Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 12019 

for purposes of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Aaron Santa Anna, 

Federal Register Liaison for the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04074 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–7040–N–04; OMB Control 

No. 2535–0107] 

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Public Housing Financial 

Management Template 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing, PIH, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: HUD is seeking approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the information collection 

described below. In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is 

requesting comment from all interested 

parties on the proposed collection of 

information. The purpose of this notice 

is to allow for 60 days of public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments Due Date: April 30, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit comments regarding 

this proposal. Comments should refer to 

the proposal by name and/or OMB 

Control Number and should be sent to: 

Colette Pollard, Reports Management 

Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 7th Street 

SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 

20410–5000; telephone 202–402–5564 

(this is not a toll-free number) or email 

at Colette.Pollard@hud.gov for a copy of 

the proposed forms or other available 

information. Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dacia Rogers, Office of Policy, Programs 

and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 451 7th Street SW, 

(L’Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), 

Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202– 

402–4109, (this is not a toll-free 

number). Persons with hearing or 

speech impairments may access this 

number via TTY by calling the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8339. Copies 

of available documents submitted to 

OMB may be obtained from Ms. Rogers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that HUD is 

seeking approval from OMB for the 

information collection described in 

Section A. 

A. Overview of Information Collection 

Title of Information Collection: Public 

Housing Financial Management 

Template. 

OMB Approval Number: 2535–0107. 

Type of Request: Reinstatement of a 

previously approved collection. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: To meet 

the requirements of the Uniform 

Financial Standards Rule (24 CFR part 

5, subpart H) and the asset management 

requirements in 24 CFR part 990, the 

Department developed financial 

management templates that public 

housing agencies (PHAs) use to 

annually submit electronically financial 

information to HUD. HUD uses the 

financial information it collects from 

each PHA to assist in the evaluation and 

assessment of the PHAs’ overall 

condition. Requiring PHAs to report 

electronically has enabled HUD to 

provide a comprehensive financial 

assessment of the PHAs receiving 

federal funds from HUD. 

Respondents: Public Housing 

Agencies (PHAs). 

Estimated Annual Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Burden: The average 

burden hour estimate assumes that there 

are 3,916 PHAs (Low Rent Only, Low 

Rent and Section 8, and Section 8 only 

PHAs) that submit one unaudited 

financial management template 

annually. The average burden hours 

associated with an unaudited financial 

management template is 6.4 hours 

(25,015.5 total hours divided by 3,916 

PHAs). There are 3,538 PHAs that are 

required to or voluntarily submit an 

audited financial management template 

annually. The average burden hours 

associated with an audited financial 

management template is 4.2 hours 

(14,705 total hours divided by 3,538 

PHAs). When added together, the 

average burden hours for a PHA that 

submits both an unaudited and audited 

financial management template is 5.3 

hours, for a total reporting burden of 

39,721 hours. 

B. Solicitation of Public Comment 

This notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and affected 

parties concerning the collection of 

information described in Section A on 

the following: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond; including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

C. Authority 

Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35 as amended. 

Dated: February 19, 2021. 

Merrie Nichols-Dixon, 

Director, Office of Policy, Programs and 

Legislative Initiatives. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04136 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0131; 

FXES111401000000, 212, FF01E00000] 

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take 

During Specified Activities; Proposed 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

for Northern Sea Otters in the 

Northeast Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

and proposed incidental harassment 

authorization; availability of draft 

environmental assessment; and request 

for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) received a request 

from the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) for authorization to take a small 

number of northern sea otters by 

harassment incidental to a marine 

geophysical survey in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA), the Service is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to NSF for certain 

activities during the period between 

May 1 and June 30, 2021. This proposed 

IHA, if finalized, will be for take by 

Level A and Level B harassment. We 

12020 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 

anticipate no take by death and include 

none in this proposed authorization. 

The Service has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) 

addressing the proposed IHA and is 

soliciting public comments on both 

documents. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed IHA 

request and the draft EA will be 

accepted on or before March 31, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: The proposed 

IHA request, the draft EA, and the list 

of references cited herein are available 

for viewing at http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2020–0131 and at http://

www.fws.gov/wafwo. NSF’s associated 

environmental assessments can be 

found at https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/ 

envcomp/. 

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–R1– 

ES–2020–0131, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB/ 

3W, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; or 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0131. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

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: Brad 

Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive 

SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503–1273 

(telephone 360–753–9440). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et 

seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified region during a 

period of not more than 1 year. 

Incidental take may be authorized only 

if statutory and regulatory procedures 

are followed and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (hereafter, ‘‘the 

Service’’ or ‘‘we’’) makes the following 

findings: (i) The take is of a small 

number of marine mammals; (ii) the 

take will have a negligible impact on the 

species or stock; and (iii) take will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling 

Alaska Natives. As part of the 

authorization process, we prescribe 

permissible methods of taking and other 

means of affecting the least practicable 

impact on the species or stock and its 

habitat and prescribe requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such takings. 

The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the 

MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 

U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as 

defined by the MMPA, 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 refers to this impact 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 refers 

to these impacts as Level B harassment) 

(See 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)). 

The terms ‘‘negligible impact,’’ ‘‘small 

numbers,’’ and ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ are defined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, the 

Service’s regulations governing take of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to specified activities. 

‘‘Negligible impact’’ is defined as an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. ‘‘Small 

numbers’’ is defined as a portion of a 

marine mammal species or stock whose 

taking would have a negligible impact 

on that species or stock. However, we 

do not rely on that definition as it 

conflates the terms ‘‘small numbers’’ 

and ‘‘negligible impact,’’ which we 

recognize as two separate and distinct 

requirements (see Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 

1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, in 

our small numbers determination, we 

evaluate whether the number of marine 

mammals likely to be taken is small 

relative to the size of the overall 

population. ‘‘Unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ is defined as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity (1) 

that is likely to reduce the availability 

of the species to a level insufficient for 

a harvest to meet subsistence needs by 

(i) causing the marine mammals to 

abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) 

directly displacing subsistence users, or 

(iii) placing physical barriers between 

the marine mammals and the 

subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot 

be sufficiently mitigated by other 

measures to increase the availability of 

marine mammals to allow subsistence 

needs to be met. The subsistence 

provision does not apply to northern sea 

otters in Washington and Oregon. 

If the requisite findings are made, we 

will issue an IHA, which sets forth the 

following: (i) Permissible methods of 

taking; (ii) other means of effecting the 

least practicable impact on marine 

mammals and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance; and (iii) requirements for 

monitoring and reporting take. 

Summary of Request 

On December 19, 2019, the Service 

received an application from the 

National Science Foundation (hereafter 

‘‘NSF’’ or ‘‘the applicant’’) for 

authorization to take the northern sea 

otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni, hereafter 

‘‘sea otters’’ or ‘‘otters’’ unless another 

subspecies is specified) by 

unintentional harassment incidental to a 

marine geophysical survey of the 

Cascadia Subduction Zone off the coasts 

of Washington, Oregon, and British 

Columbia, Canada. The NSF 

subsequently postponed the project 

until 2021. 

Description of the Activities and 

Specified Geographic Region 

The specified activity (the ‘‘project’’) 

consists of Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory’s (L–DEO) 2020 Marine 

Geophysical Surveys by the Research 

Vessel Marcus G. Langseth (R/V 

Langseth) in the Northeast Pacific Ocean 

between May 1 and June 31, 2021. The 

high-energy, two-dimensional (2–D) 

seismic surveys are expected to last for 

a total of 40 (nonconsecutive) days, 

including approximately 37 days of 

seismic operations, 2 days of equipment 

deployment/retrieval, and 1 day of 

transit. A maximum of 6,890 km (4,281 

mi) of transect lines would be surveyed 

in marine waters adjacent to Oregon, 

Washington, and British Columbia from 

41° N to 50° N latitude and ¥124 N and 

¥130 W longitude, of which 

approximately 6,600 km (4,101 mi) 

would be in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone and 295 km (183 mi) in 

Canadian territorial waters. The Service 

cannot authorize the incidental take of 

marine mammals in waters not under 

the jurisdiction of the United States, and 

the Washington stock of the northern 

sea otter is not found within Canadian 

territorial waters. Therefore, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 12021 

Service’s calculation of estimated 

incidental take is limited to the 

specified activity occurring in United 

States jurisdictional waters within the 

stock’s range. 

The survey would include several 

strike lines, parallel (including one 

continuous line along the continental 

shelf) and perpendicular to the coast. 

The R/V Langseth will tow 4 strings 

containing an array of 36 airguns at a 

depth of 12 m (39 ft), creating a 

discharge volume of approximately 

6,600 cubic inches (in3) or 0.11 cubic 

meter (m3) at a shot interval of 37.5 m 

(123 ft). The 36-airgun array could 

operate 24 hours a day, except during 

mitigation shutdowns, for the entirety of 

the 37 days of survey. The energy 

produced by the seismic array is 

broadband and ranges from a few hertz 

(Hz) to kilohertz (kHz); however, all but 

a small fraction of the energy is focused 

in the 10–300 Hz range (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). The receiving system would 

consist of one 15-km (9.3-mi) long 

hydrophone streamer, Ocean Bottom 

Seismometers (OBSs), and Ocean 

Bottom Nodes (OBNs) deployed within 

the survey area. In addition to the 

operations of the airgun array, a 

multibeam echosounder, a single-beam 

dual-frequency echosounder (4 and 12 

kHz), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), and 

an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP) would be operated. Further 

information and technical specifications 

can be found in NSF’s IHA application 

and the Service’s draft EA available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2020–2012;0131. 

Description of Northern Sea Otters in 

the Specified Activity Area 

The proposed area of specified 

activity occurs within the range of the 

Washington stock of the northern sea 

otter, a portion of the species’ range that 

is not listed under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

This stock primarily occurs along the 

Washington coast between Cape Flattery 

and Grays Harbor, but small groups 

have been reported in the Straits of Juan 

de Fuca and individual sea otters have 

been reported in Puget Sound and along 

the Oregon coast as far south as Cape 

Blanco (Jeffries et al. 2019, USFWS 

2018, unpublished observations J. Rice 

OSU). Among the largest members of 

the family Mustelidae but one of the 

smallest of marine mammals, northern 

sea otters exhibit limited sexual 

dimorphism (males are larger than 

females) and can attain weights and 

lengths up to 40 kg (110 lb) and 1.4 m 

(4.6 ft), respectively. They have a typical 

life span of 11–15 years (Riedman and 

Estes 1990). Unlike most other marine 

mammals, sea otters have little 

subcutaneous fat. They depend on their 

clean, dense, water-resistant fur for 

insulation against the cold and maintain 

a high level of internal heat production 

to compensate for their lack of blubber. 

Consequently, their energetic 

requirements are high, and they 

consume an amount of food equivalent 

to approximately 23 to 33 percent of 

their body weight per day (Riedman and 

Estes 1990). 

Northern sea otters forage in both 

rocky and soft-sediment communities in 

water depths of 40 m (131 ft) or less 

(Laidre et al. 2009), although otters have 

been documented along the Washington 

coast as far as 58 km (36 mi) offshore in 

waters deeper than 200 m (656 ft) 

(Pearson 2019; supplemental data 

provided to USFWS). They tend to be 

found closer to shore during storms, but 

they venture farther out during good 

weather and calm seas (Kenyon 1975). 

Sea otters occasionally make dives of up 

to 100 m (328 ft) (Newby 1975), but the 

vast majority of feeding dives (more 

than 95 percent) occur in waters less 

than 40 m (131 ft) in depth (Tinker et 

al. 2006). Therefore, sea otter habitat is 

typically defined by the 40-m (131-ft) 

depth contour (Laidre et al. 2011). 

The number of sea otters in this stock, 

for the purposes of this analysis, was 

estimated to be approximately 3,000, 

based on survey count data and 

projections for areas not surveyed. The 

estimated minimum abundance of the 

stock, based on survey count data, was 

2,785 sea otters within the area between 

Cape Flattery and Grays Harbor, 

Washington, between shore and the 40- 

m (131-ft) depth contour (Jeffries et al. 

2019). While systematic surveys farther 

offshore have not been conducted in 

Washington or Oregon, otters have been 

documented farther offshore (Pearson 

2019). Surveys conducted in Southeast 

Alaska found 95 percent of northern sea 

otters were found in areas shallower 

than 40-m (131 ft) and 5 percent farther 

offshore (Tinker et al. 2019). Therefore, 

assuming a similar proportion of sea 

otters in Washington occur offshore, we 

added 5 percent (139 sea otters) to the 

minimum abundance to account for 

otters farther offshore than 40-m (131-ft) 

depth contour, to get a total population 

estimate of 2,924 for the area between 

Cape Flattery and Grays Harbor. Based 

on best professional judgment and 

limited anecdotal observations, we 

estimate two sea otters would be 

somewhere along the coast between 

Grays Harbor and the Washington/ 

Oregon border and two sea otters would 

be somewhere along the Oregon coast. 

Otter densities were calculated for the 

area between Cape Flattery and Grays 

Harbor, broken down to north and south 

of the Quillayute River. Surveys 

indicate the otter population is not 

evenly distributed throughout the area 

surveyed (Jeffries et al. 2019), and the 

distribution of the population during 

the proposed project is likely to be 

similar to that detected during surveys, 

as work will occur during the same time 

of year as the surveys were conducted. 

(See Table 2 for density estimations). A 

density was not estimated for the area 

between Grays Harbor and the southern 

end of the project; rather, we assumed 

that the four sea otters estimated to 

occur there would be exposed. 

Further biological information on this 

stock can be found in the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

Periodic Status Review (Sato 2018) and 

Recovery Plan (Lance et al. 2004). The 

sea otters in this stock have no 

regulatory status under the ESA. The 

potential biological removal (PBR) for 

this stock is 18 sea otters (USFWS 

2018). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population. While no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized here, PBR is 

included as a gross indicator of the 

status of the species. 

Sea Otter Hearing 

Controlled sound exposure trials on a 

single older male southern sea otter (E. 

l. nereis) indicate that otters can hear 

frequencies between 125 Hz and 38 kHz 

with best sensitivity between 1.2 and 27 

kHz in air and 2 to 26 kHz underwater; 

however, these thresholds may 

underrepresent best hearing capabilities 

in younger otters (Ghoul and Reichmuth 

2014). Aerial and underwater 

audiograms for a captive adult (14-yearold) 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 1 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 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 2012). 

12022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 

Potential Impacts of the Proposed 

Seismic Survey on Northern Sea Otters 

in Washington and Oregon 

This section includes a summary of 

the ways that components of the 

specified activity may impact sea otters 

and their habitat. A more in-depth 

analysis can be found in the Service’s 

draft EA (USFWS 2020). The Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment of Sea 

Otters section later in this document 

includes a quantitative analysis of the 

number of sea otters that are expected 

to be taken by this activity. The 

Negligible Impact section considers the 

content of the Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment of Sea Otters 

section, and the Mitigation and 

Monitoring section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact sea otters. 

Otters may be impacted while at the 

surface by the presence of the vessels 

traveling to/from the ports to the 

transects and operating along the 

transects. Otters underwater may be 

impacted by the OBS/OBNs as they are 

deployed and the acoustic effects from 

the airguns, OBS/SBP/ADCP/ 

echosounders, and ship noise. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on signal characteristics, 

received levels, duration of exposure, 

behavioral context, and whether the sea 

otter is above or below the water 

surface. Underwater sounds are not 

likely to affect sea otters at the surface, 

due to the pressure release effect. Thus, 

the susceptibility of sea otters from 

underwater sounds would be restricted 

to behaviors during which the head or 

body is submerged, such as during 

foraging dives and underwater 

swimming and, intermittently, during 

grooming bouts. The proposed activities 

include underwater sound sources that 

are impulsive (airguns) and nonimpulsive (OBS/SBP/ADCP/ 

echosounders and ship noise). Potential 

effects from impulsive sound sources 

can range in severity from effects such 

as behavioral disturbance or tactile 

perception to physical discomfort, slight 

to severe injury of the internal organs 

and the auditory system, or mortality 

(Yelverton et al. 1973; Yelverton and 

Richmond 1981; Turnpenny and 

Nedwell 1994; Turnpenny et al. 1994). 

Marine mammals exposed to highintensity sound, or to lower-intensity 

sound for prolonged periods, can 

experience a hearing threshold shift 

(TS), which is the loss of hearing 

sensitivity at certain frequency ranges 

(Finneran 2015). TS can be permanent 

(PTS), in which case there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage) and the loss of 

hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case there is primarily tissue 

fatigue and the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al. 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. Temporary or permanent loss of 

hearing will occur almost exclusively 

for noise within an animal’s hearing 

range. Given the longer exposure 

duration necessary to cause PTS as 

compared with TTS, it is considerably 

less likely that PTS would occur as a 

result of project activities because a sea 

otter could remove itself from exposure 

by coming to the surface. However, a sea 

otter underwater in close proximity to 

the higher level of sound could 

experience PTS. In addition, otters 

startled by the sound while foraging in 

deeper waters will be underwater longer 

and potentially be exposed to more 

acoustic sound. 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 

avoidance of an area, changes in 

vocalizations, or changes in antipredator 

response), more conspicuous changes in 

similar behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Reactions by sea otters to anthropogenic 

noise can be manifested as visible startle 

responses, flight responses (flushing 

into water from haulouts or ‘‘splashdown’’ alarm behavior in surface-resting 

rafts), changes in moving direction and/ 

or speed, changes in or cessation of 

certain behaviors (such as grooming, 

socializing, or feeding), or avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located. 

The biological significance of these 

behavioral disturbances is difficult to 

predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification would be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affected growth, survival, or 

reproduction. 

Potentially significant behavioral 

modifications include disturbance of 

resting sea otters, marked disruption of 

foraging behaviors, separation of 

mothers from pups, or disruption of 

spatial and social patterns (sexual 

segregation and male territoriality). 

Foraging is energetically costly to sea 

otters, more so than other marine 

mammals, because of their buoyancy 

and swimming style (Yeates et al. 2007), 

thus displacement from or reduction of 

foraging in high-quality habitat could 

result in increased energy expenditures. 

The energy expense and associated 

physiological effects could ultimately 

lead to reduced survival and 

reproduction (Gill and Sutherland 2000; 

Frid and Dill 2002). 

Disturbances can also have indirect 

effects; for example, 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 sharks and 

eagles, and have a well-developed 

antipredator response to perceived 

threats, which includes 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 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 type and extent of response 

may be influenced by intensity of the 

disturbance (Cevasco et al. 2001), 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). 

Exposure Thresholds—Although no 

specific thresholds have been developed 

for sea otters, several alternative 

behavioral response thresholds have 

been developed for otariid pinnipeds. 

Otariid pinnipeds (e.g., California sea 

lions [Zalophus californianus]) have a 

frequency range of hearing most similar 

to that measured in a southern sea otter 

(Ghoul and Reichmuth 2014) and 

provide the closest related proxy for 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 12023 

which data are available. Sea otters and 

pinnipeds share a common mammalian 

aural physiology (Echteler et al. 1994; 

Solntseva 2007). Both are adapted to 

amphibious hearing, and both use 

sound in the same way (primarily for 

communication rather than feeding). 

NMFS criteria for Level A harassment 

represents the best available information 

for predicting injury from exposure to 

underwater sound among pinnipeds, 

and in the absence of data specific to 

otters, we assume these criteria also 

represent appropriate exposure 

thresholds for Level A harassment of sea 

otters. 

For otariid pinnipeds, PTS is 

predicted to occur at 232 dB peak or 203 

dB SELcum (cumulative sound 

exposure level) for impulsive sound, or 

219 dB SELcum for non-impulsive 

(continuous) sound (NMFS 2018). 

Exposure to unmitigated in-water noise 

levels between 125 Hz and 38 kHz that 

are greater than 232 dB peak or 203 dB 

SELcum for impulsive sound or 219 dB 

SELcum for non-impulsive (continuous) 

sound will be considered by the Service 

as Level A harassment. NMFS predicts 

that marine mammals are likely to be 

behaviorally harassed in a manner 

considered Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g., 

vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources (NMFS 2018). 

Thresholds based on TTS can be used 

as a proxy for Level B harassment. 

Based on studies summarized by 

Finneran (2015), NMFS (2018) has set 

the TTS threshold for otariid pinnipeds 

at 188 dB SELcum for impulsive sounds 

and 199 dB SELcum for non-impulsive 

sounds. Thus, using information 

available for other marine mammals, 

specifically otariid pinnipeds, as a 

surrogate, and taking into consideration 

the best available information about sea 

otters, the Service has set the received 

sound level underwater of 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) as a threshold for Level B 

harassment for sea otters based on the 

work of Ghoul and Reichmuth (2012), 

McShane et al. (1995), Riedman (1983), 

Richardson et al. (1995), and others. 

Exposure to unmitigated impulsive inwater noise levels between 125 Hz and 

38 kHz that are greater than 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) will be considered by the 

Service as Level B harassment. 

Exposure to Project Activities—Based 

on the studies on sea otters in 

Washington, California, and Alaska, we 

believe sea otters spend between 40 and 

60 percent of a 24-hour period with at 

least a portion of their body underwater 

(foraging, other diving, or grooming 

behaviors that result in the head being 

underwater) and forage both diurnally 

and nocturnally (Esslinger et al. 2014, 

Laidre et al. 2009, Yeates et al. 2007, 

Tinker et al. 2008). Seismic survey 

activities can operate 24 hours/day and 

otters may be exposed at any time. Any 

single point along the transects could be 

above thresholds for a maximum of 6.5 

hours, during which time sea otters in 

that area would engage in underwater 

behaviors and would be exposed to 

underwater sound. Some areas along the 

transects will be ensonified more than 

once. 

Because sea otters spend a 

considerable portion of their time at the 

surface of the water, they are typically 

visually aware of approaching boats and 

are able to move away if the vessel is 

not traveling too quickly. The noise of 

approaching boats provides an 

additional warning, thus otters should 

be able to detect the vessels and paddle 

away, rather than be startled and go 

subsurface. Because the R/V Langseth 

would be traveling relatively slowly (4.5 

knots) during the surveys, it is unlikely 

that sea otters would suffer injury or 

death from a vessel collision. Otters that 

may be foraging may be startled by the 

remotely operated vehicle deployed to 

retrieve OBNs in waters >60 m (197 ft) 

along three transects perpendicular to 

the Oregon coast. 

The potential for exposure to all 

activities is likely to be limited to where 

the vessel is operating in waters <1,000 

m (3,280 ft) deep, as we do not 

anticipate otters to be farther offshore. 

Off the Washington coast, females 

primarily forage and rest in waters <40 

m (131 ft), but males spend less time 

foraging close to shore and rest farther 

offshore than females (Laidre et al. 

2009), venturing as far offshore as 58 km 

(36 mi) (Pearson 2019). Within the 

waters adjacent to Washington and 

northern Oregon (to Tillamook Head), 

the ensonified zone would not penetrate 

the waters between shore and the 40-m 

(131-ft) depth contour, thus sea otters 

that may be exposed are more likely to 

be the males that occur farther offshore. 

The otters along the Oregon coast are 

presumed to be males, based on 

stranding data (FWS unpublished data). 

NSF and L–DEO have proposed 

measures to minimize the chances of sea 

otter exposure to the seismic surveys. 

Along the Washington coast in waters 

<200 m (656 ft) deep, the airgun array 

would operate only during daylight 

hours. The airgun startup would be 

ramped in order to alert otters that are 

underwater, in the hope they would 

move away. Prior to airgun startup and 

during airgun operations, visual 

observers would be employed during 

daylight hours, in order to establish a 

500-m (1,640 ft) exclusion zone. Any sea 

otter observed in this zone would lead 

to a shutdown of the airgun array. 

However, there will be gaps in the 

visual coverage, in particular during 

nighttime operations in Oregon and 

beyond 200 m (656 ft) in Washington. In 

addition, under poor weather conditions 

and some good weather conditions, 

observers cannot be 100 percent 

effective and may not detect a sea otter 

in, or about to enter, the exclusion zone. 

Further, visual observations cannot 

cover the entirety of the area with sound 

levels that may cause behavioral 

changes. The lack of ability to fully 

monitor the ensonified area means an 

otter(s) may go unobserved and be 

exposed to underwater noise that results 

in Level A and/or Level B harassment. 

Potential Effects of the Proposed 

Activity on Northern Sea Otter Habitat 

Physical and biological features of 

habitat essential to the conservation of 

sea otters include the benthic 

invertebrates (crabs, urchins, mussels, 

clams, etc.) eaten by otters and the 

shallow rocky areas and kelp beds that 

provide cover from predators. Important 

sea otter habitat areas of significance in 

the NSF and L–DEO project area include 

coastal areas within the 40-m (131-ft) 

depth contour where high densities of 

otters have been detected, although 

deeper waters may be important for 

male sea otters. A number of recent 

reviews and empirical studies have 

addressed the effects of noise on 

invertebrates (Carroll et al. 2017), sea 

otter prey, with some studies showing 

little or no effects and others indicating 

deleterious effects from exposure to 

increased sound levels. Given the shortterm duration of sounds produced by 

each component of the proposed 

project, it is unlikely that noises 

generated by survey activities will have 

any lasting effect on sea otter prey (see 

the Service’s draft EA (USFWS 2020) for 

further information). The MMPA allows 

the Service to identify avoidance and 

minimization measures for affecting the 

least practicable impact of the specified 

activity on important habitats. Although 

sea otters within this important habitat 

may be impacted by geophysical 

surveys conducted by NSF and L–DEO, 

the project, as currently proposed, is not 

likely to cause lasting effects to habitat. 

Potential Impacts of the Proposed 

Activity on Subsistence Needs 

The subsistence provision of the 

MMPA does not apply to northern sea 

otters in Washington and Oregon. 

12024 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, the 

Service must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to the 

activity, and other means of affecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to habitat areas of 

significance and the availability of sea 

otters for subsistence uses by coastaldwelling Alaska Natives, although this 

factor is not applicable for this action. 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable impact on species or 

stocks and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses where applicable, we 

carefully consider two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (i.e., likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance to marine mammals caused 

by acoustic stimuli associated with IHA 

activities, NSF has proposed to 

implement mitigation measures for the 

northern sea otter including, but not 

limited to, the following: 

• Development of marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plans; 

• Reduced survey transect lines and 

daylight-only operations in area of 

highest sea otter densities; 

• Establishment of shutdown and 

monitoring zones; 

• Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring by Protected Species 

Observers; 

• Site clearing before start-up; 

• Soft-start and shutdown 

procedures. 

The specific methods to be 

implemented are further specified in the 

Service’s draft EA (USFWS 2020) 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2020–0131. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment of Northern Sea Otters 

In a previous section, we discussed 

the components of the project activities 

that have the potential to affect sea 

otters and the physiological and 

behavioral effects that can be expected. 

Here, we discuss how the Service 

characterizes these effects under the 

MMPA. 

An individual sea otter’s reaction to 

human activity will depend on the 

otter’s prior exposure to the activity, its 

need to be in the particular area, 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. 

Intermediate reactions that disrupt 

biologically significant behaviors are 

considered Level B harassment under 

the MMPA. 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 (spy hopping) while apparently 

agitated or while swimming away; 

• In the case of a pup, repeatedly spy 

hopping while hiding behind and 

holding onto its mother’s head; 

• Abandoning prey or feeding area; 

• Ceasing to nurse and/or rest 

(applies to dependent pups); 

• Ceasing to rest (applies to 

independent animals); 

• Ceasing to use movement corridors 

along the shoreline; 

• Ceasing mating behaviors; 

• Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft 

so that the raft disperses; 

• Sudden diving of an entire raft; or 

• Flushing animals off of 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. However, it is also important to 

note that, depending on the duration 

and severity of the above-described 

Level B behaviors, such responses could 

constitute take by Level A harassment. 

For example, while a single flushing 

event would likely indicate Level B 

harassment, repeatedly flushing sea 

otters from a haulout may constitute 

Level A harassment. 

Calculating Estimate of Takes 

In the sections below, we estimate 

take by harassment of the numbers of 

sea otters from the Washington stock (in 

Oregon and Washington) that are likely 

to be affected during the proposed 

activities. We assumed all animals 

exposed to underwater sound levels that 

meet the acoustic exposure criteria 

would experience Level A (>232 dBRMS) 

or Level B (160–232 dBRMS) harassment. 

To determine the number of otters that 

may be exposed to these sound levels, 

we created spatially explicit zones of 

ensonification using the proposed 

reduced survey transect lines and 

determined the number of otters present 

in the ensonification zones using 

density information generated from 

minimum population estimates in 

Jeffries et al. (2019), which subdivides 

the surveyed area into Cape Flattery to 

La Push and La Push to north entrance 

of Grays Harbor. An in-depth 

explanation of the process used can be 

found in the Service’s draft EA (USFWS 

2020) available at: http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R1–ES–2020–0131. 

The Level A and Level B underwater 

sound thresholds were used to create 

spatially explicit ensonification zones 

surrounding the proposed project 

transects. We created a buffer with a 46- 

m (151-ft) width around the proposed 

project transects to account for the Level 

A ensonified area on either side of the 

24-m-wide (79-ft-wide) airgun array. To 

determine the Level B ensonified area, 

we placed a 12,650-m (7.9-mi) buffer 

around transects in water <100 m (328 

ft) deep, and a 9,468-m (5.9-mi) buffer 

around transects in water 100–1,000 m 

(328–3,280 ft) deep. 

The minimum population estimate 

from Jeffries et al. (2019) can be 

specifically applied to the surveyed 

area, which included the Washington 

coastline between Cape Flattery and 

Grays Harbor in the nearshore areas less 

than 25-m (82-ft) depth contour. Sea 

otters are overwhelmingly observed (95 

percent) within the 40-m (131-ft) depth 

contour (Laidre et al. 2009; Tinker et al. 

2019), thus for the purposes of this 

analysis, the population estimated by 

Jeffries et al. (2019) is assumed to apply 

to the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour for 

the waters between Grays Harbor and 

Cape Flattery. The minimum abundance 

estimates from Jeffries et al. (2019) were 

divided north and south of the 

Quillayute River, thus for this analysis 

habitat was divided into subregions, 

Cape Flattery south to Quillayute River 

(subregion north) and Quillayute River 

to Grays Harbor (subregion mid). 

Density estimates for the north and mid 

subregions were calculated by dividing 

the population estimate for that 

subregion (Jeffries et al. 2019) by the 

area from shore to the 40-m (131-ft) 

depth contour. See Table 1 for projected 

sea otter abundance and density 

estimates. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 12025 

Sea otter abundances outside of the 

area covered by surveys were inferred/ 

estimated as follows. 

• North and Mid subregions 40–100- 

m (131–328-ft) depth contour: While 95 

percent of sea otters are observed within 

the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour, otters 

do occur farther off shore (see Pearson 

2019 for specific instances off 

Washington coast), thus lower density 

otter habitat was delineated between the 

40- and 100-m (131- and 328-ft) depth 

contours. To calculate the density of 

otters in lower density (40–10-m or 131– 

328-ft) habitat, we multiplied the 

density of the adjacent high-density 

habitat by 0.05. 

• North and Mid subregions >100-m 

(328-ft) depth contour: Pearson (2019) 

observed two sea otters (1 in 2017 and 

1 in 2018) in waters >100-m (328-ft) 

depth contour in the Mid subregion. We 

do not have a reasonable method for 

determining the density of otters in the 

waters this deep and far offshore, thus 

for the purposes of calculating the 

number of otters that may be exposed, 

we assumed 2 otters could be in the 

waters >100-m (328-ft) depth contour in 

the Mid subregion. 

• South subregion: Includes the area 

from Grays Harbor south to Oregon/ 

California border. This subregion was 

further divided into three areas because 

of the differences in transects and sea 

otter observations: Grays Harbor to 

Washington/Oregon border, Northern 

Oregon, Southern Oregon. There are no 

systematic surveys conducted south of 

Grays Harbor, but there are consistent 

reports of individuals as far south as 

Cape Blanco, Oregon (unpublished FWS 

data; Jim Rice, Oregon State University, 

pers. comm). We do not have data to 

inform a density estimate for these 

areas; however, in our best professional 

judgment we estimated that a minimum 

of four sea otters may be in the south 

subregion at the time of the project. 

Pearson (2019) observed one sea otter in 

waters >100-m (328-ft) depth contour in 

the South subregion. We do not have a 

reasonable method for determining the 

density of otters in the waters this deep 

and far offshore, thus for the purposes 

of calculating the number of otters that 

may be exposed in the Grays Harbor to 

WA/OR border, we assumed two sea 

otters could be at any depth. In Oregon, 

we assumed one otter in each of the two 

areas, which could be at any depth. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED SEA OTTER ABUNDANCE AND DENSITIES FOR THE ANALYSIS AREA

Subregion 

High density 

(<40 m) 

Lower density 

(40–100 m) 

Abundance 

estimate 

Area 

(km2) Density Abundance estimate 

Area 

(km2) Density 

North ................................................................................ 549 456 1.2 27 556 0.05 

Mid ................................................................................... 2,236 1,434 1.56 112 2,060 0.05 

South ................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 4 

The area impacted in each subregion 

and depth contour was multiplied by 

the estimated otter density to determine 

the number of otters that would 

experience Level A and Level B sound 

levels (Tables 2 and 3). The total 

number of takes was predicted by 

estimating the projected days of activity 

in each subregion and depth contour 

using the reduced transects supplied by 

NSF. In several areas, the length and 

direction of the proposed survey 

transect lines make it highly unlikely 

that impacts will occur on only 1 day. 

In these instances, we estimated the 

days of disturbance based on the 

number of passes of the survey transect 

lines. 

The following assumptions were 

pertinent to our estimate of harassment 

take (see above for specific rationale): 

• No otters will occur >100-m (328-ft) 

depth contour in North subregion. 

• Visual observers will not be able to 

see sea otters in poor weather 

conditions and will not be observing at 

night. When visual observers are not 

able to effectively observe sea otters, 

there would be no mitigation 

(shutdown) applied. 

• When visual observers are not able 

to observe sea otters they could be 

exposed to harassment that has the 

potential to injure (Level A) or disturb 

by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns (Level B). For the purposes of 

this analysis, we applied our best 

professional judgment and erred on the 

side of the species, attributing the 

harassment to Level A. In the areas 

where a density estimate cannot be used 

to differentiate the number of otters 

exposed to Level A or Level B, we 

attributed the harassment to Level A. 

• During the project, only two sea 

otters will be in the waters offshore of 

Southwest Washington between Grays 

Harbor and Washington/Oregon border. 

These two sea otters may be in waters 

>100 m (328 ft), thus harassment was 

assigned at Level A conditions. 

• During the project, only two sea 

otters will be in the waters offshore of 

Oregon. These two sea otters may be in 

waters at any depth contour, thus 

harassment was assigned at Level A 

conditions. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF NORTHERN SEA OTTERS ENSONIFIED BY SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN 232 dBRMS

(LEVEL A) DUE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

Take was calculated by multiplying the area ensonified in each subregion by that subregion’s sea otter density or specific estimate, then 

multiplied by the projected days of ensonification] 

Subregion Habitat type Density 

(otters/km2) 

Area 

impacted 

(km2) 

Estimated 

take/day 

Projected 

days of 

take 

Estimated 

survey 

total takes 

North .............................. High (<40m) .......................................... 1.2 .................... 0 0 .................... 0 

Low (40–100 m) .................................... .05 .................... 0 0 .................... 0 

Offshore (>100 m) ................................. 0 ....................... .................... .................... .................... 0 

Mid ................................. High (<40 m) ......................................... 1.56 .................. 0 0 .................... 0 

Low (40–100 m) .................................... 0.05 .................. 0 0 .................... 0 

Offshore (>100 m) ................................. 2 otters ............. .................... 2 2 4 

12026 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF NORTHERN SEA OTTERS ENSONIFIED BY SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN 232 dBRMS

(LEVEL A) DUE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Take was calculated by multiplying the area ensonified in each subregion by that subregion’s sea otter density or specific estimate, then 

multiplied by the projected days of ensonification] 

Subregion Habitat type Density 

(otters/km2) 

Area 

impacted 

(km2) 

Estimated 

take/day 

Projected 

days of 

take 

Estimated 

survey 

total takes 

Grays Harbor-WA/OR 

border.

............................................................... 2 otter ............... .................... 2 2 4 

N Oregon ....................... ............................................................... 1 otter ............... .................... 1 2 2 

S Oregon ....................... ............................................................... 1 otter ............... .................... 1 3 3 

Total ....................... ............................................................... ........................... .................... 5 .................... 13 

Estimated Stock Total ... ............................................................... ........................... .................... .................... .................... 2,928 

Percentage of Stock ...... ............................................................... ........................... .................... .................... .................... 0.44 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF NORTHERN SEA OTTERS ENSONIFIED BY SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN 160 dBRMS

(LEVEL B) DUE TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

[Take was calculated by multiplying the area ensonified in each subregion by that subregion’s sea otter density or specific estimate, then 

multiplied by the projected days of ensonification] 

Subregion Habitat type Density 

(otters/km2) 

Area 

impacted 

(km2) 

Estimated 

take/day 

Projected 

days of 

take 

Estimated 

survey 

total takes 

North .................................................. High (<40 m) .................... 1.2 .................... 0 0 0 0 

Low (40–100 m) ............... .05 .................... 0 0 1 0 

Low (40–100 m) ............... .05 .................... 0 0 2 0 

Offshore (>00 m) .............. 0 ....................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Mid ..................................................... High (<40 m) .................... 1.56 .................. 0 0 .................... 0 

Low (40–100 m) ............... 0.05 .................. 0 0 2 0 

Offshore (>100 m) ............ 2 otters ............. Accounted for in Level A. 

Grays Harbor–WA/OR border ........... ........................................... 2 otters ............. Accounted for in Level A. 

N Oregon ........................................... ........................................... 1 otter ............... Accounted for in Level A. 

S Oregon ........................................... ........................................... 1 otter ............... Accounted for in Level A. 

Total ............................................ ........................................... ........................... .................... 0 .................... 0 

Estimated Stock Total ........................ ........................................... ........................... .................... .................... .................... 2,928 

Percentage of Stock .......................... ........................................... ........................... .................... .................... .................... 0.00 

We expect that up to 13 sea otters may 

experience Level A and/or Level B take 

due to harassment by noise (Tables 2 

and 3). While sea otters in these areas 

are most likely to be exposed to Level 

B harassment, during times when sea 

otters cannot be observed, we are erring 

on the side of the species and attributing 

the potential harassment to Level A, 

thus the total number of otters harassed 

is accounted for under Level A. The 

revised transects provided by NSF 

resulted in the area of ensonification 

being beyond the 100-m (328-ft) depth 

contour for the entire coast of 

Washington; therefore, no otters in 

waters less than 100 m (328 ft) deep are 

anticipated to be harassed by the 

activities. The total number of 

incidental takes of sea otters is expected 

to be less than 13. Take from sources 

other than noise is not expected. 

Findings 

The Service proposes the following 

findings regarding this action: 

Small Numbers Determination 

The statute and legislative history do 

not expressly require a specific type of 

numerical analysis for the small take 

evaluation, leaving the determination of 

‘‘small’’ to the agency’s discretion. In 

this case, we propose a finding that the 

NSF and L–DEO project may result in 

incidental take of up to 13 otters from 

the Washington sea otter stock. This 

represents less than 1 percent of the 

stock. Predicted levels of take were 

determined based on estimated density 

of sea otters in the project area and an 

ensonification zone developed using 

empirical evidence from the same 

geographic area and corrected for the 

methodology proposed by NSF and L– 

DEO for this project. Based on these 

numbers, we propose a finding that the 

NSF and L–DEO project will take only 

a small number of marine mammals. 

Negligible Impact 

We propose a finding that any 

incidental take by harassment resulting 

from the proposed activity cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

sea otter through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival and will, 

therefore, have no more than a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stocks. In making this finding, we 

considered the best available scientific 

information, including: (1) The 

biological and behavioral characteristics 

of the species; (2) the most recent 

information on species distribution and 

abundance within the area of the 

specified activity; (3) the current and 

expected future status of the stock 

(including existing and foreseeable 

human and natural stressors); (4) the 

potential sources of disturbance caused 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 12027 

by the project; and (5) the potential 

responses of marine mammals to this 

disturbance. In addition, we reviewed 

applicant-provided material, 

information in our files and datasets, 

published reference materials, and input 

from experts on the sea otter. 

The Service does not anticipate that 

mortality of affected otters would occur 

as a result of NSF and L–DEO’s planned 

survey. Thus, mortality is not 

authorized. We are proposing to 

authorize Level A and Level B 

harassment of 13 sea otters. The effects 

to these individuals are unknown, and 

lasting effects to survival and 

reproduction for these otters are 

possible. However, we believe that any 

PTS incurred as a result of the planned 

activity would be in the form of only a 

small degree of PTS, not total deafness, 

and would be unlikely to affect the 

fitness of any individuals for the 

following reasons: (1) The constant 

movement of the R/V Langseth means 

the vessel is not expected to remain in 

any one area in which individual otters 

may spend an extended period of time 

(i.e., since the duration of exposure to 

loud sounds will be relatively short); 

and (2) we expect that sea otters would 

be likely to move away from a sound 

source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the R/V Langseth’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. 

We expect that the majority of takes 

would be in the form of short-term 

behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

ceasing/decreased foraging (if such 

activity were occurring). Reactions to 

this type of harassment could have 

significant biological impacts for 

affected individuals but are not likely to 

result in measurable changes in their 

survival or reproduction. The otters 

subject to short-term behavioral 

harassment would be the same otters 

that may be subject to Level A 

harassment. 

The total number of animals affected 

and severity of impact is not sufficient 

to change the current population 

dynamics of the sea otter at the 

subregion or stock scales. Although the 

specified activities may result in the 

take of up to 13 sea otters from the 

Washington stock, we do not expect this 

level of harassment to affect annual 

rates of recruitment or survival or result 

in adverse effects on the species or stock 

as all of the projected takes occur 

outside of the areas used by females and 

are most likely to be males. 

With implementation of the proposed 

project, sea otter habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels, but 

these impacts would be temporary and 

are not anticipated to result in 

detrimental impacts to sea otter prey 

species. Because of the temporary 

nature of the disturbance, the impacts to 

sea otters and the food sources they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual sea otters or their 

population. 

The proposed mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of take events by allowing for 

detection of sea otters in the vicinity of 

the vessel by visual observers, and by 

minimizing the severity of any potential 

exposures via shutdowns of the airgun 

array. These measures, and the 

monitoring and reporting procedures, 

are required for the validity of our 

finding and are a necessary component 

of the proposed IHA. For these reasons, 

we propose a finding that the 2021 NSF 

and L–DEO project will have a 

negligible impact on sea otters. 

Impact on Subsistence 

The subsistence provision of the 

MMPA does not apply to northern sea 

otters in Washington and Oregon. 

Required Determinations 

Endangered Species Act 

The Service’s proposed take 

authorization has no effect on any 

species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. The 

proposed NSF Seismic Survey is a 

Federal action currently undergoing 

separate interagency consultation with 

the Service pursuant to the ESA. As 

ESA-listed species or critical habitat 

will not be impacted by the Service’s 

proposed take authorization, intraagency consultation for the permit 

action is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have prepared a draft EA (USFWS 

2020) addressing the proposed MMPA 

take authorization in accordance with 

the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). Based on the findings 

presented in the EA, we have 

preliminarily concluded that approval 

and issuance of the authorization for the 

nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take 

by Level A and Level B harassment of 

small numbers of the Washington stock 

of the northern sea otter caused by 

activities conducted by the applicant 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment, and 

that the preparation of an environmental 

impact statement for this action is not 

required by section 102(2) of NEPA or 

its implementing regulations. We are 

accepting comments on the draft EA as 

described above in ADDRESSES. 

Government-to-Government Relations 

With Native American Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with: The President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); the Native 

American Policy of the Service (January 

20, 2016); Executive Order 13175 

(November 6, 2000); and the Department 

of the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

Federally recognized Tribes on a 

Government-to-Government basis. We 

have evaluated possible effects of the 

proposed MMPA take authorization on 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

have determined that there are no 

effects. 

Proposed Authorization 

We propose to issue an IHA to NSF 

for incidental takes by Level A and 

Level B harassment of up to 13 sea 

otters from the Washington stock of the 

northern sea otter. The final 

authorization would incorporate the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures as described below and fully 

detailed in the draft EA. The taking of 

sea otters whenever the required 

conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are not fully 

implemented as required by the IHA 

will be prohibited. Failure to follow 

these measures may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of the IHA. Authorized take will be 

limited to PTS and disruption of 

behavioral patterns that may be caused 

by geophysical surveys and support 

activities conducted by NSF and L–DEO 

in Washington and Oregon from May 1 

to June 30, 2021. We anticipate no take 

in the form of death of northern sea 

otters resulting from these surveys. 

If take exceeds the level or type 

identified in the proposed authorization 

(e.g., greater than 13 incidents of take of 

sea otters), the IHA will be invalidated 

and the Service will reevaluate its 

findings. If project activities cause 

unauthorized take, the applicant 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 Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Office within 48 hours; and (iii) 

suspend further activities until the 

Service has reviewed the circumstances, 

12028 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 38 / Monday, March 1, 2021 / Notices 

determined whether additional 

mitigation measures are necessary to 

avoid further unauthorized taking, and 

notified the applicant that they may 

resume project activities. 

All operations managers and vessel 

operators must possess 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. 

The IHA will apply to activities 

associated with the proposed project as 

described in this document, the draft 

EA, and in the applicant’s amended 

application and environmental 

assessments. Changes to the proposed 

project without prior Service 

authorization may invalidate the IHA. 

Operators shall allow Service 

personnel or the Service’s designated 

representative to visit project work sites 

to monitor impacts to sea otters at any 

time throughout project activities so 

long as it is safe to do so. ‘‘Operators’’ 

are all personnel operating under the 

applicant’s authority, including all 

contractors and subcontractors. 

A final report will be submitted by 

NSF to the Service within 90 days after 

completion of work or expiration of the 

IHA. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

document sightings of sea otters near 

the operations. The report will provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring, including factors 

influencing visibility and detectability 

of sea otters. The final report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all northern sea 

otter sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities). The report will also include 

estimates of the number and nature of 

exposures, if any, that occurred above 

the harassment threshold based on 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

observations and including an estimate 

of those that were not detected. 

The report shall also include georeferenced time-stamped vessel transect 

lines for all time periods during which 

airguns were operating. Transect lines 

should include points recording any 

change in airgun status (e.g., when the 

airguns began operating, when they 

were turned off, or when they changed 

from a full array to a single gun or vice 

versa). GIS files shall be provided in 

ESRI shapefile format and include the 

UTC date and time, latitude in decimal 

degrees, and longitude in decimal 

degrees. All coordinates shall be 

referenced to the GCS_North_American_

1983 geographic coordinate system. In 

addition to the report, all raw 

observational data shall be made 

available to the Service. The report will 

be accompanied by a certification from 

the lead PSO as to the accuracy of the 

report, and the lead PSO may submit 

directly to the Service a statement 

concerning implementation and 

effectiveness of the required mitigation 

and monitoring. 

References 

A list of the references cited in this 

notice is available at 

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2020–0131. 

Request for Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed authorization or the associated 

draft EA, or both, you may submit your 

comments by any of the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please identify 

if you are commenting on the proposed 

IHA, draft EA, or both. Please make your 

comments as specific as possible, 

confine them to issues pertinent to the 

proposed authorization, 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 above). 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: February 23, 2021. 

Hugh Morrison, 

Deputy Regional Director, Interior Regions 9 

and 12. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04081 Filed 2–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1236] 

Certain Polycrystalline Diamond 

Compacts and Articles Containing 

Same; Notice of Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Amending the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined not to review an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 8) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) granting an unopposed motion 

of complainant US Synthetic 

Corporation for leave to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

substitute Guangdong Juxin New 

Materials Technology Co., Ltd.as a 

respondent in place of Zhuhai Juxin 

Technology. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3427. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 29, 2020, based on a 

complaint filed by US Synthetic 

Corporation of Orem, Utah (‘‘US 

Synthetic’’). 85 FR 85661 (Dec. 29, 

2020). The complaint alleges violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 

337’’), based upon the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain polycrystalline diamond 

compacts and articles containing same 

by reason of infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,932,274; 

10,508,502; 9,315,881; 10,507,565; and 

8,616,306. Id. The complaint further