Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Notices 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 Orcinus orca 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 populationlevel consequences. Increased disturbance rates have 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, and have a welldeveloped antipredator response to perceived threats. For example, the presence of a harbor seal Phoca vitulina did not appear to disturb sea otters, but they demonstrated a fear response in the presence of a California sea lion by actively looking above and beneath the water Limbaugh 1961.
Although an increase in vigilance or a flight response is nonlethal, a tradeoff occurs between risk avoidance and energy conservation. An animals reactions to noise disturbance may cause stress and direct an animals 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. 2005; 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:13 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

1998. The intensity of disturbance Cevasco et al. 2001, the extent of previous exposure to humans Holcomb et al. 2009, the type of disturbance Andersen et al. 2012, and the age or sex of the individuals Shaughnessy et al. 2008; Holcomb et al. 2009 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 NSF/LDEO project area include coastal areas within the 40m 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 impact of the specified activity on important habitats.
Geophysical surveys conducted by NSF/
LDEO may impact sea otters within this important habitat, however, the project is not likely to cause lasting effects to habitat.
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 is not likely seen at the population level Newsome et al.
2015.
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
PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

30619

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 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 seismic array 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 activities will occur near marine subsistence harvest areas used by Alaska Natives from the villages of Pelican, Sitka, and Port Alexander.
Between 1989 and 2019, approximately 5,617 sea otters were harvested from these villages, averaging 187 per year although numbers from 2019 are preliminary. The large majority 95
percent were taken by hunters based in Sitka. However, harvest activity takes place in coves where the sounds produced by survey equipment will not harass sea otters.
The proposed project area will not occur in inshore waters and, therefore, will avoid significant overlap with subsistence harvest areas. NSF/LDEOs activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. NSF/
LDEO will coordinate with Native villages and Tribal organizations to identify and avoid potential conflicts. If any conflicts are identified, NSF/LDEO
will develop a Plan of Cooperation POC specifying the particular steps necessary to minimize any effects the project may have on subsistence harvest.

E:FRFM09JNN1.SGM

09JNN1