83 FR 18077 - Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 80 (April 25, 2018)

Page Range		18077-18083
FR Document		2018-08559

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment incidental to the replacement of pier piles and the potable water line at USCG Station Monterey in Monterey County, California. In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, we request comments on our proposed authorization for the applicant to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of southern sea otters during a 1-year authorization period beginning on or before June 15, 2018. We anticipate no take by injury or death and include none in this proposed authorization, which would be for take by harassment only.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18077-18083]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R8-ES-2018-N012; FXES111608MSSO0]

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities;
Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have
received an application from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for
authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment
incidental to the replacement of pier piles and the potable water line
at USCG Station Monterey in Monterey County, California. In accordance
with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
amended, we request comments on our proposed authorization for the
applicant to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of
southern sea otters during a 1-year authorization period beginning on
or before June 15, 2018. We anticipate no take by injury or death and
include none in this proposed authorization, which would be for take by
harassment only.

DATES: Comments and information must be received by May 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by any one of
the following methods:
1. U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura,
CA 93003.
2. Fax: 805-644-3958, attention to Stephen P. Henry, Field
Supervisor.
3. Electronic mail (email): R8_SSO-IHA_Comment@fws.gov. Please
include your name and U.S. mail address in your message.
Document availability: Electronic copies of the incidental
harassment authorization request, the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan,
the draft supplemental environmental assessment, and other supporting
materials, such as the list of references used in this notice, may be
obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the
contact listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or visiting the
internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/info/sso.html. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by
appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned U.S.
mail address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilian Carswell, Southern Sea Otter
Recovery & Marine Conservation Coordinator, (805) 677-3325, or by email
at Lilian_Carswell@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(5)(A) and (D)), authorize
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 geographical region, provided that we make
certain findings and either issue regulations or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, provide a notice of a proposed authorization to
the public for review and comment.
We may grant authorization to incidentally take small numbers of
marine mammals if we find that the taking will have a negligible impact
on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence
uses. As part of the authorization process, we prescribe permissible
methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable
impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and 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. 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 calls this
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 calls
this Level B harassment].''
The statutory 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.'' The term ``small
numbers'' is also defined in the regulations 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 the definition of
``small numbers'' here, as it conflates the terms ``small numbers'' and
``negligible impact,'' which we recognize as two separate and distinct
requirements. See NRDC v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D.
Cal.). 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 determined in reference to
impacts on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence
uses. It 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.'' Because this subsistence provision applies only to the taking of
any marine mammal by any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in Alaska
and who dwells on the coast of the North Pacific

[[Page 18078]]

Ocean or the Arctic Ocean (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)), it is relevant to
northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) in Alaska but not to
southern sea otters.

Summary of Request

In February 2017, we received a request from the USCG (Applicant)
for MMPA authorization to take by harassment southern sea otters
(Enhydra lutris nereis) incidental to the replacement of pier piles and
the potable water line at USCG Station Monterey in Monterey Harbor,
California. We received a revised request on July 11, 2017. The
Applicant requested and received incidental harassment authorization
(IHA) for the same project in 2014 but was not able to initiate work at
that time. Other than revised dates, the project is essentially
unchanged. The Applicant proposes to remove and replace 17 timber piles
that structurally support the patrol boat pier (Pier), replace the
existing potable water line, and improve associated structures to
maintain the structural integrity of the Pier and potable water line.
Pile-driving activities would be limited to the period from June 15 to
October 15. Other construction activities associated with the project
are not expected to affect sea otters and may occur at any time. A
detailed description of the proposed action is contained in the revised
incidental harassment authorization request submitted to us by the USCG
(Amec Foster Wheeler 2017). The proposed action is expected to result
in take, by Level B Harassment only, of sea otters.

Description of the Activity

The proposed action would involve removing the existing timber
deck, timber stringers, steel pile caps, steel support beams, and
hardware to access the 17 timber piles that need to be replaced. The
timber piles, which are approximately 16 to 18 inches (in) (41 to 46
centimeters (cm)) in diameter and covered with polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
wraps, would be removed by means of a vibratory extractor. Each timber
pile would be replaced with a steel pipe pile 14 in (36 cm) in diameter
installed using a vibratory hammer. Each steel pipe pile would be
positioned and installed in the footprint of the extracted timber pile.
Pile proofing would be conducted via impact hammer. If, due to
substrate or breakwater armor, a pipe pile is unable to be driven to 30
feet (ft) (9 meters (m)) below the mud line using a vibratory hammer,
then an impact hammer would be used. If the pile cannot be driven with
an impact hammer, the pipe pile would be posted onto the armor stone.
The steel pipe piles would not be filled with concrete. Materials and
hardware removed to allow access to conduct pile work would be replaced
with in-kind materials.
Sound attenuation measures, including implementation of a bubble
curtain and cushion pads during impact pile driving, would be used.
Pile extraction and driving equipment would be located on a barge. No
staging would be located on the existing wharf. To facilitate
supplementary monitoring of effects on sea otters in or near the
project area, the Service has requested, and the USCG has agreed to
provide, 24-hour advance notice of pile-driving activity and a record
of the start and stop times of all pile-driving activities once they
are completed.

a. Timing of Activity

Project construction would require a maximum of 60 work days. Pile
extraction and driving activities would occur between June 15 and
October 15. Pile-driving activities are expected to require 3 to 8 days
of the total construction time, with an average of 2 to 3 piles removed
and installed per day. Driving time would be approximately 20 minutes
per pile for vibratory or impact pile driving. Vibratory extraction of
the existing piles would take approximately 10 minutes per pile. In
total, approximately 510 minutes (8.5 hours) of underwater and airborne
noise are anticipated to be generated by pile driving/extraction
activities over the course of the project.

b. Geographic Location of Activity

The USCG Station Monterey is located at 100 Lighthouse Avenue, in
the city and county of Monterey, California. The Pier is on the eastern
portion of the USCG Station's waterfront facility, along a jetty that
extends approximately 1,300 ft (396 m) east into Monterey Harbor. The
Pier and floating docks are on the southern side of the jetty.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Activity

Several species of marine mammals occur in the proposed
construction area, including the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). These
species are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and are considered under a separate proposed IHA notice
(82 FR 42986; September 13, 2017). The only marine mammal species under
the jurisdiction of the Service that occurs in the proposed
construction area is the southern sea otter.
Southern sea otters are listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (42 FR 2965; January 14, 1977),
and, because of their threatened status, are automatically considered
``depleted'' under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)(C)). The State of
California also recognizes the sea otter as a fully protected mammal
(Fish and Game Code section 4700) and as a protected marine mammal
(Fish and Game Code section 4500). All members of the sea otter
population in California are descendants of a small group that survived
the fur trade and persisted near Big Sur, California. Historically
ranging from at least as far north as Oregon (Valentine et al. 2008) to
Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico, in the south, sea otters
currently occur in only two areas of California. The mainland
population ranges from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County, and a
translocated population exists at San Nicolas Island, Ventura County.
The 2017 California-wide index of abundance is 3,186 individuals
(www.werc.usgs.gov/seaottercount). Additional general information on
status and trends of the southern sea otter may be found in the 5-year
review and stock assessment report, available at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/info/sso.html.
Sea otters occur in the Monterey Bay Harbor area year round. Census
data indicate that there are, on average, 5.4 sea otters per 1,640 ft
(500 m) of coastline within Monterey Harbor and in adjacent shoreline
areas from Mussel Point to Del Monte Beach (ATOS 371-382; U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 2017). The number of sea otters present at any
one time in a particular location depends on a number of factors,
including the availability of kelp canopy, the location of rafting
sites, and individual sea otters' behavior. Sea otters typically use
the harbor area to rest and to forage, with some sea otters feeding on
mussels under the pier at or near the project location. Sea otters also
occasionally use a passage through the rocks near the project location
to access the kelp beds north of the jetty from the harbor (M.
Staedler, Monterey Bay Aquarium Sea Otter Research and Conservation
Program, pers. comm. 2014, 2017).

[[Page 18079]]

Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action on Sea Otters

In this section we provide a qualitative discussion of the
potential impacts of the proposed project. The ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section later in this document includes a
quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that may be taken by
Level B harassment as a result of this activity.
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for
prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et
al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002, 2005). A
permanent threshold shift (PTS) is said to occur when the loss of
hearing sensitivity is unrecoverable, whereas a temporary threshold
shift (TTS) is said to occur when the animal's hearing threshold
recovers over time (Southall et al. 2007). Noise exposures resulting in
TTS can cause PTS if repeated over time. Chronic exposure to excessive,
but not high-intensity, noise can cause masking at the frequency band
that some animals utilize for vital biological functions (Clark et al.
2009). Noise can also cause other forms of disturbance when marine
mammals alter their normal patterns of behavior to move away from the
source.
Many marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological
functions, such as orientation, communication, locating prey, and
avoiding predators. Sea otter vocalizations include in-air screams used
by mothers and pups to maintain contact when separated and a suite of
other low-intensity, short-range, in-air signals that are likely used
in close-range social interactions (Kenyon 1969, McShane et al. 1995).
However, sea otters are not known to communicate underwater, nor are
they known to use acoustic information to orient or to locate prey.
Ghoul and Reichmuth (2014) conducted controlled laboratory hearing
tests to obtain aerial and underwater audiograms for a captive adult
male sea otter and to evaluate his hearing in the presence of ambient
noise. In air, the sea otter's hearing was similar to that of a sea
lion but less sensitive to high-frequency (greater than 22 kHz) and
low-frequency (less than 2 kHz) sounds than terrestrial mustelids.
Under water, the sea otter was able to detect signals as low as 0.125
kHz (at 116 dB re 1 [micro]Pa) and as high as 38.1 kHz (at 141 dB re 1
[micro]Pa), with best hearing sensitivity in the range of 8 and 16 kHz.
Although the sea otter's hearing was most similar to that of a sea
lion, the sea otter had a narrower bandwidth of best hearing
sensitivity (3.7 octaves) than either the sea lion (6.7 octaves) or
harbor seal (8.6 octaves) and a pronounced reduction in sensitivity at
frequencies below 1 kHz, where sounds could not be detected at levels
below 100 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. At frequencies of 2 kHz or lower, the
auditory threshold (level at which a sound becomes audible) was 12 to
34 dB higher for the sea otter than for the sea lion. In studies of
auditory masking, signal-to-noise ratios required for signal detection
(critical ratios) were 25 to 34 dB, more than 10 dB above those
measured in pinnipeds, suggesting that sea otters have a poor capacity
to detect acoustic signals in background noise relative to other marine
carnivores. In particular, critical ratios for the sea otter at
frequencies below 2 kHz indicate that low-frequency sounds are likely
to be more difficult for sea otters to detect above low-frequency noise
relative to other marine mammals.
Controlled behavioral studies of responses of sea otters to noise
have not been conducted, but observational studies have not indicated
any particular behavioral sensitivity to noise, (Riedman 1983, 1984).
Observed responses of wild sea otters to disturbance are highly
variable, probably reflecting the level of noise and activity to which
they have been exposed and become acclimated over time and the
particular location and social or behavioral state of that individual.
Sea otters appeared to be relatively undisturbed by pile-driving
activities in Elkhorn Slough during the construction of the Parsons
Slough Sill, with many showing no response to pile driving and
generally reacting more strongly to passing vessels associated with
construction than to the sounds of machinery (Elkhorn Slough National
Estuarine Research Reserve (ESNERR) 2011). However, these animals were
likely acclimated to loud noises, as they occupied an area near an
active railroad track, which produced in-air sound levels comparable to
those produced by the vibratory driving of H piles (ESNERR 2011).
The most likely effect of the proposed project on sea otters is
behavioral disturbance due to pile-driving noise and activity.
Potentially affected areas include the harbor and the area immediately
north of the jetty. Underwater and airborne noise generated by pile
replacement work may cause sea otters that rest or forage within or
near the harbor to relocate temporarily to nearby areas. Behavioral
changes resulting from disturbance could include startle responses, the
interruption of resting behaviors (while in water or hauled out on
nearby docks), and changes in foraging patterns. Most likely, sea
otters would move away from the noise source and would be temporarily
displaced from the pile replacement work area.
NMFS has developed acoustic exposure criteria to define Level A
harassment (injury) and Level B harassment (disturbance) resulting from
project-related noise for the marine mammals under its jurisdiction
(i.e., cetaceans and pinnipeds other than walruses). Since the Coast
Guard first received an IHA for this project, NMFS has adopted new
criteria for assessing Level A impacts, which the Service adopts for
use here. For otariid pinnipeds (sea lions and fur seals) exposed to
non-impulsive underwater noise (such as vibratory pile driving and
removal), NMFS currently uses a cumulative 24-hour sound exposure level
of 219 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\s as the threshold for Level A harassment,
which is based on the estimated onset of physical injury as defined by
the onset of PTS (NMFS 2016), and 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa as the
threshold for Level B harassment, although this threshold is not based
on direct data.
For otariid pinnipeds exposed to impulsive underwater noise (such
as impact hammering of piles), NMFS uses an unweighted peak sound
pressure level of 232 dB re 1 [micro]Pa or cumulative 24-hour sound
exposure level of 203 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\s as the threshold for Level
A harassment (NMFS 2016) and 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa as the threshold for
Level B harassment. For pinnipeds other than harbor seals exposed to
airborne noise, NMFS uses 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa as a guideline, but
not formal threshold, for the onset of Level B harassment (79 FR 13991;
March 12, 2014). NMFS does not have a guideline for the onset of Level
A harassment of pinnipeds by airborne noise (A. Scholik-Schlomer,
Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Conservation Division, pers. comm. 2014). However, Southall et al.
(2007) propose an injury criterion (estimated PTS onset) for sea lions
exposed to airborne noise of 172.5 dB re 20 [micro]Pa.
In the absence of formal noise exposure thresholds specific to sea
otters, but in light of evidence suggesting that the hearing of sea
otters is generally comparable to that of other marine carnivores
(e.g., sea lions), although with relatively poorer sensitivity (higher
hearing thresholds) at low frequencies, we generally use the
thresholds, guidelines, and criteria developed by NMFS for sea lions
(otariid pinnipeds) as proxies. However, since the Coast Guard first
received an

[[Page 18080]]

IHA for this project, we have determined that the Level B threshold of
120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for non-impulsive noise such as vibratory pile
driving is not applicable to sea otters. The 120 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
threshold is based on studies conducted by Malme et al. in the 1980s,
during which gray whales were exposed to experimental playbacks of
industrial noise. Based on the behavioral responses of gray whales to
the playback of drillship noise during a study at St. Lawrence Island,
Alaska, Malme et al. (1988) concluded that ``exposure to levels of 120
dB or more would probably cause avoidance of the area by more than one-
half of the gray whales.'' Sea otters do not occur at St. Lawrence
Island, Alaska, but similar playback studies that were conducted off
the coast of California (Malme 1983, 1984) included a sea otter
monitoring component (Riedman 1983, 1884). The 1983 and 1984 studies
detected probabilities of avoidance in gray whales comparable to those
reported in Malme et al. (1988), but there was no evidence of
disturbance reactions or avoidance in sea otters.
Gray whales are in the group of marine mammals (baleen whales)
believed to be most sensitive to low-frequency sounds, with an
estimated audible frequency range of approximately 10 Hz to 30 kHz
(Finneran 2016). In contrast, sea otters have relatively poor hearing
sensitivity at frequencies below 2 kHz (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2014). Most
of the acoustic energy generated by vibratory pile driving is limited
to frequencies lower than 2 kHz, with greatest pressure spectral
densities at frequencies below 1 kHz (Dahl et al. 2015). As a result,
much of the noise generated by vibratory pile driving is expected to be
inaudible or marginally audible to sea otters. During a previous
project that occurred in Elkhorn Slough, Monterey County, project-
related monitoring of sea otter behavior in areas exposed to underwater
sound levels ranging from approximately 135-165 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
during vibratory pile driving (ESNERR 2011) showed no clear pattern of
disturbance or avoidance in relation to these levels of underwater
sound exposure.
Based on the lack of disturbance or any other reaction by sea
otters to the 1980s playback studies and the absence of a clear pattern
of disturbance or avoidance behaviors attributable to underwater sound
levels up to about 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa resulting from vibratory pile
driving, we use 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa as the threshold for Level B
harassment underwater for both impulsive and non-impulsive sources. For
Level A harassment resulting from non-impulsive underwater noise, we
use a threshold of 219 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\s (cumulative 24-hour sound
exposure level). For Level A harassment resulting from impulsive
underwater noise, we use a threshold of 232 dB re 1 [micro]Pa
(unweighted peak sound pressure level) or 203 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\s
(cumulative 24-hour sound exposure level). For Level B harassment
resulting from airborne noise, we use the 100 dB re 20 [micro]Pa
guideline that NMFS uses for in-air Level B harassment of pinnipeds
other than harbor seals. For Level A harassment resulting from airborne
noise, we use the Southall et al. (2007) criterion of 172.5 dB re 20
[micro]Pa for sea lions to approximate the airborne noise levels that
may cause injury to sea otters.
Underwater and airborne sound levels expected to be produced during
the proposed project are analyzed in Appendix A to Amec Foster Wheeler
(2017). Figures 5-1 and 5-2 of Amec Foster Wheeler (2017) approximate
the modeled extent of underwater noise resulting from vibratory pile
driving and extraction and impact pile driving. This analysis has been
revised slightly to reflect the following changes: The source sound
pressure level has been revised downward to 182 dB for impact hammering
(originally 195 dB, but 187 dB was determined to be more representative
for 14-in (36-cm) piles based on WSDOT (2010), which is further reduced
by 5 dB by use of a sound curtain) and to 162 dB for vibratory
extraction/driving (originally 168 dB, but 162 dB was determined to be
more representative for 14-in (36-cm) piles based on Caltrans (2015)).
The distance to the 160-dB threshold (i.e., the radius of the area
exposed to sound levels equal to or exceeding 160 dB) for vibratory
pile driving is 46 ft (14 m). The distance to the 160-dB threshold for
impact pile driving, based on modeled attenuated noise transmission, is
249 ft (76 m) to the north and northeast (through the breakwater) and
961 ft (293 m) in all other directions. The distance to the 219-dB
threshold for vibratory pile driving is 3 ft (0.9 m), whereas the
distance to the 203-dB cumulative 24-hour sound exposure level
threshold for impact pile driving is 6.6 ft (2.0 m).
Expected levels of airborne noise are based on measurements made
during the Navy Test Pile Project in Bangor, Washington, for 18-in (46-
cm) piles. Because airborne noise data for 14-in (36-cm) piles were not
available, the modeled distances to the Level B 100-dB guideline (66 ft
(20 m) for vibratory pile driving and 197 ft (60 m) for impact driving)
(Amec Foster Wheeler 2017) are overestimates. Nevertheless, anticipated
maximum noise levels based on 18-in (46-cm) piles (102 dB for vibratory
driving and extraction and 112 dB for impact driving at a distance of
33 ft (10 m)) are well below the noise levels that may cause injury to
sea otters. Noise thresholds and the modeled extent of sound pressure
levels for underwater and airborne noise are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1--Noise Thresholds and Modeled Extent of Sound Pressure Levels (SPLs) for Underwater and Airborne Noise
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled extent Modeled extent
Threshold, of underwater Guideline, of airborne SPLs
underwater (dB SPLs (distance to airborne (dB re (distance to
re 1 [micro]Pa) threshold) (m) 20 [micro]Pa) threshold) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A non-impulsive............... 219 0.9 172.5 n/a
Level A impulsive................... 203 2.0 172.5 n/a
Level B non-impulsive............... 160 14 100 *** 20
Level B impulsive................... 160 * 76 100 *** 60
** 293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North and northeast through breakwater.
** All other directions.
*** Distances are overestimates because they are based on data for 18-in (46-cm) piles; airborne sound data for
14-in (36-cm) piles were not available.

[[Page 18081]]

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action on Sea Otter Habitat

No permanent impacts on habitat are proposed or would occur as a
result of this project. The Proposed Action would not increase the
Pier's existing footprint, and no new structures would be installed
that would result in the loss of additional habitat. Therefore, no
restoration of habitat would be necessary. A temporary, small-scale
loss of foraging habitat may occur if sea otters leave the area during
pile extraction and driving activities.

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Needs

The subsistence provision of the MMPA does not apply.

Mitigation Measures

The USCG has proposed the following measures to prevent Level A
harassment (injury) and to reduce the extent of potential effects from
Level B harassment (disturbance) to marine mammals.
1. Timing restrictions. All work would be conducted during daylight
hours to facilitate visual observation of the Level A and Level B
zones.
2. Noise attenuation. A bubble curtain and cushion pads would be
used during all impact pile driving to reduce underwater sound levels.
Prior to impact driving, pre-drilling would be used to create a hole
for the new pile to a depth of approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) above the
required pile tip elevation to reduce friction, noise, and turbidity
during installation.
3. Exclusion zones and shutdown measures. Exclusion zones based on
the area exposed to sound levels equal to or exceeding those expected
to cause PTS would be implemented to protect marine mammals from Level
A harassment. If a sea otter is observed in the exclusion zone, pile
extraction or driving would not commence until the individual has been
observed outside of the zone or has not been observed for at least 15
minutes. If the sea otter entered the exclusion zone, a stop-work order
would be issued. Work would not re-commence until the sea otter was
sighted well outside of the exclusion zone or was not observed for at
least 15 minutes. The modeled PTS isopleths relevant to sea otters are
only 3 ft (0.9 m) for vibratory driving and extraction and 6.6 ft (2 m)
for impact driving (Table 1); these would be verified based on in-situ
source level and sound propagation measurements. However, the radius of
the Level A exclusion zone for sea otters would be extended to at least
33 ft (10 m) to prevent injury from machinery. USCG would implement
shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes reached the limit
under the IHA and if sea otters were sighted within the vicinity of the
project area and were approaching the Level B harassment zone during
in-water construction activities.
4. Level B harassment zone. USCG would monitor the Level B
harassment zone. Because impact hammering and vibratory driving would
both be used in the project, the Level B harassment zone for all pile-
driving activities would be set based on the greatest extent of sound
pressure levels equal to or exceeding the thresholds summarized in
Table 1. Because the distance to the threshold is greatest for
underwater noise produced by impact hammering, the Level B harassment
zone would have a minimum radius of 249 ft (76 m) to the north and
northeast (through the breakwater) and 961 ft (293 m) in all other
directions based on the modeled extent of underwater SPLs. This zone
would be adjusted, as necessary, based in-situ source level and sound
propagation measurements.
5. Soft-start for impact pile driving. For impact pile
installation, contractors will provide an initial set of three strikes
from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute
waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, USCG
will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile
driving and before resuming work if impact pile driving has ceased for
more than 30 minutes.

Monitoring and Reporting

The USCG would implement two detailed monitoring plans prior to and
during pile replacement activities: An acoustic monitoring plan and a
marine mammal monitoring plan. The acoustic monitoring plan would
ensure that measurements are recorded to provide data on actual noise
levels during construction and to ensure that the marine mammal
exclusion zone and Level B harassment zone are sized appropriately
relative to acoustic thresholds. Specifically, USCG would conduct in-
situ monitoring during the installation of five piles and removal of
five piles (see the acoustic monitoring plan for more details). The
marine mammal monitoring plan would provide details on data collection
for each marine mammal species observed in the project area during the
construction period.
Monitoring would be conducted by Service-approved observers who are
familiar with sea otters and their behavior. The observers would
conduct baseline monitoring for 2 days during the week prior to pile
removal and driving. During pile removal and driving activities, three
observers would monitor the exclusion zone and Level B harassment zone
from the best vantage point possible (the Pier itself, the jetty, or
adjacent boat docks in the harbor) to determine if sea otters were
approaching the exclusion zone and to record behavioral responses to
noise within the Level B harassment zone. The exclusion zone would be
monitored for 30 minutes prior to, during, and after pile removal and
driving. If a sea otter is within the exclusion zone, the start of
extraction or driving would be delayed until no sea otters were sighted
within the zone for a minimum of 15 minutes. If a sea otter approached
the exclusion zone, the observation would be reported to the
construction manager, and the individual would be watched closely. If
the sea otter entered the exclusion zone, a stop-work order would be
issued. The lead monitor would not allow work to re-commence until the
sea otter was sighted well outside of the exclusion zone or was not
observed for at least 15 minutes.
The following information would be documented for each sea otter
observed at any range while pile driving or extraction activities are
occurring:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins and ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation
period;
(C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);
(D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);
(E) Numbers of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), and
flipper tag color and location;
(F) Description of behavioral patterns, including bearing and
direction of travel, distance from pile-driving activity, and specific
activity (swimming at surface, swimming below surface, spyhopping,
foraging, grooming, interacting with another sea otter, resting on
water, resting while hauled out, etc.);
(G) Distance from pile-driving activities to sea otters and
distance from the sea otters to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
Daily observation sheets would be compiled on a weekly basis and
submitted with a weekly monitoring report that summarized the
monitoring results, construction activities, and environmental
conditions. USCG would be required to submit a draft marine mammal
monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water
construction work or the expiration of

[[Page 18082]]

the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report would include
data from marine mammal sightings as described above. The marine mammal
monitoring report would also include total takes, takes by day, and
stop-work orders for each species. The Service would have an
opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if the Service had
comments, USCG would address the comments and submit a final report to
the Service within 30 days.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a sea otter in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if
issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or
mortality, USCG would immediately cease the specified activities and
immediately report the incident to the Service's Southern Sea Otter
Recovery Coordinator and Monterey Bay Aquarium's sea otter 24-hour
emergency line. The report would be required to include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Description of the animal(s) involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities would not resume until the Service reviewed the
circumstances of the prohibited take. The Service would work with USCG
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of additional
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. USCG would not be permitted
to resume activities until it implemented any necessary measures to
minimize the likelihood of additional prohibited take and received
notification by the Service via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the USCG discovered an injured or dead sea otter,
and the lead monitor determined that the cause of the injury or death
was unknown or unrelated to the specified activities, USCG would
immediately report the incident to the Service's Southern Sea Otter
Recovery Coordinator and Monterey Bay Aquarium's sea otter 24-hour
emergency line. The report would be required to include the same
information identified in the paragraph above. Activities would be
permitted to continue while the Service reviewed the circumstances of
the incident. The Service would work with USCG to provide for the
implementation of measures, if appropriate, to minimize the likelihood
of prohibited take.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

Based on the proposed construction methodology and mitigation,
including use of an exclusion zone, no Level A harassment is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Behavioral harassment
(Level B) will be considered to have occurred when sea otters enter the
Level B harassment zone. We use the greatest modeled extent of sound
pressure levels from Table 1 (the Level B zone for impulsive underwater
noise) as the area within which to estimate the maximum number of sea
otters that could be exposed to noise exceeding Level B thresholds
during the estimated maximum 8 days of pile extraction and removal. An
average of two or three piles would be installed and removed per day,
totaling an estimated 60 to 70 minutes of pile driving per day.
Assuming that an individual sea otter can be taken only once during a
24-hour period, we calculate the number of takes using the following
formula: Take Estimate = n multiplied by area of influence multiplied
by 8 days of activity, where: n is the number of sea otters per linear
km of coastline and area of influence is the Level B harassment zone
for impulsive underwater noise. Because the final take estimate must be
a whole number, values are rounded up to the next whole number before
multiplying by the number of days of exposure.
The area of influence encompasses the harbor area and the area
immediately to the north and northeast of the breakwater, less than one
linear km of coastline. Because, on average, 5.4 sea otters are
expected per 1,640 ft (500 m) of coastline (USGS 2017), a maximum of 11
sea otters are expected to be exposed to pile-driving noise per day
over 8 days, for a total of 88 takes.

Findings

We propose the following findings regarding this action:

Negligible Impact

We find that any incidental take by harassment that is reasonably
likely to result from the proposed project would not adversely affect
the sea otter by means of effects on rates of recruitment or survival
and would, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the
stock. In making this finding, we considered the best available
scientific information, including: (1) The biological and behavioral
characteristics of the species; (2) information on distribution and
abundance of sea otters within the area of the proposed activity; (3)
the potential sources of disturbance during the proposed activity; and
(4) the potential response of sea otters to disturbance.
The estimated 88 takes (for approximately 11 sea otters) are
expected to result in negligible impact because sea otters do not
appear to be particularly sensitive to noise (and often do not react
visibly to it) and because any behavioral reactions to noise are
expected to be temporary and of short duration.
The mitigation measures outlined above are intended to minimize the
number of sea otters that could be harassed by the proposed activity.
Any impacts to individuals are expected to be limited to Level B
harassment of short duration. Responses of sea otters to project-
related noise would most likely be common behaviors such as diving and/
or swimming away from the source of the disturbance. No take by injury
or death is anticipated. Because any Level B harassment that occurs
would be of short duration, and because no take by injury or death is
anticipated, we find that the anticipated harassment caused by the
proposed activities is not expected to adversely affect the species or
stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Our finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take
associated with the proposed activity as mitigated through this
authorization process. This authorization establishes monitoring and
reporting requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of the
authorized activities, as well as mitigation measures designed to
minimize interactions with, and impacts to, sea otters.

Small Numbers

For small numbers take analysis, the statute and legislative
history do not expressly require a specific type of numbers analysis,
leaving the determination of ``small'' to the agency's discretion. The
sea otter population in California consists of approximately 3,186
animals. The number of sea otters that could potentially be taken by
harassment in association with the proposed project is approximately 11
animals (0.3 percent of the population size). While many of the same
sea otters are likely to remain in the area throughout the duration of
pile-driving activities, some turnover may occur, particularly if the 8
days of pile-driving activity are interspersed over several

[[Page 18083]]

months. Turnover of sea otters in the area would slightly increase the
total number of animals exposed to project-related noise; however, we
expect that number would remain small. We find that the number of sea
otters utilizing the affected area is small relative to the size of the
population.

Impact on Subsistence

The subsistence provision of the MMPA does not apply to southern
sea otters.

Endangered Species Act

The proposed activity will occur within the range of the southern
sea otter, which is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Applicant
has initiated interagency consultation under section 7 of the ESA with
the Service's Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. We will complete intra-
Service section 7 consultation on our proposed issuance of the IHA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The impacts associated with the project are described in a draft
supplemental environmental assessment (EA) prepared on behalf of the
USCG. The Service will review the EA and decide either to adopt it or
prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the
issuance of an IHA. Our analysis will be completed prior to issuance or
denial of the IHA and will be available at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/species/info/sso.html.

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), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order
3206, the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, and the
Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016), we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We
have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes
and have determined that there are no effects.

Proposed Authorization

The Service proposes to issue an IHA for small numbers of sea
otters harassed incidentally by the Applicant while the Applicant is
completing waterfront repairs at USCG Station Monterey during a 1-year
authorization period beginning on or before June 15, 2018.
Authorization for incidental take beyond this period would require a
request for renewal.
The final IHA would incorporate the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements discussed in this proposal. The Applicant would
be responsible for following those requirements. These authorizations
would not allow the intentional taking of sea otters.
If the level of activity exceeded that described by the Applicant,
or the level or nature of take exceeded those projected here, the
Service would reevaluate its findings. The Secretary may modify,
suspend, or revoke an authorization if the findings are not accurate or
the conditions described in this notice are not being met.

Request for Public Comments

The Service requests interested persons to submit comments and
information concerning this proposed IHA. Consistent with section
101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA, we are opening the comment period on
this proposed authorization for 30 days (see DATES).
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: March 1, 2018.
Angela Picco,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-08559 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

18078 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Notices

Ocean or the Arctic Ocean (16 U.S.C. with concrete. Materials and hardware 42986; September 13, 2017). The only
1371(b)), it is relevant to northern sea removed to allow access to conduct pile marine mammal species under the
otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) in Alaska work would be replaced with in-kind jurisdiction of the Service that occurs in
but not to southern sea otters. materials. the proposed construction area is the
Sound attenuation measures, southern sea otter.
Summary of Request including implementation of a bubble
In February 2017, we received a curtain and cushion pads during impact Southern sea otters are listed as
request from the USCG (Applicant) for pile driving, would be used. Pile threatened under the Endangered
MMPA authorization to take by extraction and driving equipment would Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA)
harassment southern sea otters (Enhydra be located on a barge. No staging would (42 FR 2965; January 14, 1977), and,
lutris nereis) incidental to the be located on the existing wharf. To because of their threatened status, are
replacement of pier piles and the facilitate supplementary monitoring of automatically considered ‘‘depleted’’
potable water line at USCG Station effects on sea otters in or near the under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)(C)).
Monterey in Monterey Harbor, project area, the Service has requested, The State of California also recognizes
California. We received a revised and the USCG has agreed to provide, 24- the sea otter as a fully protected
request on July 11, 2017. The Applicant hour advance notice of pile-driving mammal (Fish and Game Code section
requested and received incidental activity and a record of the start and 4700) and as a protected marine
harassment authorization (IHA) for the stop times of all pile-driving activities mammal (Fish and Game Code section
same project in 2014 but was not able once they are completed. 4500). All members of the sea otter
to initiate work at that time. Other than population in California are
revised dates, the project is essentially a. Timing of Activity
descendants of a small group that
unchanged. The Applicant proposes to Project construction would require a
survived the fur trade and persisted near
remove and replace 17 timber piles that maximum of 60 work days. Pile
Big Sur, California. Historically ranging
structurally support the patrol boat pier extraction and driving activities would
(Pier), replace the existing potable water occur between June 15 and October 15. from at least as far north as Oregon
line, and improve associated structures Pile-driving activities are expected to (Valentine et al. 2008) to Punta
to maintain the structural integrity of require 3 to 8 days of the total Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico, in the
the Pier and potable water line. Pile- construction time, with an average of 2 south, sea otters currently occur in only
driving activities would be limited to to 3 piles removed and installed per two areas of California. The mainland
the period from June 15 to October 15. day. Driving time would be population ranges from San Mateo
Other construction activities associated approximately 20 minutes per pile for County to Santa Barbara County, and a
with the project are not expected to vibratory or impact pile driving. translocated population exists at San
affect sea otters and may occur at any Vibratory extraction of the existing piles Nicolas Island, Ventura County. The
time. A detailed description of the would take approximately 10 minutes 2017 California-wide index of
proposed action is contained in the per pile. In total, approximately 510 abundance is 3,186 individuals
revised incidental harassment minutes (8.5 hours) of underwater and (www.werc.usgs.gov/seaottercount).
authorization request submitted to us by airborne noise are anticipated to be Additional general information on
the USCG (Amec Foster Wheeler 2017). generated by pile driving/extraction status and trends of the southern sea
The proposed action is expected to activities over the course of the project. otter may be found in the 5-year review
result in take, by Level B Harassment and stock assessment report, available at
only, of sea otters. b. Geographic Location of Activity
http://www.fws.gov/ventura/
The USCG Station Monterey is
Description of the Activity endangered/species/info/sso.html.
located at 100 Lighthouse Avenue, in
The proposed action would involve the city and county of Monterey, Sea otters occur in the Monterey Bay
removing the existing timber deck, California. The Pier is on the eastern Harbor area year round. Census data
timber stringers, steel pile caps, steel portion of the USCG Station’s waterfront indicate that there are, on average, 5.4
support beams, and hardware to access facility, along a jetty that extends sea otters per 1,640 ft (500 m) of
the 17 timber piles that need to be approximately 1,300 ft (396 m) east into coastline within Monterey Harbor and
replaced. The timber piles, which are Monterey Harbor. The Pier and floating in adjacent shoreline areas from Mussel
approximately 16 to 18 inches (in) (41 docks are on the southern side of the Point to Del Monte Beach (ATOS 371–
to 46 centimeters (cm)) in diameter and jetty. 382; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
covered with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 2017). The number of sea otters present
wraps, would be removed by means of Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Activity at any one time in a particular location
a vibratory extractor. Each timber pile depends on a number of factors,
would be replaced with a steel pipe pile Several species of marine mammals including the availability of kelp
14 in (36 cm) in diameter installed using occur in the proposed construction area,
canopy, the location of rafting sites, and
a vibratory hammer. Each steel pipe pile including the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca
individual sea otters’ behavior. Sea
would be positioned and installed in the vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus
otters typically use the harbor area to
footprint of the extracted timber pile. californianus), harbor porpoise
Pile proofing would be conducted via (Phocoena phocoena), Risso’s dolphin rest and to forage, with some sea otters
impact hammer. If, due to substrate or (Grampus griseus), bottlenose dolphin feeding on mussels under the pier at or
breakwater armor, a pipe pile is unable (Tursiops truncatus), killer whale near the project location. Sea otters also
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

to be driven to 30 feet (ft) (9 meters (m)) (Orcinus orca), humpback whale occasionally use a passage through the
below the mud line using a vibratory (Megaptera novaeangliae) and gray rocks near the project location to access
hammer, then an impact hammer would whale (Eschrichtius robustus). These the kelp beds north of the jetty from the
be used. If the pile cannot be driven species are under the jurisdiction of the harbor (M. Staedler, Monterey Bay
with an impact hammer, the pipe pile National Marine Fisheries Service Aquarium Sea Otter Research and
would be posted onto the armor stone. (NMFS) and are considered under a Conservation Program, pers. comm.
The steel pipe piles would not be filled separate proposed IHA notice (82 FR 2014, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM 25APN1

18080 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Notices

IHA for this project, we have behavior in areas exposed to underwater reflect the following changes: The
determined that the Level B threshold of sound levels ranging from source sound pressure level has been
120 dB re 1 mPa for non-impulsive noise approximately 135–165 dB re 1 mPa revised downward to 182 dB for impact
such as vibratory pile driving is not during vibratory pile driving (ESNERR hammering (originally 195 dB, but 187
applicable to sea otters. The 120 dB re 2011) showed no clear pattern of dB was determined to be more
1 mPa threshold is based on studies disturbance or avoidance in relation to representative for 14-in (36-cm) piles
conducted by Malme et al. in the 1980s, these levels of underwater sound based on WSDOT (2010), which is
during which gray whales were exposed exposure. further reduced by 5 dB by use of a
to experimental playbacks of industrial Based on the lack of disturbance or sound curtain) and to 162 dB for
noise. Based on the behavioral any other reaction by sea otters to the vibratory extraction/driving (originally
responses of gray whales to the playback 1980s playback studies and the absence 168 dB, but 162 dB was determined to
of drillship noise during a study at St. of a clear pattern of disturbance or be more representative for 14-in (36-cm)
Lawrence Island, Alaska, Malme et al. avoidance behaviors attributable to piles based on Caltrans (2015)). The
(1988) concluded that ‘‘exposure to underwater sound levels up to about distance to the 160-dB threshold (i.e.,
levels of 120 dB or more would 160 dB re 1 mPa resulting from vibratory the radius of the area exposed to sound
probably cause avoidance of the area by pile driving, we use 160 dB re 1 mPa as levels equal to or exceeding 160 dB) for
more than one-half of the gray whales.’’ the threshold for Level B harassment vibratory pile driving is 46 ft (14 m).
Sea otters do not occur at St. Lawrence underwater for both impulsive and non- The distance to the 160-dB threshold for
Island, Alaska, but similar playback impulsive sources. For Level A impact pile driving, based on modeled
studies that were conducted off the harassment resulting from non- attenuated noise transmission, is 249 ft
coast of California (Malme 1983, 1984) impulsive underwater noise, we use a
(76 m) to the north and northeast
included a sea otter monitoring threshold of 219 dB re 1 mPa2s
(through the breakwater) and 961 ft (293
component (Riedman 1983, 1884). The (cumulative 24-hour sound exposure
m) in all other directions. The distance
1983 and 1984 studies detected level). For Level A harassment resulting
to the 219-dB threshold for vibratory
probabilities of avoidance in gray from impulsive underwater noise, we
pile driving is 3 ft (0.9 m), whereas the
whales comparable to those reported in use a threshold of 232 dB re 1 mPa
distance to the 203-dB cumulative 24-
Malme et al. (1988), but there was no (unweighted peak sound pressure level)
hour sound exposure level threshold for
evidence of disturbance reactions or or 203 dB re 1 mPa2s (cumulative 24-
impact pile driving is 6.6 ft (2.0 m).
avoidance in sea otters. hour sound exposure level). For Level B
Gray whales are in the group of harassment resulting from airborne Expected levels of airborne noise are
marine mammals (baleen whales) noise, we use the 100 dB re 20 mPa based on measurements made during
believed to be most sensitive to low- guideline that NMFS uses for in-air the Navy Test Pile Project in Bangor,
frequency sounds, with an estimated Level B harassment of pinnipeds other Washington, for 18-in (46-cm) piles.
audible frequency range of than harbor seals. For Level A Because airborne noise data for 14-in
approximately 10 Hz to 30 kHz harassment resulting from airborne (36-cm) piles were not available, the
(Finneran 2016). In contrast, sea otters noise, we use the Southall et al. (2007) modeled distances to the Level B 100–
have relatively poor hearing sensitivity criterion of 172.5 dB re 20 mPa for sea dB guideline (66 ft (20 m) for vibratory
at frequencies below 2 kHz (Ghoul and lions to approximate the airborne noise pile driving and 197 ft (60 m) for impact
Reichmuth 2014). Most of the acoustic levels that may cause injury to sea driving) (Amec Foster Wheeler 2017) are
energy generated by vibratory pile otters. overestimates. Nevertheless, anticipated
driving is limited to frequencies lower Underwater and airborne sound levels maximum noise levels based on 18-in
than 2 kHz, with greatest pressure expected to be produced during the (46-cm) piles (102 dB for vibratory
spectral densities at frequencies below 1 proposed project are analyzed in driving and extraction and 112 dB for
kHz (Dahl et al. 2015). As a result, much Appendix A to Amec Foster Wheeler impact driving at a distance of 33 ft (10
of the noise generated by vibratory pile (2017). Figures 5–1 and 5–2 of Amec m)) are well below the noise levels that
driving is expected to be inaudible or Foster Wheeler (2017) approximate the may cause injury to sea otters. Noise
marginally audible to sea otters. During modeled extent of underwater noise thresholds and the modeled extent of
a previous project that occurred in resulting from vibratory pile driving and sound pressure levels for underwater
Elkhorn Slough, Monterey County, extraction and impact pile driving. This and airborne noise are summarized in
project-related monitoring of sea otter analysis has been revised slightly to Table 1.

TABLE 1—NOISE THRESHOLDS AND MODELED EXTENT OF SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS (SPLS) FOR UNDERWATER AND
AIRBORNE NOISE
Modeled Modeled
extent of extent of
Threshold, Guideline,
underwater SPLs airborne SPLs
underwater airborne
(distance to (distance to
(dB re 1 μPa) (dB re 20 μPa)
threshold) threshold)
(m) (m)

Level A non-impulsive ............................................................. 219 0.9 172.5 n/a
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Level A impulsive ..................................................................... 203 2.0 172.5 n/a
Level B non-impulsive ............................................................. 160 14 100 *** 20
Level B impulsive ..................................................................... 160 * 76 100 *** 60
** 293
* North and northeast through breakwater.
** All other directions.
*** Distances are overestimates because they are based on data for 18-in (46-cm) piles; airborne sound data for 14-in (36-cm) piles were not
available.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM 25APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Notices 18081

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action shutdown measures if the number of the week prior to pile removal and
on Sea Otter Habitat authorized takes reached the limit under driving. During pile removal and
No permanent impacts on habitat are the IHA and if sea otters were sighted driving activities, three observers would
proposed or would occur as a result of within the vicinity of the project area monitor the exclusion zone and Level B
this project. The Proposed Action would and were approaching the Level B harassment zone from the best vantage
harassment zone during in-water point possible (the Pier itself, the jetty,
not increase the Pier’s existing footprint,
construction activities. or adjacent boat docks in the harbor) to
and no new structures would be
4. Level B harassment zone. USCG determine if sea otters were approaching
installed that would result in the loss of would monitor the Level B harassment
additional habitat. Therefore, no the exclusion zone and to record
zone. Because impact hammering and behavioral responses to noise within the
restoration of habitat would be vibratory driving would both be used in
necessary. A temporary, small-scale loss Level B harassment zone. The exclusion
the project, the Level B harassment zone zone would be monitored for 30
of foraging habitat may occur if sea for all pile-driving activities would be
otters leave the area during pile minutes prior to, during, and after pile
set based on the greatest extent of sound removal and driving. If a sea otter is
extraction and driving activities. pressure levels equal to or exceeding the within the exclusion zone, the start of
Potential Impacts on Subsistence Needs thresholds summarized in Table 1. extraction or driving would be delayed
Because the distance to the threshold is until no sea otters were sighted within
The subsistence provision of the
greatest for underwater noise produced the zone for a minimum of 15 minutes.
MMPA does not apply. by impact hammering, the Level B If a sea otter approached the exclusion
Mitigation Measures harassment zone would have a zone, the observation would be reported
minimum radius of 249 ft (76 m) to the to the construction manager, and the
The USCG has proposed the following
north and northeast (through the individual would be watched closely. If
measures to prevent Level A harassment
breakwater) and 961 ft (293 m) in all the sea otter entered the exclusion zone,
(injury) and to reduce the extent of
other directions based on the modeled a stop-work order would be issued. The
potential effects from Level B
extent of underwater SPLs. This zone lead monitor would not allow work to
harassment (disturbance) to marine
would be adjusted, as necessary, based re-commence until the sea otter was
mammals.
in-situ source level and sound sighted well outside of the exclusion
1. Timing restrictions. All work would
propagation measurements. zone or was not observed for at least 15
be conducted during daylight hours to 5. Soft-start for impact pile driving.
facilitate visual observation of the Level minutes.
For impact pile installation, contractors The following information would be
A and Level B zones. will provide an initial set of three
2. Noise attenuation. A bubble curtain documented for each sea otter observed
strikes from the impact hammer at 40 at any range while pile driving or
and cushion pads would be used during percent energy, followed by a 1-minute
all impact pile driving to reduce extraction activities are occurring:
waiting period, then two subsequent (A) Date and time that monitored
underwater sound levels. Prior to three-strike sets. Each day, USCG will
impact driving, pre-drilling would be activity begins and ends;
use the soft-start technique at the (B) Construction activities occurring
used to create a hole for the new pile to beginning of impact pile driving and during each observation period;
a depth of approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) before resuming work if impact pile (C) Weather parameters (e.g., percent
above the required pile tip elevation to driving has ceased for more than 30 cover, visibility);
reduce friction, noise, and turbidity minutes. (D) Water conditions (e.g., sea state,
during installation. tide state);
3. Exclusion zones and shutdown Monitoring and Reporting
(E) Numbers of individuals, sex and
measures. Exclusion zones based on the The USCG would implement two age class (if possible), and flipper tag
area exposed to sound levels equal to or detailed monitoring plans prior to and color and location;
exceeding those expected to cause PTS during pile replacement activities: An (F) Description of behavioral patterns,
would be implemented to protect acoustic monitoring plan and a marine including bearing and direction of
marine mammals from Level A mammal monitoring plan. The acoustic travel, distance from pile-driving
harassment. If a sea otter is observed in monitoring plan would ensure that activity, and specific activity
the exclusion zone, pile extraction or measurements are recorded to provide (swimming at surface, swimming below
driving would not commence until the data on actual noise levels during surface, spyhopping, foraging,
individual has been observed outside of construction and to ensure that the grooming, interacting with another sea
the zone or has not been observed for at marine mammal exclusion zone and otter, resting on water, resting while
least 15 minutes. If the sea otter entered Level B harassment zone are sized hauled out, etc.);
the exclusion zone, a stop-work order appropriately relative to acoustic (G) Distance from pile-driving
would be issued. Work would not re- thresholds. Specifically, USCG would activities to sea otters and distance from
commence until the sea otter was conduct in-situ monitoring during the the sea otters to the observation point;
sighted well outside of the exclusion installation of five piles and removal of (H) Locations of all marine mammal
zone or was not observed for at least 15 five piles (see the acoustic monitoring observations; and
minutes. The modeled PTS isopleths plan for more details). The marine (I) Other human activity in the area.
relevant to sea otters are only 3 ft (0.9 mammal monitoring plan would Daily observation sheets would be
m) for vibratory driving and extraction provide details on data collection for compiled on a weekly basis and
and 6.6 ft (2 m) for impact driving submitted with a weekly monitoring
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

each marine mammal species observed
(Table 1); these would be verified based in the project area during the report that summarized the monitoring
on in-situ source level and sound construction period. results, construction activities, and
propagation measurements. However, Monitoring would be conducted by environmental conditions. USCG would
the radius of the Level A exclusion zone Service-approved observers who are be required to submit a draft marine
for sea otters would be extended to at familiar with sea otters and their mammal monitoring report within 90
least 33 ft (10 m) to prevent injury from behavior. The observers would conduct days after completion of the in-water
machinery. USCG would implement baseline monitoring for 2 days during construction work or the expiration of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM 25APN1

18082 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Notices

the IHA (if issued), whichever comes continue while the Service reviewed the information, including: (1) The
earlier. The report would include data circumstances of the incident. The biological and behavioral characteristics
from marine mammal sightings as Service would work with USCG to of the species; (2) information on
described above. The marine mammal provide for the implementation of distribution and abundance of sea otters
monitoring report would also include measures, if appropriate, to minimize within the area of the proposed activity;
total takes, takes by day, and stop-work the likelihood of prohibited take. (3) the potential sources of disturbance
orders for each species. The Service during the proposed activity; and (4) the
Estimated Take by Incidental
would have an opportunity to provide potential response of sea otters to
Harassment
comments on the report, and if the disturbance.
Service had comments, USCG would Based on the proposed construction The estimated 88 takes (for
address the comments and submit a methodology and mitigation, including approximately 11 sea otters) are
final report to the Service within 30 use of an exclusion zone, no Level A expected to result in negligible impact
days. harassment is anticipated as a result of because sea otters do not appear to be
In the unanticipated event that the the proposed project. Behavioral particularly sensitive to noise (and often
specified activity clearly causes the take harassment (Level B) will be considered do not react visibly to it) and because
of a sea otter in a manner prohibited by to have occurred when sea otters enter any behavioral reactions to noise are
the IHA (if issued), such as an injury the Level B harassment zone. We use expected to be temporary and of short
(Level A harassment), serious injury, or the greatest modeled extent of sound duration.
mortality, USCG would immediately pressure levels from Table 1 (the Level The mitigation measures outlined
cease the specified activities and B zone for impulsive underwater noise) above are intended to minimize the
immediately report the incident to the as the area within which to estimate the number of sea otters that could be
Service’s Southern Sea Otter Recovery maximum number of sea otters that harassed by the proposed activity. Any
Coordinator and Monterey Bay could be exposed to noise exceeding impacts to individuals are expected to
Aquarium’s sea otter 24-hour emergency Level B thresholds during the estimated be limited to Level B harassment of
line. The report would be required to maximum 8 days of pile extraction and short duration. Responses of sea otters
include the following information: removal. An average of two or three to project-related noise would most
• Time, date, and location (latitude/ piles would be installed and removed likely be common behaviors such as
longitude) of the incident; per day, totaling an estimated 60 to 70 diving and/or swimming away from the
• Description of the incident; minutes of pile driving per day. source of the disturbance. No take by
• Status of all sound source use in the Assuming that an individual sea otter injury or death is anticipated. Because
24 hours preceding the incident; can be taken only once during a 24-hour any Level B harassment that occurs
• Water depth; period, we calculate the number of takes would be of short duration, and because
• Environmental conditions (e.g., using the following formula: Take no take by injury or death is anticipated,
wind speed and direction, sea state, Estimate = n multiplied by area of we find that the anticipated harassment
cloud cover, and visibility); influence multiplied by 8 days of caused by the proposed activities is not
• Description of all marine mammal activity, where: n is the number of sea expected to adversely affect the species
observations in the 24 hours preceding otters per linear km of coastline and or stock through effects on annual rates
the incident; area of influence is the Level B of recruitment or survival.
• Description of the animal(s) harassment zone for impulsive Our finding of negligible impact
involved; underwater noise. Because the final take applies to incidental take associated
• Fate of the animal(s); and estimate must be a whole number, with the proposed activity as mitigated
• Photographs or video footage of the values are rounded up to the next whole through this authorization process. This
animal(s). number before multiplying by the authorization establishes monitoring
Activities would not resume until the number of days of exposure. and reporting requirements to evaluate
Service reviewed the circumstances of The area of influence encompasses the potential impacts of the authorized
the prohibited take. The Service would the harbor area and the area activities, as well as mitigation
work with USCG to determine what is immediately to the north and northeast measures designed to minimize
necessary to minimize the likelihood of of the breakwater, less than one linear interactions with, and impacts to, sea
additional prohibited take and ensure km of coastline. Because, on average, 5.4 otters.
MMPA compliance. USCG would not be sea otters are expected per 1,640 ft (500
permitted to resume activities until it Small Numbers
m) of coastline (USGS 2017), a
implemented any necessary measures to maximum of 11 sea otters are expected For small numbers take analysis, the
minimize the likelihood of additional to be exposed to pile-driving noise per statute and legislative history do not
prohibited take and received day over 8 days, for a total of 88 takes. expressly require a specific type of
notification by the Service via letter, numbers analysis, leaving the
email, or telephone. Findings determination of ‘‘small’’ to the agency’s
In the event that the USCG discovered We propose the following findings discretion. The sea otter population in
an injured or dead sea otter, and the regarding this action: California consists of approximately
lead monitor determined that the cause 3,186 animals. The number of sea otters
of the injury or death was unknown or Negligible Impact that could potentially be taken by
unrelated to the specified activities, We find that any incidental take by harassment in association with the
USCG would immediately report the harassment that is reasonably likely to proposed project is approximately 11
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

incident to the Service’s Southern Sea result from the proposed project would animals (0.3 percent of the population
Otter Recovery Coordinator and not adversely affect the sea otter by size). While many of the same sea otters
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s sea otter 24- means of effects on rates of recruitment are likely to remain in the area
hour emergency line. The report would or survival and would, therefore, have throughout the duration of pile-driving
be required to include the same no more than a negligible impact on the activities, some turnover may occur,
information identified in the paragraph stock. In making this finding, we particularly if the 8 days of pile-driving
above. Activities would be permitted to considered the best available scientific activity are interspersed over several

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM 25APN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Notices 18083

months. Turnover of sea otters in the during a 1-year authorization period SUMMARY: In accordance with the
area would slightly increase the total beginning on or before June 15, 2018. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
number of animals exposed to project- Authorization for incidental take the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are
related noise; however, we expect that beyond this period would require a proposing a new information collection.
number would remain small. We find request for renewal. DATES: Interested persons are invited to
that the number of sea otters utilizing The final IHA would incorporate the submit comments on or before May 25,
the affected area is small relative to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 2018.
size of the population. requirements discussed in this proposal. ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
The Applicant would be responsible for this information collection request (ICR)
Impact on Subsistence
following those requirements. These to the Office of Management and
The subsistence provision of the authorizations would not allow the Budget’s Desk Officer for the
MMPA does not apply to southern sea intentional taking of sea otters. Department of the Interior by email at
otters. If the level of activity exceeded that OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; or via
Endangered Species Act described by the Applicant, or the level facsimile to (202) 395–5806. Please
or nature of take exceeded those provide a copy of your comments to
The proposed activity will occur projected here, the Service would USGS, Information Collections
within the range of the southern sea reevaluate its findings. The Secretary Clearance Officer, 12201Sunrise Valley
otter, which is listed as threatened may modify, suspend, or revoke an Drive, MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by
under the ESA. The Applicant has authorization if the findings are not email to gs-info_collections@usgs.gov.
initiated interagency consultation under accurate or the conditions described in Please reference ‘OMB Information
section 7 of the ESA with the Service’s this notice are not being met. Collection 1028–NEW: Phragmites
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. We Adaptive Management Framework’ in
will complete intra-Service section 7 Request for Public Comments
the subject line of your comments.
consultation on our proposed issuance The Service requests interested FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
of the IHA. persons to submit comments and request additional information about
National Environmental Policy Act information concerning this proposed this ICR, contact Clint Moore, Research
(NEPA) IHA. Consistent with section Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Geological
101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA, we are Survey, Georgia Cooperative Fish and
The impacts associated with the opening the comment period on this
project are described in a draft Wildlife Research Unit, Warnell School
proposed authorization for 30 days (see of Forestry and Natural Resources,
supplemental environmental assessment DATES).
(EA) prepared on behalf of the USCG. University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Before including your address, phone 30602 (mail); 706–542–1166 (phone); or
The Service will review the EA and number, email address, or other
decide either to adopt it or prepare its cmoore@usgs.gov (email). You may also
personal identifying information in your view the ICR at www.reginfo.gov/public/
own NEPA document before making a comment, you should be aware that
determination on the issuance of an do/PRAMain.
your entire comment—including your
IHA. Our analysis will be completed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
personal identifying information—may
prior to issuance or denial of the IHA USGS, in accordance with the
be made publicly available at any time.
and will be available at http:// Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
While you can ask us in your comment
www.fws.gov/ventura/endangered/ provide the general public and other
to withhold your personal identifying
species/info/sso.html. Federal agencies with an opportunity to
information from public review, we
comment on proposed, revised, and
Government-to-Government Relations cannot guarantee that we will be able to
continuing collections of information.
With Native American Tribal do so.
This helps us assess the impact of our
Governments Dated: March 1, 2018. information collection requirements and
In accordance with the President’s Angela Picco, minimize the public’s reporting burden.
memorandum of April 29, 1994, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest It also helps the public understand our
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Region. information collection requirements and
with Native American Tribal [FR Doc. 2018–08559 Filed 4–24–18; 8:45 am] provide the requested data in the
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive BILLING CODE 4333–15–P desired format.
Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3206, the A Federal Register notice with a 60-
Department of the Interior’s manual at day public comment period soliciting
512 DM 2, and the Native American DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR comments on this collection of
Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016), information was published on
we readily acknowledge our U.S. Geological Survey November 28, 2017 (82 FR 56262). No
responsibility to communicate comments were received.
meaningfully with federally recognized [GR17ND00GCT2800; OMB Control Number We are again soliciting comments on
Tribes on a Government-to-Government 1028-New] the proposed ICR that is described
basis. We have evaluated possible below. We are especially interested in
Agency Information Collection public comment addressing the
effects on federally recognized Indian
Activities; Submission to the Office of following issues: (1) Is the collection
Tribes and have determined that there
Management and Budget for Review necessary to the proper functions of the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

are no effects.
and Approval; Phragmites Adaptive USGS; (2) will this information be
Proposed Authorization Management Framework processed and used in a timely manner;
The Service proposes to issue an IHA AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, (3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
for small numbers of sea otters harassed Interior. (4) how might the USGS enhance the
incidentally by the Applicant while the quality, utility, and clarity of the
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
Applicant is completing waterfront information to be collected; and (5) how
request for comment.
repairs at USCG Station Monterey might the USGS minimize the burden of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Apr 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM 25APN1

Document Created: 2018-11-02 08:16:56
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 08:16:56

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
Dates		Comments and information must be received by May 25, 2018.
Contact		Lilian Carswell, Southern Sea Otter Recovery & Marine Conservation Coordinator, (805) 677-3325, or by email at [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 18077

83 FR 18077 - Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 80 (April 25, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service