33500 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

Analysis 

Agency: Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

Title: IMMVI Veterans Portal, 

Webform 1601–NEW. 

OMB Number: 1601–0032. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: Public. 

Number of Respondents: 500. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1. 

Total Burden Hours: 13,535.00. 

Kalinka Cihlar, 

Executive Deputy Director, Business 

Management Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11820 Filed 6–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9112–FL–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

[Docket No. DHS–2022–0035] 

Homeland Security Advisory Council 

AGENCY: The Office of Partnership and 

Engagement (OPE), The Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of a closed Federal 

Advisory Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Homeland Security 

Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet 

virtually on Friday, June 17, 2022. The 

meeting will be closed to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will take place from 

10:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. ET on Friday, 

June 17, 2022. 

Public participation: The meeting will 

be closed to the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Miron at 202–282–8000 or 

HSAC@hq.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of 

this meeting is given under Section 

10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA), Public Law 92–463 (5 

U.S.C. Appendix), which requires a 

portion of each FACA committee 

meeting to be open to the public unless 

the President, or the head of the agency 

to which the advisory committee 

reports, determines that a portion of the 

meeting may be closed to the public in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c). 

The HSAC provides organizationally 

independent, strategic, timely, specific, 

actionable advice, and 

recommendations to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security on matters related to 

homeland security. The Council 

consists of senior executives from 

government, the private sector, 

academia, law enforcement, and nongovernmental organizations. 

The HSAC will meet in a closed 

session from 10:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. ET 

to participate in sensitive discussions 

with DHS senior leadership regarding 

DHS Southwest Border operations. 

Basis for Closure: In accordance with 

Section 10(d) of FACA, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security has determined this 

meeting must be closed during this 

session as the disclosure of the 

information relayed would be 

detrimental to the public interest for the 

following reasons: 

The HSAC will participate in a 

sensitive operational discussion 

containing For Official Use Only and 

Law Enforcement Sensitive information. 

This discussion will include 

information regarding threats facing the 

United States at the Southwest Border 

and how DHS plans to address those 

threats. The session is closed pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7) and(9)(B). 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Michael J. Miron, 

Deputy Executive Director, Homeland 

Security Advisory Council, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11983 Filed 6–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9112–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2021–0168; 

FXES111607MRG01–223–FF07CAMM00] 

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take 

During Specified Activities; Proposed 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

for Southeast Alaska Stock of Northern 

Sea Otters in Ketchikan, Alaska 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; 

proposed incidental harassment 

authorization; draft environmental 

assessment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in response to a 

request under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended, 

from the United States Coast Guard, 

propose to authorize nonlethal, 

incidental take by harassment of small 

numbers of the Southeast Alaska stock 

of northern sea otters between July 1, 

2022, and June 30, 2023. The applicant 

requested this authorization for take that 

may result from activities associated 

with a floating dock expansion project 

in the Tongass Narrows at the U.S. Coast 

Guard Base Ketchikan. We estimate that 

this project may result in the nonlethal 

incidental take of up to five northern sea 

otters from the Southeast Alaska stock. 

This proposed authorization, if 

finalized, will be for up to 35 takes of 

5 northern sea otters by Level B 

harassment only. No injury or mortality 

is expected or will be authorized. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

incidental harassment authorization and 

the accompanying draft environmental 

assessment must be received by July 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may view this proposed authorization, 

draft environmental assessment, the 

application package, supporting 

information, and the lists of references 

cited herein at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2021–0168, or these 

documents may be requested as 

described under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments on this proposed 

authorization by one of the following 

methods: 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7– 

ES–2021–0168, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 

22041–3803. 

• Electronic submission: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2021–0168. 

We will post all comments at https://

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

that we withhold personal identifying 

information from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. See Request for 

Public Comments for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sierra Franks, Marine Mammals 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS–341, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, by email at 

R7mmmregulatory@fws.gov; or by 

telephone at 1–800–362–5148. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 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 coastaldwelling 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33502 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

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 (km2) (0.062 

square miles (mi2)). 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN02JN22.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 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 lowfrequency 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33504 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

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 20μPa in air 

and SELCUM dB re 1 μPa in water) for impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level (SPL) in air (dB re 

20μPa) and water (dB 1μPa) (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 (in3). 

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 (cm3) (100 in3) airgun and a 

67,006 cm3 (4,089 in3) 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33506 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

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 coastaldwelling 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 abovedescribed 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-thehole rock socket drilling is considered 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 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 NMFSrecommended 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 μPa. 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)] 

Sound Source 

Rock-socket drilling 

Vibratory hammering Impact driver 

Nonimpulsive Impulsive 

Sound level ........................ 166 dB re 1μPa RMS SPL 

mean maximum at 10 m.

154 dB SEL s–s .................. 155.5 dB re 1μPa RMS 

SPL mean maximum at 

10 m.

178 dB SEL s–s (equivalent 

to 190 dB re 1μPa 

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 strikes/ 

second36,000 strikes/ 

pile.

6 minutes/pile .................... 5 strikes/pile. 

Maximum piles per day ..... 2 ........................................ 2 ........................................ 2 ........................................ 2. 

Maximum number of 

days.

5 5 ........................................ 5. 

Distance to below Level A 

Harassment threshold.

7.9 m (25.9 ft) 0.0 m (0.0 ft) ..................... 0.8 m (2.6 ft). 

Distance to below Level B 

Harassment threshold.

25 m (82 ft) 5 m (16 ft) ......................... 1,000 m (3,281 ft). 

Sea otters in affected 400- 

m × 400-m area.

0.23 0.23 ................................... 4.1. 

Potential sea otters affected by sound.1 1 ........................................ 5. 

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 × 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33508 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

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 piledriving 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN02JN22.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 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 projectproduced 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 rocksocket 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
33510 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2022 / Notices 33511 

10. In-water activity must be 

conducted in daylight. If environmental 

conditions prevent visual detection of 

sea otters within the shutdown zone, inwater activities must be stopped until 

visibility is regained. 

C. Monitoring 

11. Operators will work with PSOs to 

apply mitigation measures and will 

recognize the authority of PSOs up to 

and including stopping work, except 

where doing so poses a significant safety 

risk to personnel. 

12. Duties of the PSOs include 

watching for and identifying sea otters, 

recording observation details, 

documenting presence in any applicable 

monitoring zone, identifying and 

documenting potential harassment, and 

working with operators to implement all 

appropriate mitigation measures. 

13. Monitoring of the shutdown zone 

must continue for 30 minutes following 

completion of pile installation. 

D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to 

Subsistence Users 

14. Prior to conducting the work, the 

USCG will take the following steps to 

reduce potential effects on subsistence 

harvest of sea otters: 

• Avoid work in areas of known sea 

otter subsistence harvest; 

• Discuss the planned activities with 

subsistence stakeholders including 

Southeast Alaska villages and 

traditional councils; 

• Identify and work to resolve 

concerns of stakeholders regarding the 

project’s effects on subsistence hunting 

of sea otters; and 

• If any concerns remain, develop a 

POC in consultation with the Service 

and subsistence stakeholders to address 

these concerns. 

E. Reporting Requirements 

15. The USCG must notify the Service 

at least 48 hours prior to 

commencement of activities. 

16. Reports will be submitted to the 

Service’s MMM weekly during project 

activities. The reports will summarize 

project work and monitoring efforts. 

17. A final report will be submitted to 

the Service’s MMM within 90 days after 

completion of work or expiration of the 

IHA. It will summarize all monitoring 

efforts and observations, describe all 

project activities, and discuss any 

additional work yet to be done. Factors 

influencing visibility and detectability 

of marine mammals (e.g., sea state, 

number of observers, fog, and glare) will 

be discussed. The report will describe 

changes in sea otter behavior resulting 

from project activities and any specific 

behaviors of interest. Sea otter 

observation records will be provided in 

the form of electronic database or 

spreadsheet files. The report will assess 

any effects the USCG’s operations may 

have had on the availability of sea otters 

for subsistence harvest and if 

applicable, evaluate the effectiveness of 

the POC for preventing impacts to 

subsistence users of sea otters. 

18. Injured, dead, or distressed sea 

otters that are not associated with 

project activities (e.g., animals found 

outside the project area, previously 

wounded animals, or carcasses with 

moderate to advanced decomposition or 

scavenger damage) must be reported to 

the Service within 24 hours of 

discovery. Photographs, video, location 

information, or any other available 

documentation shall be provided to the 

Service. 

19. All reports shall be submitted by 

email to fw7_mmm_reports@fws.gov. 

20. The USCG must notify the Service 

upon project completion or end of the 

work season. 

Request for Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed authorization, the associated 

draft environmental assessment, or both 

documents, you may submit your 

comments by any of the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please identify 

if you are commenting on the proposed 

authorization, draft environmental 

assessment or both, make your 

comments as specific as possible, 

confine them to issues pertinent to the 

proposed authorization or draft 

environmental assessment, and explain 

the reason for any changes you 

recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph that you are 

addressing. The Service will consider 

all comments that are received before 

the close of the comment period (see 

DATES). 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will 

become part of the administrative record 

for this proposal. Before including your 

address, telephone number, email 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised that your entire comment, 

including your personal identifying 

information, may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comments to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Peter Fasbender, 

Assistant Regional Director, Fisheries and 

Ecological Services, Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11848 Filed 6–1–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2021–0171; 

FF07CAMM00–FX–ES111607MRG01] 

Marine Mammals; Letters of 

Authorization To Take Pacific 

Walruses and Polar Bears in the 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska, and Northern 

Sea Otters in Cook Inlet, Alaska, in 

2021 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service issued Letters of Authorization 

for the nonlethal take of polar bears and 

Pacific walruses incidental to oil and 

gas industry exploration, development, 

and production activities in the Beaufort 

Sea and the adjacent northern coast of 

Alaska as well as northern sea otters in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, in 2021. This notice 

announces the lists of Letters of 

Authorizations issued in calendar year 

2021. The Letters of Authorization 

stipulate conditions and methods that 

minimize impacts to polar bears, Pacific 

walruses, and northern sea otters from 

these activities. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: You may view 

this notice as well as the Letters of 

Authorization at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2021–0171, or these 

documents may be requested as 

described under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hamilton, Marine Mammal 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503, by email at 

R7mmmRegulatory@fws.gov or by 

telephone at 1–800–362–5148. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1