[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 [email protected]; 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 
[email protected].
    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