairs
within the inner ear system to die.
Sound exposure thresholds incorporate two metrics of exposure: The
peak level of instantaneous exposure likely to cause a PTS and the
cumulative sound exposure level during a 24-hour period
(SELCUM). They also include weighting adjustments for the
sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. The PTS-based
injury criteria were developed from theoretical extrapolation of
observations of temporary threshold shifts (TTS) detected in lab
settings during sound exposure trials (Finneran 2015). For ``other
marine carnivores,'' a PTS is predicted to occur at 232 dB peak or 203
dB SELCUM for impulsive sound and 219 dB SELCUM
for nonimpulsive (continuous) sound.
Thresholds at which TTS is expected to occur have been used as a
proxy for Level B harassment (see 70 FR 1871, January 11, 2005; 71 FR
3260, January 20, 2006; and 73 FR 41318, July 18, 2008). Southall et
al. (2007) derived TTS thresholds for pinnipeds based on 212 dB peak
and 171 dB SELCUM. Exposures resulting in TTS in pinnipeds
were found to range from 152 to 174 dB (183 to 206 dB sound exposure
level (SEL)) (Kastak et al. 2005) with a persistent TTS, if not a PTS,
after 60 seconds of 184 dB SEL (Kastak et al. 2008). Kastelein et al.
(2012) found small but statistically significant TTSs at approximately
170 dB SEL (136 dB, 60 minutes (min)) and 178 dB SEL (148 dB, 15 min).
Southall et al. (2019) summarized these and other studies and used the
data to develop TTS thresholds for ``other marine carnivores'' of 188
dB SELCUM for impulsive sounds and 199 dB SELCUM
for nonimpulsive sounds.
The NMFS criteria (2018) do not identify thresholds for avoidance
of Level B harassment. For pinnipeds, NMFS has adopted a 160-dB
threshold for Level B harassment from exposure to impulse noise and a
120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998; HESS 1999; NMFS
undated). These thresholds were developed from observations of
mysticete (baleen) whales responding to airgun operations (e.g., Malme
et al. 1983a, b; Richardson et al. 1986, 1995) and from equating Level
B harassment with noise levels capable of causing TTS in lab settings.
Southall et al. (2007, 2019) assessed behavioral response studies and
found considerable variability among pinnipeds. The authors determined
that exposures between approximately 90 to 140 dB generally do not
appear to induce strong behavioral responses in pinnipeds in water.
However, they found behavioral effects, including avoidance, become
more likely in the range between 120 to 160 dB, and most marine mammals
showed some, albeit variable, responses to sound between 140 to 180 dB.
Wood et al. (2012) later adapted the approach identified in Southall et
al. (2007) to develop a probabilistic scale for marine mammal taxa at
which 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of individuals exposed are
assumed to produce a behavioral response. For many marine mammals,
including pinnipeds, these response rates were set at sound pressure
levels of 140, 160, and 180 dB, respectively.
We have evaluated these thresholds and determined that the Level B
harassment threshold of 120 dB for nonimpulsive noise is not applicable
to sea otters. The 120-dB threshold is based on studies conducted by
Malme et al. in the 1980s, during which gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus) were exposed to experimental playbacks of industrial noise.
Similar playback studies conducted off the coast of California (Malme
1983a, 1984) included a southern sea otter monitoring component
(Riedman 1983, 1984). While the 1983 and 1984 studies detected
probabilities of avoidance in gray whales comparable to those reported
in Malme et al. (1988), there was no evidence of disturbance reactions
or avoidance in southern sea otters. Thus, given the different range of
frequencies to which sea otters and gray whales are sensitive, the NMFS
120-dB

[[Page 33504]]

threshold based on gray whale behavior is not appropriate for
predicting sea otter behavioral responses, particularly for low-
frequency sound.
Based on the lack of sea otter disturbance response or any other
reaction to the 1980's playback studies and the absence of a clear
pattern of disturbance or avoidance behaviors attributable to
underwater sound levels up to approximately 160 dB resulting from low-
frequency broadband noise, we assume 120 dB is not an appropriate
behavioral response threshold for sea otters exposed to continuous
underwater noise.
Thus, using the best available scientific information about sea
otters, the Service has set 160 dB of received underwater sound as a
threshold for Level B harassment for sea otters for this proposed IHA
based on the work of Ghoul and Reichmuth (2012a, b), McShane et al.
(1995), NOAA (2005), Riedman (1983), Richardson et al. (1995), and
others. Exposure to in-water noise levels between 125 Hz and 38 kHz
that are greater than 160 dB--for both impulsive and nonimpulsive sound
sources--will be considered Level B harassment; thresholds for
potentially injurious Level A harassment will be considered 232 dB peak
or 203 dB SEL for impulsive sounds and 219 dB SEL for continuous sounds
(table 1).

Table 1--Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) Thresholds Established by Southall et al. (2019) Through Modeling and
Extrapolation for ``Other Marine Carnivores,'' Which Includes Sea Otters
[Values are weighted for other marine carnivores' hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure level (SELCUM dB re 20[micro]Pa in air and
SELCUM dB re 1 [micro]Pa in water) for impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level (SPL) in air (dB re 20[micro]Pa) and
water (dB 1[micro]Pa) (impulsive sounds only)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS PTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonimpulsive impulsive nonimpulsive impulsive
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air..................................................... 157 146 170 177 161 176
Water................................................... 199 188 226 219 203 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence From Sea Otter Studies

The available studies of sea otter behavior suggest that sea otters
may be more resistant to the effects of sound disturbance and human
activities than other marine mammals. For example, at Soberanes Point,
California, Riedman (1983) examined changes in the behavior, density,
and distribution of southern sea otters that were exposed to recorded
noises associated with oil and gas activity. The underwater sound
sources were played at a level of 110 dB and a frequency range of 50 Hz
to 20 kHz and included production platform activity, drillship,
helicopter, and semisubmersible sounds. Riedman (1983) also observed
the sea otters during seismic airgun shots fired at decreasing
distances from the nearshore environment (50, 20, 8, 3.8, 3, 1, and 0.5
nautical miles (nm)) at a firing rate of 4 shots per minute and a
maximum air volume of 4,070 cubic inches (in\3\). Riedman (1983)
observed no changes in the presence, density, or behavior of sea otters
as a result of underwater sounds from recordings or airguns, even at
the closest distance of 0.5 nm (<1 km or 0.6 mi). However, otters did
display slight reactions to airborne engine noise. Riedman (1983, 1984)
also monitored the behavior of sea otters along the California coast
while they were exposed to a single 1,638 cubic centimeter (cm\3\) (100
in\3\) airgun and a 67,006 cm\3\ (4,089 in\3\) airgun array. Sea otters
did not respond noticeably to the single airgun, and no disturbance
reactions were evident when the airgun array was as close as 0.9 km
(0.6 mi).
While at the surface, turbulence from wind and waves attenuates
noise more quickly than in deeper water, reducing potential noise
exposure (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995).
Additionally, turbulence at the water's surface limits the transference
of sound from water to air. A sea otter with its head above water will
be exposed to only a small fraction of the sound energy traveling
through the water beneath it. The average time spent above the water
each day resting and grooming varies between male and female sea otters
and seasonally. Esslinger et al. (2014) found in the summer months
(i.e., the season when the proposed action will take place), female
otters foraged for an average of 8.78 hours per day while male otters
foraged for an average of 7.85 hours per day. Male and female sea
otters spent an average of 63 to 67 percent of their summer days at the
surface resting and grooming. The amount of total time spent at the
surface may help limit sea otters' exposure during noise-generating
operations.
Sea otters generally show a high degree of tolerance to noise. In
an exploration of potential deterrent techniques, Davis et al. (1988)
found northern sea otters exhibited limited response to a variety of
airborne and underwater sounds, including a warble tone, sea otter pup
calls, killer whale (Orcinus orca) calls, air horns, and an underwater
noise harassment system designed to drive marine mammals away from
crude oil spills. While these stimuli did elicit reactions including
startle responses and movement away from noise sources, reactions were
only observed within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of noise sources. Further,
otters appeared to become habituated quickly, in as little as 2 hours
and at most 3-4 days.
In locations that lack frequent human activity, sea otters appear
to have a lower threshold for outward signs of disturbance. Sea otters
in Alaska have exhibited escape behaviors in response to the presence
and approach of vessels. Behaviors included diving or actively swimming
away from a boat, hauled-out sea otters entering the water, and groups
of sea otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions
(Udevitz et al. 1995). Sea otters in Alaska have also been shown to
avoid areas with heavy boat traffic but return to those same areas
during seasons with less traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). In
Cook Inlet, otters drifting on a tide trajectory that would have taken
them within 500 m (0.3 mi) of an active offshore drilling rig tended to
swim to change their angle of drift to avoid a close approach despite
near-ambient noise levels from the work (BlueCrest 2013).
Individual sea otters in Southeast Alaska will likely show a range
of responses to noise from pile-driving activities. Some otters will
likely show startle responses, change direction of travel, dive, or
prematurely surface. Sea otters reacting to survey activities may

[[Page 33505]]

divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such
as feeding. Some animals may abandon the project area and return when
the disturbance has ceased. Based on the observed movement patterns of
wild sea otters (i.e., Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969, 1981; Garshelis and
Garshelis 1984; Riedman and Estes 1990; Estes and Tinker 1996), we
expect some individuals, independent juveniles, for example, will
respond to pile-driving activities by dispersing to areas of suitable
habitat nearby, while others, especially breeding-age adult males, will
not be displaced.

Consequences of Disturbance

The reactions of wildlife to disturbance can range from short-term
behavioral changes to long-term impacts that affect survival and
reproduction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally
(e.g., escape response) or physiologically (e.g., increased heart rate,
hormonal response) (Harms et al. 1997; Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). The
energy expense and associated physiological effects could ultimately
lead to reduced survival and reproduction (Gill and Sutherland 2000;
Frid and Dill 2002). For example, South American sea lions (Otaria
byronia) visited by tourists exhibited an increase in the state of
alertness and a decrease in maternal attendance and resting time on
land, thereby potentially reducing population size (Pavez et al. 2015).
In another example, killer whales that lost feeding opportunities due
to boat traffic faced a substantial (18 percent) estimated decrease in
energy intake (Williams et al. 2006). Such disturbance effects can have
population-level consequences. Increased disturbance rates have also
been associated with a decline in abundance of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops sp.) (Bejder et al. 2006; Lusseau et al. 2006).
These examples illustrate direct effects on survival and
reproductive success, but disturbances can also have indirect effects.
Response to noise disturbance is considered a nonlethal stimulus that
is similar to an antipredator response (Frid and Dill 2002). Sea otters
are susceptible to predation, particularly from killer whales and
eagles (Accipitridae spp.) and have a well-developed antipredator
response to perceived threats. For example, Limbaugh (1961) found the
presence of a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) did not appear to disturb
sea otters, but otters demonstrated a fear response in the presence of
a California sea lion by actively looking above and beneath the water.
Although an increase in vigilance or a flight response is
nonlethal, a tradeoff occurs between risk avoidance and energy
conservation. An animal's reactions to noise disturbance may cause
stress and direct an animal's energy away from fitness-enhancing
activities such as feeding and mating (Frid and Dill 2002; Goudie and
Jones 2004). For example, southern sea otters in areas with heavy
recreational boat traffic demonstrated changes in behavioral time
budgeting showing decreased time resting and changes in haul-out
patterns and distribution (Benham et al. 2006; Maldini et al. 2012).
Chronic stress can also lead to weakened reflexes, lowered learning
responses (Welch and Welch 1970; van Polanen Petel et al. 2006),
compromised immune function, decreased body weight, and abnormal
thyroid function (Seyle 1979).
Changes in behavior resulting from anthropogenic disturbance can
include increased agonistic interactions between individuals or
temporary or permanent abandonment of an area (Barton et al. 1998). The
extent of previous exposure to humans (Holcomb et al. 2009), the type
of disturbance (Andersen et al. 2012), and the age or sex of the
individuals (Shaughnessy et al. 2008; Holcomb et al. 2009) may
influence the type and extent of response.

Effects on Habitat and Prey

Physical and biological features of habitat essential to the
conservation of sea otters include the benthic invertebrates (urchins,
mussels, clams, etc.) that otters eat and the shallow rocky areas and
kelp beds that provide cover from predators. Important sea otter
habitat in the project area include coastal areas within the 40-m (131-
ft) depth contour where high densities of otters have been detected.
The MMPA allows the Service to identify avoidance and minimization
measures for effecting the least practicable adverse impact of the
specified activity on important habitats. Pile-driving activities may
impact sea otters within this important habitat; however, the project
is not likely to cause lasting effects to habitat. Although a permanent
floating dock is being constructed as a part of this project, the area
where it is being placed is not likely to serve as important habitat as
it is immediately adjacent to an existing operational dock.
The primary prey species for sea otters are sea urchins, abalone,
clams, mussels, crabs, and squid (Tinker and Estes 1999). When
preferential prey are scarce, otters will also eat kelp, turban snails
(Tegula spp.), octopuses (e.g., Octopus spp.), barnacles (Balanus
spp.), sea stars (e.g., Pycnopodia helianthoides), scallops (e.g.,
Patinopecten caurinus), rock oysters (Saccostrea spp.), worms (e.g.,
Eudistylia spp.), and chitons (e.g., Mopalia spp.) (Riedman and Estes
1990). A shift to less-preferred prey species may result in more energy
spent foraging or processing the prey items; however, the impacts of a
change in energy expenditure are not likely seen at the population
level (Newsome et al. 2015).
While any activity that may disturb the ocean bottom may cause a
temporary increase in suspended sediment, turbidity is likely to have
little impact on sea otters and prey species (Todd et al. 2015);
however, there may be some impacts from increased sedimentation. Sea
otters attempting to forage near these activities could have reduced
visibility that may result in failed foraging attempts and a potential
shift to less-preferred prey species. This scenario may result in more
energy spent foraging or processing the prey items; however, the
impacts of a change in energy expenditure are not likely seen at the
population level (Newsome et al. 2015). Additionally, the benthic
invertebrates may be impacted by increased sedimentation, which could
alter the benthic community resulting in more opportunistic species
that recover quickly to activities resulting in sedimentation, such as
dredging (Kotta et al. 2009). Although foraging of sea otters could be
impacted through sedimentation, it is more likely that sea otters would
be temporarily displaced from the area due to noise and not from
effects due to increased turbidity.
Several recent reviews and empirical studies have addressed the
effects of noise on invertebrates (Carroll et al. 2017). Behavioral
changes, such as an increase in lobster (Homanus americanus) feeding
levels (Payne et al. 2007), an increase in wild-caught captive reef
squid (Sepioteuthis australis) avoidance behavior (Fewtrell and
McCauley 2012), and deeper digging by razor clams (Sinonovacula
constricta; Peng et al. 2016), have been observed following
experimental exposures to sound. Physical changes have also been seen
in response to increased sound levels, including changes in serum
biochemistry and hepatopancreatic cells in a lobster species (H.
americanus; Payne et al. 2007) and long-term damage to the statocysts
required for hearing in several cephalopod species (Andre et al. 2011;
Sole et al. 2013).
The effects of increased sound levels on benthic invertebrate
larvae have been

[[Page 33506]]

mixed. Desoto et al. (2013) found impaired embryonic development in
scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) larvae when exposed to 160 dB.
Christian et al. (2004) noted a reduction in the speed of egg
development of bottom-dwelling crabs following exposure to noise;
however, the sound level (221 dB at 2 m or 6.6 ft) was far higher than
the proposed construction activities will produce.
While these studies provide evidence of deleterious effects to
invertebrates as a result of increased sound levels, Carroll et al.
(2017) caution that there is a wide disparity between results obtained
in field and laboratory settings. In experimental settings, changes
were observed only when animals were housed in enclosed tanks and many
were exposed to prolonged bouts of continuous, pure tones. We would not
expect similar results in open marine conditions. It is unlikely that
noises generated by survey activities will have any lasting effect on
sea otter prey given the short-term duration of sounds produced by each
component of the proposed work.

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses

The proposed specified activities will occur near marine
subsistence harvest areas used by Alaska Natives from Ketchikan and the
surrounding areas. The majority of sea otter harvests in these areas
occur around Prince of Wales, Gravinia, and Kuiu Islands. Between 2018
and 2021, approximately 118 sea otters were harvested from these areas,
averaging 30 per year (although numbers from 2021 are preliminary).
Only two otters were taken in Ketchikan during this time period (one in
2020, one in 2021).
The proposed project would occur at an active USCG facility. The
area potentially affected by the proposed project does not
significantly overlap with current subsistence harvest areas.
Construction activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or
interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. As a part of
their environmental assessment completed in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, the USCG contacted the Ketchikan
Indian Community and the Organized Village of Saxman. Both communities
indicated that they did not have concerns with the project and do not
believe it will impact the harvest of marine mammals. If any conflicts
are identified in the future, the USCG will develop a Plan of
Cooperation (POC) specifying the particular steps necessary to minimize
any effects the project may have on subsistence harvest.

Mitigation and Monitoring

If an IHA for the project is issued, it must specify means for
effecting the least practicable adverse impact on sea otters and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance and the availability of sea otters for
subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives.
In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate to ensure
the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their
habitat, as well as subsistence uses, we considered the manner and
degree to which the successful implementation of the measures are
expected to achieve this goal. We considered the nature of the
potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range),
the likelihood that the measures will be effective if implemented, and
the likelihood of effective implementation. We also considered the
practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (e.g.,
cost, impact on operations).
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli
associated with the activities, the applicants have proposed mitigation
measures including the following:
Development of a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan;
Establishment of shutdown and monitoring zones;
Visual mitigation monitoring by designated Protected
Species Observers (PSO);
Site clearance before startup;
Limiting in-water activity to daylight hours;
Soft-start procedures; and
Shutdown procedures.
These measures are further specified under Proposed Authorization,
part B. Avoidance and Minimization. The Service has not identified any
additional (i.e., not already incorporated into the USCG request)
mitigation or monitoring measures that are practicable and would
further reduce potential impacts to sea otters and their habitat.

Estimated Incidental Take

Characterizing Take by Level B Harassment

As discussed in Evidence from Sea Otter Studies, an individual sea
otter's reaction to human activity will depend on the otter's prior
exposure to the activity, the potential benefit that may be realized by
the individual from its current location, its physiological status, or
other intrinsic factors. The location, timing, frequency, intensity,
and duration of the encounter are among the external factors that will
also influence the animal's response. The Service has identified the
following sea otter behaviors as indicating possible Level B
harassment:
Swimming away at a fast pace on belly (i.e., porpoising);
Repeatedly raising the head vertically above the water to
get a better view (spyhopping) while apparently agitated or while
swimming away;
In the case of a pup, repeatedly spyhopping while hiding
behind and holding onto its mother's head;
Abandoning prey or feeding areas;
Temporary disruption to nurse and/or rest (applies to
dependent pups);
Temporary disruption to rest (applies to independent
animals);
Temporary disruption to use movement corridors;
Temporary disruption to mating behaviors;
Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft so that the raft
disperses;
Sudden diving of an entire raft; or
Flushing animals off a haulout.

This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
situations may also indicate Level B harassment.
Reactions capable of causing injury are characterized as Level A
harassment events. The project is not anticipated to result in Level A
harassment due to exposure of otters to noise capable of causing PTS.
However, it is also important to note that, depending on the duration
and severity of the above-described Level B harassment behaviors, such
responses could constitute Level A harassment.

Calculating Take

We assumed all animals exposed to underwater sound levels that meet
or exceed the acoustic exposure criteria shown in the TTS column of
table 1 will experience take by Level B harassment due to exposure to
underwater noise. Spatially explicit zones of ensonification were
established around the proposed construction location to estimate the
number of otters that may be exposed to these sound levels. We
determined the number of otters present in the ensonification zones
using density information generated by Eisaguirre et al. (2021).
The project can be divided into three major components: rock socket
drilling, vibratory hammering, and pile-driving using an impact driver.
Each of these components will generate a different type of in-water
noise. Vibratory hammering will produce nonimpulsive or continuous
noise, impact driving will produce impulsive noise, and down-the-hole
rock socket drilling is considered

[[Page 33507]]

to produce both impulsive and continuous noise (NMFS 2020).
The level of sound anticipated from each project component was
established using recorded data from pile-driving in Kodiak, Alaska (a
proxy for rock-socket drilling and vibratory hammering; Denes et al.
2016), and Eugene, Oregon (a proxy for impact driving; Caltrans 2020).
The NMFS Technical Guidance and User Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018, 2020) was
used to determine the distance at which sound levels would attenuate to
Level A harassment thresholds, and empirical data from the proxy
projects was used to determine the distance at which sound levels would
attenuate to Level B harassment thresholds (table 2). The weighting
factor adjustment included in the NMFS User Spreadsheet accounts for
sound created in portions of an organism's hearing range where they
have less sensitivity. We used the weighting factor adjustment for
otariid pinnipeds (2), as they are the closest available physiological
and anatomical proxy for sea otters. The spreadsheet also incorporates
a transmission loss coefficient, which accounts for the reduction in
sound level outward from a sound source. We used the NMFS-recommended
transmission loss coefficient of 15 for coastal pile-driving activities
to indicate simple spread (NMFS 2020).

Table 2--Summary by Project Component of Sound Level, Timing of Sound Production, Distance From Sound Source to
Below Level A Harassment and Level B Harassment Thresholds, Days of Impact, Otters in Level B Harassment
Ensonification Area, and Total Otters Expected To Be Harassed Through Behavioral Disturbance
[Sound levels for all sources are unweighted and given in dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Nonimpulsive sounds are in the form
of mean maximum root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) as it is more conservative than cumulative
sound exposure level (SEL) or peak SPL for these activities. Impulsive sound sources are in the form of SEL for
a single strike (s-s)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock-socket drilling
Sound Source ---------------------------------------- Vibratory Impact driver
Nonimpulsive Impulsive hammering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound level..................... 166 dB re 154 dB SEL s s.... 155.5 dB re 178 dB SEL s s
1[micro]Pa RMS 1[micro]Pa RMS (equivalent to
SPL mean maximum SPL mean maximum 190 dB re
at 10 m. at 10 m. 1[micro]Pa RMS).
Source.......................... Denes et al. 2016. Denes et al. 2016. Denes et al. 2016. Caltrans 2020.
Timing per pile................. 60 minutes/pile... 60 minutes/pile10 6 minutes/pile.... 5 strikes/pile.
strikes/
second36,000
strikes/pile.
Maximum piles per day........... 2................. 2................. 2................. 2.
----------------------------------------
Maximum number of days........ 5 5................. 5.
Distance to below Level A 7.9 m (25.9 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft).... 0.8 m (2.6 ft).
Harassment threshold.
Distance to below Level B 25 m (82 ft) 5 m (16 ft)....... 1,000 m (3,281
Harassment threshold. ft).
Sea otters in affected 400-m x 0.23 0.23.............. 4.1.
400-m area.
Potential sea otters affected by 1 1................. 5.
sound.
Days of activity................ 5 5................. 5.
Potential harassment events..... 5 5................. 25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To determine the number of sea otters that may experience in-water
sound greater than 160 dB, we determined the number of sea otters
present in each 400-m x 400-m pixel of the sea otter density raster
(figure 2) developed by Eisaguirre et al. (2021) and rounded these
values to the nearest whole number. We estimated up to one otter may be
present in the rock-socket drilling and vibratory hammering
ensonification zones and up to five otters may be present in the impact
driving zone. Because these zones overlap (i.e., the otter in the rock-
socket and vibratory hammering zones is also within the impact driving
zone), we estimated the project will result in a total of five sea
otters experiencing Level B harassment through behavioral change. One
sea otter would experience this harassment for up to 15 days, and four
sea otters would experience take for up to 5 days (table 2) for a total
of 35 takes of 5 sea otters. No Level A harassment (i.e., injury) is
anticipated or authorized. While in-water noise will be at a level
capable of causing PTS from up to 7.9 m from the source location,
operations will be shut down should any marine mammal come within 20 m
of project activities.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 33508]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02JN22.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Critical Assumptions

We estimate 35 takes of 5 sea otters by Level B harassment will
occur due to the proposed specified activities. To conduct this
analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level B harassment,
several critical assumptions were made.
Otter density was calculated using a Bayesian hierarchical model
created by Eisaguirre et al. (2021), which includes assumptions that
can be found in the original publication.
Sound level estimates for construction activities were generated
using sound source verification from recent pile-driving activities in
Kodiak, Alaska, and Eugene, Oregon. Environmental conditions in these
locations, including water depth, substrate, and ambient sound levels
are similar to those in the project location but not identical.
Further, estimation of ensonification zones were based on sound
attenuation models using a simple spreading loss model. These factors
may lead to actual sound values differing slightly from those estimated
here.
Finally, the pile-driving activities described here will also
create in-air noise. Because sea otters spend over half of their day
with their heads above water (Esslinger et al. 2014), they will be
exposed to increases in in-air noise from construction equipment.
However, we have calculated Level B harassment with the assumption that
an individual may be harassed only one time per 24-hour period, and
underwater sound levels will be more disturbing and

[[Page 33509]]

extend farther than in-air noise. Thus, while sea otters may be
disturbed by noise both in air and underwater, we have relied on the
more conservative underwater estimates.

Findings

Sea otters exposed to project-produced sounds are likely to respond
with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. Project
activities could temporarily interrupt the feeding, resting, and
movement of sea otters. Because activities will occur during a limited
amount of time and in a localized region, the impacts associated with
the project are likewise temporary and localized. The anticipated
effects are short-term behavioral reactions and displacement of sea
otters near active operations.
Sea otters that encounter the specified activity may exert more
energy than they would otherwise due to temporary cessation of feeding,
increased vigilance, and retreat from the project area. We expect that
affected sea otters will tolerate this exertion without measurable
effects on health or reproduction. The anticipated takes will be due to
short-term Level B harassment in the form of TTS, startling reactions,
or temporary displacement. Chronic exposure to sound levels that cause
TTS may lead to PTS (which would constitute Level A harassment) under
certain circumstances. While more research into the relationship
between chronic noise exposure and PTS is needed (Finneran 2015),
existing information indicates that the transition from temporary
effects to permanent cellular damage requires a period of time greater
than the duration of USCG's specified activities, and as such no PTS is
anticipated to result from the USCG's specified activities (Southall et
al. 2019).

Small Numbers

We estimate 35 instances of take by Level B harassment of 5
northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock due to behavioral
responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. These levels represent
a small proportion of the most recent stock abundance estimate for the
Southeast Alaska stock. Take of 5 otters is 0.019 percent of the best
available estimate of the current population size of 26,347 animals in
the Southeast Alaska stock (Eisaguirre et al. 2021) (5 / 26,347 =
0.00019). Predicted levels of take were determined based on estimated
density of sea otters in the project area and ensonification zones
developed using empirical evidence from similar geographic areas. Based
on these numbers, we propose a finding that the proposed project will
take only a small number of marine mammals of a species or stock.

Negligible Impact

We propose a finding that any incidental take by level B harassment
resulting from the proposed project cannot be reasonably expected to,
and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and, therefore, will
have no more than a negligible impact on the Southeast Alaska stock of
northern sea otters. In making this finding, we considered the best
available scientific information, including the biological and
behavioral characteristics of the stock, the most recent information on
stock distribution and abundance within the area of the specified
activities, the current and expected future status of the stock
(including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the
potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the
potential responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition,
we reviewed applicant-provided materials, information in our files and
datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Sea otters are likely to respond to proposed activities with
temporary behavioral modification or displacement. These reactions are
unlikely to have consequences for the long-term health, reproduction,
or survival of affected animals. Most animals will respond to
disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary
interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected
animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure
with no lasting consequences. One otter is estimated to be exposed to
construction noise for up to 15 days and four otters are estimated to
be exposed to construction noise for up to 5 days, resulting in
repeated exposures.
The proposed activities will result in a very small area of
increased sound levels above the Level A harassment thresholds.
However, the applicant has established a shutdown zone that is greater
than the potential Level A harassment zone. Thus, no otters are
expected to experience sounds at or above Level A harassment
thresholds. Furthermore, Level A harassment is not anticipated as a
result of chronic sound exposure because the duration of the specified
activities is not believed to be sufficient to cause such effects.
(Southall et al. 2019). The area that will experience noise greater
than Level B harassment thresholds due to rock-socket drilling and
vibratory hammering is very small, and an animal that may be disturbed
could easily escape the noise by moving to nearby quiet areas. Further,
sea otters spend over half of their time above the surface during the
summer months (Esslinger et al. 2014), thus their ears will not be
exposed to continuous noise, and the amount of time it may take for
permanent injury is considerably longer than that of mammals primarily
under water. Some animals may exhibit more severe responses typical of
Level B harassment, such as fleeing, ceasing feeding, or flushing from
a haul-out. These responses could have temporary, yet significant,
biological impacts for affected individuals but are unlikely to result
in measurable changes in survival or reproduction.
Although the specified activities may result in approximately 35
incidental takes of 5 otters from the Southeast Alaska stock, we do not
expect this level of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment
or survival or result in adverse effects on the stock.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental
take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the
avoidance and minimization measures identified in the USCG's mitigation
and monitoring plan. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize
interactions with and impacts to sea otters. These measures and the
monitoring and reporting procedures are required for the validity of
our finding, and adherence to them would be required in a final IHA if
issued.

Impact on Subsistence

We propose a finding that the USCG's anticipated harassment will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the
Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters for taking for
subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the lack of
overlap between the timing and location of the proposed activities and
the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities in the area
of the proposed project. We also considered the applicant's
consultation with subsistence communities, which indicated no
conflicts, proposed measures for avoiding impacts to subsistence
harvest, and commitment to development of a POC, should any concerns be
identified.

[[Page 33510]]

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). We have preliminarily
concluded that authorizing 35 nonlethal, incidental takes by Level B
harassment of up to 5 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska
stock in the specified geographic region during the specified
activities during the regulatory period would not significantly affect
the quality of the human environment and, thus, preparation of an
environmental impact statement for this IHA is not required by section
102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. We are accepting
comments on the draft environmental assessment as indicated above in
DATES and ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal agencies are
required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The proposed project will occur entirely within the range of
the Southeast Alaska stock of the northern sea otter, which is not
listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The measures included
in the proposed IHA will not affect other listed species or designated
critical habitat.

Government-to-Government Consultation

It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We are also required to
consult with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations
in certain circumstances. We seek their full and meaningful
participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for
protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native
culture and to make information available to Alaska Natives. Our
efforts are guided by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016);
(2) the Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000) and the Presidential
Memorandum on Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Federal
Decision Making (November 15, 2021);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342
(October 21, 2016); and
(5) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Tribes and with Alaska Native Corporations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed IHA on federally
recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. The Service has
determined that authorizing the Level B harassment of up to five sea
otters from USCG's specified activities would not have any Tribal
implications or ANCSA Corporation implications and, therefore,
Government-to-Government consultation or Government-to-ANCSA
Corporation consultation is not necessary. However, we invite continued
discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our
coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA/POC public
comment process.

Proposed Authorization

We propose to authorize up to 35 incidental takes by level B
harassment of 5 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock.
This authorized take is limited to disruption of behavioral patterns
that may be caused by construction activities conducted by the USCG in
Ketchikan Alaska, from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. We anticipate no
Level A harassment or mortality to northern sea otters resulting from
the activities.

A. General Conditions for Issuance of the Proposed IHA

1. The taking or harassment of northern sea otters from the
Southeast Alaska stock whenever the required conditions, mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully implemented as
required by the IHA will be prohibited. Failure to follow measures
specified may result in the suspension or revocation of the IHA.
2. If take exceeds the level or type identified in the proposed
authorization (e.g., greater than 35 incidents of incidental take of 5
otters by Level B harassment), the IHA will be invalidated and the
Service will reevaluate its findings. If project activities cause
unauthorized take, such as Level A harassment due to pile-driving
noise, acute distress, or any indication of the separation of mother
from pup, the USCG must take the following actions: (i) Cease its
activities immediately (or reduce activities to the minimum level
necessary to maintain safety); (ii) report the details of the incident
to the Service's Marine Mammal Management (MMM) office within 48 hours;
and (iii) suspend further activities until the Service has reviewed the
circumstances, determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking, and notified the USCG
that it may resume project activities.
3. All operations managers and machine operators must receive a
copy of the IHA and maintain access to it for reference at all times
during project work. These personnel must understand, be fully aware
of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the IHA at all
times during project work.
4. The IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in the USCG request (USCG
2021). Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
5. The USCG's request will be approved and fully incorporated into
the IHA, unless exceptions are specifically noted herein or in the
final IHA. The application includes:
The USCG's original request for an IHA, dated July 22,
2021; and
A revised application, dated September 10, 2021.
6. Operators will allow Service personnel or the Service's
designated representative to visit project work sites to monitor
impacts to sea otters and subsistence uses of sea otters at any time
throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so.
``Operators'' are all personnel operating under the USCG's authority,
including all contractors and subcontractors.

B. Avoidance and Minimization

7. Construction activities must be conducted using equipment that
generates the lowest practicable levels of underwater sound within the
range of frequencies audible to sea otters.
8. During all pile-installation activities, regardless of predicted
sound levels, a physical interaction shutdown zone of 20 m (66 ft) must
be enforced. If a sea otter enters the shutdown zone, in-water
activities must be delayed until either the animal has been visually
observed outside the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed since
the last observation time without redetection of the animal.
9. If the impact driver has been idled for more than 30 minutes, an
initial set of three strikes from the impact driver must be delivered
at reduced energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, before full-
powered proofing strikes.

[[Page 33511]]

10. In-water activity must be conducted in daylight. If
environmental conditions prevent visual detection of sea otters within
the shutdown zone, in-water activities must be stopped until visibility
is regained.

C. Monitoring

11. Operators will work with PSOs to apply mitigation measures and
will recognize the authority of PSOs up to and including stopping work,
except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to personnel.
12. Duties of the PSOs include watching for and identifying sea
otters, recording observation details, documenting presence in any
applicable monitoring zone, identifying and documenting potential
harassment, and working with operators to implement all appropriate
mitigation measures.
13. Monitoring of the shutdown zone must continue for 30 minutes
following completion of pile installation.

D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users

14. Prior to conducting the work, the USCG will take the following
steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of sea otters:
Avoid work in areas of known sea otter subsistence
harvest;
Discuss the planned activities with subsistence
stakeholders including Southeast Alaska villages and traditional
councils;
Identify and work to resolve concerns of stakeholders
regarding the project's effects on subsistence hunting of sea otters;
and
If any concerns remain, develop a POC in consultation with
the Service and subsistence stakeholders to address these concerns.

E. Reporting Requirements

15. The USCG must notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to
commencement of activities.
16. Reports will be submitted to the Service's MMM weekly during
project activities. The reports will summarize project work and
monitoring efforts.
17. A final report will be submitted to the Service's MMM within 90
days after completion of work or expiration of the IHA. It will
summarize all monitoring efforts and observations, describe all project
activities, and discuss any additional work yet to be done. Factors
influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals (e.g., sea
state, number of observers, fog, and glare) will be discussed. The
report will describe changes in sea otter behavior resulting from
project activities and any specific behaviors of interest. Sea otter
observation records will be provided in the form of electronic database
or spreadsheet files. The report will assess any effects the USCG's
operations may have had on the availability of sea otters for
subsistence harvest and if applicable, evaluate the effectiveness of
the POC for preventing impacts to subsistence users of sea otters.
18. Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated
with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the project area,
previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to advanced
decomposition or scavenger damage) must be reported to the Service
within 24 hours of discovery. Photographs, video, location information,
or any other available documentation shall be provided to the Service.
19. All reports shall be submitted by email to
fw7_mmm_reports@fws.gov.
20. The USCG must notify the Service upon project completion or end
of the work season.

Request for Public Comments

If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the
associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may
submit your comments by any of the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please identify if you are commenting on the proposed authorization,
draft environmental assessment or both, make your comments as specific
as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed
authorization or draft environmental assessment, and explain the reason
for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your comments should
reference the specific section or paragraph that you are addressing.
The Service will consider all comments that are received before the
close of the comment period (see DATES).
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director, Fisheries and Ecological Services, Alaska
Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-11848 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P