14924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

Permit 16337 

The NWFSC is seeking a 5-year 

permit to conduct Pacific hake Acoustic 

Inter-vessel Calibration (IVC) research 

and gear trial cruises along the West 

Coast of the U.S. to make hake stock 

assessment and improve hake biomass 

estimates. The researchers would take 

individuals from all species covered in 

this notice except for OC coho and SR 

steelhead. The goals of the IVC research 

are to: (1) Compare acoustic estimates 

for hake between two vessels; (2) 

research acoustic differentiation 

between hake and Humboldt squid 

(Dosidicus gigas); and (3) confirm that 

groundtruthing tows (mid-water and 

bottom trawls) are adequately 

characterizing schools of hake. The IVC 

research would take place in the ocean 

from a point off the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca, Washington down to the central 

Oregon coast. If hake and Humboldt 

squid are not present at the time of the 

study, the cruise may extend to the 

south until they are found or until the 

vessels reach a point 100 nautical miles 

south of Monterey Bay, California. The 

IVC research would be conducted in 

June and July. The goal of the gear trial 

cruises is to test new equipment and 

methods to ensure that the best 

available science is used when 

conducting the biennial hake survey. 

The gear trial cruises would take place 

from August through September and 

would extend from Monterey, California 

to Dixon Entrance, Alaska, in depths 

from about 50 meters to 1,500 meters. 

The proposed research would benefit 

listed species by generating information 

that, ultimately, will be used to help 

reduce the number of listed fish being 

accidentally caught in the hake fishery. 

The researchers do not intend to kill any 

listed fish, but a few may die as an 

inadvertent result of the proposed 

activities. 

Permit 16338 

The NWFSC is seeking a 5-year 

permit to test the efficacy of an open 

escape window bycatch reduction 

device to reduce Chinook salmon and 

rockfish bycatch in the Pacific hake 

fishery. The proposed activities would 

be conducted from May to September 

off the Central Oregon coast and, 

although it is unlikely, sampling may 

also occur off the coasts of Washington 

and northern California. All research 

tows would take place over the 

continental shelf and slope in depths of 

less than 1,000 meters; all captured fish 

would be identified, and some would be 

retained for the scientific analyses 

necessary for the research. 

The research would benefit listed 

species by helping develop fishing 

methods and equipment that allow 

large-scale fisheries (like the hake 

fishery) to catch fewer threatened and 

endangered fish. The researchers do not 

intend to kill any listed fish, but a few 

may die as an inadvertent result of the 

proposed activities. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will 

evaluate the applications, associated 

documents, and comments submitted to 

determine whether the applications 

meet the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the ESA and Federal regulations. The 

final permit decisions will not be made 

until after the end of the 30-day 

comment period. NMFS will publish 

notice of its final action in the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: March 15, 2011. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6441 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA244 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Russian River 

Estuary Management Activities 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the Sonoma County 

Water Agency (SCWA) for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals incidental to Russian 

River estuary management activities. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to SCWA to take, by Level 

B Harassment only, several species of 

marine mammals during the specified 

activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

ITP.Laws@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm without change. All 

Personal Identifying Information (e.g., 

name, address) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the Internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Supplemental 

documents provided by SCWA may also 

be found at the same address: Pinniped 

Monitoring Plan; Report of Activities 

and Monitoring Results—April 1 to 

December 31, 2010; and Russian River 

Estuary Outlet Channel Adaptive 

Management Plan. NMFS’ 

Environmental Assessment (2010) and 

associated Finding of No Significant 

Impact, prepared pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act, are 

available at the same site. Documents 

cited in this notice, including NMFS’ 

Biological Opinion (2008) on the effects 

of Russian River management activities 

on salmonids, may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce 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 if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is published in the 

Federal Register to provide public 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14925 

notice and initiate a 30-day comment 

period. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 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.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by Level B harassment 

as defined below. Section 101(a)(5)(D) 

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS review of an application 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. If authorized, the IHA 

would be effective for one year from 

date of issuance. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: 

Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 

[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 

[Level B harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received an application on 

February 15, 2011 from SCWA for 

renewal of an IHA for the taking, by 

Level B harassment only, of marine 

mammals incidental to activities 

conducted in management of the 

Russian River estuary in Sonoma 

County, California. SCWA was first 

issued an IHA, valid for a period of one 

year, on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 17382). 

Management activities include 

management of a naturally-formed 

barrier beach at the mouth of the river 

in order to minimize potential for 

flooding of properties adjacent to the 

Russian River estuary and enhance 

habitat for juvenile salmonids, and 

biological and physical monitoring of 

the estuary. Flood control-related 

breaching of barrier beach at the mouth 

of the river may include artificial 

breaches, as well as construction and 

maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel. 

The latter activity, an alternative 

management technique conducted to 

mitigate impacts of flood control on 

rearing habitat for Endangered Species 

Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, occurs only 

from May 15 through October 15 

(hereafter, the ‘‘lagoon management 

period’’). Species known from the haulout at the mouth of the Russian River, 

and analyzed in this document, include 

the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), 

California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), and northern elephant 

seal (Mirounga angustirostris). 

Breaching of naturally formed barrier 

beach at the mouth of the Russian River 

requires the use of heavy equipment 

(e.g., bulldozer, excavator) and 

increased human presence. As a result, 

pinnipeds hauled out on the beach may 

exhibit behavioral responses that 

indicate incidental take by Level B 

harassment under the MMPA. Numbers 

of harbor seals, the species most 

commonly encountered at the haul-out, 

have been recorded extensively since 

1972 at the haul-out near the mouth of 

the Russian River. Based on these 

monitoring data and SCWA’s estimated 

number of management events, SCWA 

is requesting authorization to 

incidentally harass up to 2,735 harbor 

seals, nineteen California sea lions, and 

fifteen northern elephant seals during 

the one-year time span of the proposed 

IHA, from April 15, 2011 to April 14, 

2012. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

The estuary is located about 97 km 

(60 mi) northwest of San Francisco in 

Sonoma County, near Jenner, California 

(see Figure 1 of SCWA’s application). 

The Russian River watershed 

encompasses 3,847 km2 (1,485 mi2) in 

Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake 

Counties. The mouth of the Russian 

River is located at Goat Rock State 

Beach; the estuary extends from the 

mouth upstream approximately 10 to 11 

km (6–7 mi) between Austin Creek and 

the community of Duncans Mills 

(Heckel 1994). The proposed action 

involves management of the estuary to 

prevent flooding while preventing 

adverse modification to critical habitat 

for ESA-listed salmonids. During the 

lagoon management period, this 

involves construction and maintenance 

of a lagoon outlet channel that would 

facilitate formation of a perched lagoon. 

A perched lagoon, which is an estuary 

closed to tidal influence in which water 

surface elevation is above mean high 

tide, would reduce flooding while 

maintaining appropriate conditions for 

juvenile salmonids. Additional breaches 

of barrier beach may be conducted for 

the sole purpose of reducing flood risk. 

The Russian River estuary is a 

drowned river valley formed via erosion 

during the early Pleistocene, when sea 

level was lower (Erskian and Lipps 

1977). The bed of the estuary rises above 

mean sea level near Duncans Mills, 

about five miles from the river’s mouth. 

Ocean tides can influence water surface 

elevation in the river as far as ten miles 

upstream near Monte Rio (Corps and 

SCWA 2004), and directly affect water 

elevation about five to seven miles 

upstream in the vicinity of Austin Creek 

(Erskian and Lipps 1977; Corps and 

SCWA 2004). Tides range 

approximately six feet and are diurnal 

(Erskian and Lipps 1977). 

Closure of the estuary’s bar is a 

complex process related to tides, waves 

and swells, sediment transport, and 

river flows (Largier 2008; RREITF 1994). 

Prior to dams and diversions in the 

Russian River watershed, the estuary 

was likely open to ocean tides for 

several months between late fall and 

early spring, when high stream flows 

coincided with larger coastal waves. As 

stream flow waned in the spring, 

sufficient hydraulic energy was not 

available to maintain a direct 

connection to the ocean. This, combined 

with the presence of bar building wave 

events, would often cause a barrier 

beach to form at the outlet of the estuary 

(NMFS 2008). Historically, flows during 

the summers were low and were 

unlikely to have breached the barrier 

beach once it formed. This pattern of 

open estuarine conditions in the late 

fall, winter and early spring, followed 

by estuary closure to ocean tides in the 

spring, summer, or early fall, remains 

evident today, though it is altered by 

management activity in the Russian 

River watershed. 

Estuaries in California can become 

productive freshwater lagoons following 

formation of a barrier beach (Smith 

1990), dependent upon the time of 

initial closure and freshwater inflow to 

the estuary. Conversion to freshwater 

occurs when freshwater from upstream 

builds up on top of the salt water layer, 

gradually forcing the salt water layer to 

seep back into the ocean through the 

barrier beach, or when freshwater 

outflow entrains some of the salt water 

at the boundary between fresh and salt 

layers; the process may take one month 

or more (Smith 1990). Until the 

conversion process has completed, 

stratification of the water by salinity 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

occurs. Saltwater, being denser, is 

located at the bottom, while freshwater 

is found on top. Stratification can limit 

both the quantity and quality of 

freshwater habitat, relative to a 

freshwater lagoon. When conversion of 

an estuary to a lagoon is complete, fish 

may have more abundant space and 

prey for survival. It is likely that, with 

reduced inflow and without artificial 

breaching, in the spring and summer the 

Russian River estuary would naturally 

form a perched or closed lagoon that in 

many years would contain a highly 

productive environment for rearing 

juvenile salmonids (NMFS 2008). 

Closure of the bar can result in 

flooding of low-lying properties 

adjacent to the estuary. When the 

estuary closes, it may breach naturally 

or require mechanical breaching to 

open. Table 1 describes breaching 

events occurring in the estuary from 

1996–2010. Artificial breaching may 

have occurred as far back as the 1800s; 

the County of Sonoma Department of 

Public Works (DPW) was responsible for 

breaching beginning in the early 1950s. 

SCWA took over breaching from DPW in 

1995 (SCWA 2004). The historic method 

of artificial breaching causes the lagoon 

to return to a tidal system reconnected 

to the ocean, creating a near marine 

environment, with shallow depths and 

high salinity throughout most of the 

water column. In some areas salinity 

stratification contributes to low 

dissolved oxygen at the bottom. These 

conditions are neither natural nor 

optimal for the survival of juvenile 

salmonids (NMFS 2008). 

Within the Russian River watershed, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), SCWA and the Mendocino 

County Russian River Flood Control and 

Water Conservation Improvement 

District (MCRRFCD) operate and 

maintain Federal facilities and conduct 

activities in addition to the previously 

described estuary management, 

including flood control, water diversion 

and storage, instream flow releases, 

hydroelectric power generation, channel 

maintenance, and fish hatchery 

production. The Corps, SCWA, and the 

MCRRFCD conducted these activities 

for many years before salmonid species 

in the Russian River—Central California 

Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), CCC coho salmon (O. kisutch), 

and California Coastal Chinook salmon 

(O. tshawytscha)—were protected under 

the ESA. Starting with the listing of 

coho salmon in 1996 (61 FR 56138), 

SCWA and the Corps engaged NMFS in 

pre-consultation technical assistance to 

evaluate the potential risk their 

activities posed to these species. Upon 

determination that these actions were 

likely to affect salmonids, as well as 

designated critical habitat for these 

species, formal consultation was 

initiated. In 2008, NMFS issued a 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Water 

Supply, Flood Control Operations, and 

Channel Maintenance conducted by the 

Corps, SCWA, and MCRRFCD in the 

Russian River watershed (NMFS 2008). 

This BiOp found that the activities— 

including SCWA’s estuary management 

activities—authorized by the Corps and 

undertaken by SCWA and MCRRFCD, if 

continued in a manner similar to recent 

historic practices, were likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened CCC steelhead and 

endangered CCC coho salmon and were 

likely to adversely modify critical 

habitat for those two species. 

If a project is found to jeopardize a 

species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat, NMFS must develop a 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

(RPA) to the proposed project in 

coordination with the Federal action 

agency and any applicant. A component 

of the RPA described in the 2008 BiOp 

requires SCWA to collaborate with 

NMFS and modify their estuary water 

level management in order to reduce 

marine influence (i.e., high salinity and 

tidal inflow) and promote a higher water 

surface elevation in the estuary in order 

to enhance the quality of rearing habitat 

for juvenile steelhead. A program of 

potential incremental steps prescribed 

to reach that goal includes adaptive 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14927 

management of the outlet channel. 

SCWA is also required to monitor the 

response of water quality, invertebrate 

production, and salmonids in and near 

the estuary to water surface elevation 

management in the estuary-lagoon 

system. 

The analysis contained in the BiOp 

found that maintenance of lagoon 

conditions was necessary only for the 

lagoon management period. See NMFS’ 

BiOp (2008) for details of that analysis. 

As a result of that determination, there 

are three components to SCWA’s 

estuary management activities: (1) 

Lagoon outlet channel management, 

during the lagoon management period 

only, required to accomplish the dual 

purposes of flood risk abatement and 

maintenance of juvenile salmonid 

habitat; (2) traditional artificial 

breaching, with the sole goal of flood 

risk abatement; and (3) physical and 

biological monitoring. 

Lagoon Outlet Channel Management 

SCWA, in compliance with the BiOp, 

adaptively manages estuary water 

surface elevations during the lagoon 

management period. Maintaining the 

lagoon water levels in a perched state 

that is also below flood stage requires an 

outlet channel to convey water from the 

estuary to the ocean over the beach 

berm. Active management of estuarine/ 

lagoon water levels commences 

following the first closure of the barrier 

beach during this period. When this 

happens, SCWA monitors lagoon water 

surface elevation and creates an outlet 

channel when water levels in the 

estuary are between 4.5 and 7.0 ft (1.4– 

2.1 m) in elevation. Water levels above 

4.0 ft (1.2 m) are expected to indicate 

reduced marine influence and would be 

likely to improve habitat. The ideal 

lagoon water level is 7.0–9.0 ft (2.1–2.7 

m)—the BiOp specifies a target average 

daily water surface elevation of 7.0 ft 

during the lagoon management period, 

and flood stage is reached at 9.0 ft. 

However, in practice, this target leaves 

SCWA with little margin for error. The 

Russian River Estuary Outlet Channel 

Adaptive Management Plan (hereafter, 

‘‘Plan’’; PWA 2010) employs an 

incremental approach to channel 

management, favoring smaller, more 

frequent modifications over larger, less 

frequent, modification with less certain 

outcome. To the extent feasible, estuary 

water levels will initially be managed at 

the lower end of the 4.0–9.0 ft range in 

order to: (1) Reduce the scour potential 

associated with larger water surface 

differences between the lagoon and 

ocean and (2) provide a larger flood 

buffer if the channel closes and water 

levels rise. As experience is gained from 

implementing the channel and 

observing its response, SCWA will seek 

to make larger changes during each 

incremental modification. These larger 

changes will decrease the duration and 

frequency of management activity, 

thereby reducing the disturbance impact 

over time. Management practices will be 

incrementally modified over the course 

of the lagoon management period in an 

effort to improve performance in 

meeting the goals of the BiOp while 

preventing flooding. 

The adaptive lagoon outlet channel 

management plan seeks to work with 

natural processes and site conditions to 

maintain an outlet channel that reduces 

tidal inflow of saline water into the 

estuary, as described in the Plan. The 

location of the outlet channel, at the 

interface of the estuary and the surf 

zone, is a dynamic system influenced by 

river discharge, ocean waves, and sand 

transport (see Figure 2 of SCWA’s 

application). As such, the outlet channel 

will be subject to variable forcing at 

hourly, tidal, and monthly timescales. 

To sustainably meet its performance 

criteria, the outlet channel must be 

resilient in the face of this variable 

forcing. The outlet channel geometry 

must simultaneously meet two key 

objectives: Convey sufficient discharge 

from the estuary to the ocean to preserve 

constant water levels in the estuary and 

preserve channel function by avoiding 

closure or breaching. These two 

objectives can be in conflict, since both 

conveyance capacity and the potential 

for breaching increase with flow rates, 

but closure is more likely for lower flow 

rates. 

The target outlet channel is subject to 

two failure modes: (1) Closure caused by 

deposition, leading to rising water levels 

and possible flooding, and (2) breaching 

caused by scour, leading to tidal 

exchange and marine conditions in the 

estuary. Conceptual models of these 

conditions may be found in Figures 2– 

4 of the Plan. Of the two failure modes, 

breaching is more detrimental. Once 

breaching occurs, exposing the estuary 

to tidal water levels and saline inflow, 

the estuary may persist in a breached 

state for weeks or months before the 

barrier beach can re-form. Closure 

results in increasing estuary water 

levels, which allows time for further 

management action to prevent flooding. 

A pilot channel will be created in the 

sandbar at a sufficient depth to allow 

river flows to begin transporting sand to 

the ocean. The pilot channel would not 

be excavated as deeply, narrowly, or 

with as steep a gradient as typical 

artificial breaching channels, which are 

designed to allow the current velocities 

to erode a wider and deeper channel 

and downcut into the barrier beach. 

While the channel is dug, it will remain 

disconnected from the estuary by a 

portion of the sand bar. Excavated sand 

will be placed on the beach adjacent to 

the pilot channel. In the past, 

excavation work associated with 

artificial breaching has usually 

generated a maximum of 1,000 yd3 (765 

m3) of sand, sidecast onto the sand bar 

below the high tide line (NMFS 2005). 

However, SCWA is in the process of 

requesting permit renewals that would 

allow maximum excavations of 2,000 

yd3 (1,529 m3) to accommodate the 

maximum volume of sand excavation 

that could be needed for certain outlet 

channel configurations. Once the 

channel is complete, the remaining 

portion of the sandbar will be removed 

by heavy equipment allowing the river 

water to flow to the ocean. The channel 

configuration—and thus the size of the 

resulting pilot channel—varies, 

depending on the height of the sand bar 

to be breached, the tide level, and the 

elevation of the estuary at the time of 

breaching. Two types of channel 

configurations will be initially 

considered for implementation: A wide 

and short channel that seeks to 

minimize scour potential; or a narrow 

and long channel aligned to the north 

that seeks to minimize closure potential. 

The channel selected for 

implementation will be based on site 

conditions at the time of closure. 

Monitoring of the outlet channel and 

estuary response will be used to inform 

adaptive management during the lagoon 

management period. 

Some uncertainty remains about the 

exact outlet channel configuration that 

may best achieve the target performance 

criteria. This uncertainty arises from the 

dynamic natural setting for the outlet 

channel and from the unquantified 

tradeoffs between channel specifications 

which may benefit one performance 

criterion while impairing another 

criterion. For example, to reduce the 

likelihood of closure, it may be 

beneficial to locate the mouth of the 

channel further north where the 

coastline’s aspect is more sheltered from 

waves from the north. However, 

extending the channel’s length to the 

northern location necessitates 

narrowing its width to keep excavation 

within currently-permitted volumes 

(i.e., 1,000 yd3). A narrower channel 

increases the likelihood of scourinduced breaching. The relative 

importance of these factors is not 

known, precluding an exact 

determination of optimal channel 

configuration. In addition to these 

uncertainties, actual conditions at the 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

time of closure, such as beach berm 

topography, may inform the selected 

configuration (PWA 2010). 

The wide/short approach will be to 

construct the channel in the same 

general location and alignment as the 

preexisting channel (i.e., the location 

just prior to closure). When pursuing 

this approach, excavation will simply 

widen and connect the channel in place. 

As the channel migrates during the 

management season, the location of new 

excavation may follow this migration. 

The narrow/long approach will angle 

the channel to the northwest with an 

approximate aspect of 30–40 degrees 

with respect to the beach. This angled 

alignment tests possible advantages of 

site features such as areas of reduced 

wave energy and rocks imbedded in the 

beach. 

The quantity of sand moved will 

depend on antecedent beach 

topography. Once either the wide/short 

or narrow/long planform alignment is 

selected, limits on excavation volume 

will largely set channel dimensions. 

Any sand excavated from the channel 

will be placed on the adjacent beach 

and graded to heights of approximately 

1–2 ft (0.3–0.6 m) above existing grade. 

The placed sand will be distributed in 

such a way as to minimize changes to 

beach topography. The bed will be 

excavated 0.5–1 ft (0.15–0.3 m) below 

the lagoon water level along its entire 

length, to achieve target channel depths 

upon initiation of flow. The bed slope 

should be nearly flat within the outlet 

channel to minimize the likelihood of 

bed scour, which may result in 

breaching. The target range of water 

depths, 0.5–2 ft, is constrained on the 

upper end by the maximum depth at 

which the channel is likely to be stable 

(i.e., not scour). The lower end of the 

range is constrained by the width; 

shallower depths would require 

impractically large channel widths to 

provide sufficient cross-sectional area to 

convey flow. For the wide/short 

configuration, the channel bottom 

would be excavated to a width of 

approximately 100 ft (30 m), the Corpspermitted maximum, to reduce the 

potential for scour. For the narrow/long 

configuration, the channel bottom width 

will be approximately 30 ft (9 m) to 

achieve the desired channel length and 

slope while still staying within the 

excavation volume limits. The wide/ 

short configuration would result in 

channel lengths of 100–200 ft (30–60 m) 

while the narrow/long configuration 

would result in channel lengths 

approaching the maximum of 400 ft 

(120 m). Channel modifications will be 

initiated during low tide so that after 

several hours of work, the channel will 

be completed near high tide (PWA 

2010). 

Ideally, initial implementation of the 

outlet channel would produce a stable 

channel for the duration of the lagoon 

management period. However, the sheer 

number of variables and lack of past 

site-specific experience likely preclude 

this outcome. Given the conservative 

approach, in which excavation 

technique disproportionately seeks to 

avoid failure by breaching rather than 

closure, attempted channel 

implementation is most likely to fail 

through closure. In this case, succeeding 

excavation attempts may be required. 

The precise number of excavations 

would depend on uncontrollable 

variables such as seasonal ocean wave 

conditions (e.g., wave heights and 

lengths), river inflows, and the success 

of previous excavations (e.g., the 

success of selected channel widths and 

meander patterns) in forming an outlet 

channel that effectively maintains 

lagoon water surface elevations. Based 

on lagoon management operations 

under similar conditions at Carmel 

River, and expectations regarding how 

wave action and sand deposition may 

increase beach height or result in 

closure, it is predicted that up to three 

successive outlet channel excavation 

events, at increasingly higher beach 

elevations, may be necessary to produce 

a successful outlet channel. In the event 

that an outlet channel fails through 

breaching (i.e., erodes the barrier beach 

and forms a tidal inlet), SCWA would 

resume adaptive management of the 

outlet channel’s width, slope, and 

alignment in consultation with NMFS 

and the California Department of Fish 

and Game (CDFG), only after ocean 

wave action naturally reforms a barrier 

beach and closes the river’s mouth 

during the lagoon management period. 

SCWA’s lagoon outlet channel 

management activities would involve 

the use of heavy equipment and 

increased human presence on the beach, 

in order to excavate and maintain an 

outlet channel from the lagoon to the 

ocean. SCWA has estimated that a 

maximum of three such events could be 

necessary during this period. During 

pupping season, management events 

may occur over a maximum of two 

consecutive days per event and all 

estuary management events on the 

beach must be separated by a minimum 

no-work period of one week. The use of 

heavy equipment and increased human 

presence has the potential to harass 

hauled-out marine mammals by causing 

movement or flushing into the water. 

Mitigation and monitoring measures 

described later in this document are 

designed to minimize this harassment to 

the lowest practicable level. 

Implementation and Maintenance— 

SCWA accesses the beach from the 

paved parking lot at Goat Rock State 

Beach, (see Figure 2 of SCWA’s 

application), and would contact State 

Parks lifeguards, as well as State Park 

District headquarters and the Monte Rio 

Fire Protection District, within 24 hours 

prior to excavating and maintaining the 

lagoon outlet channel to minimize 

potential hazards to beach visitors. 

Signs and barriers would be posted 750 

ft (229 m) from each side of the outlet 

channel for 24 hours prior to and after 

excavation events to warn beach visitors 

of the hazards in the area and the 

presence of pinnipeds on the beach. 

Notifications for the general public 

would also be posted at the Jenner 

visitor’s center boat launch. Equipment 

(e.g., bulldozer, excavator) is off-loaded 

in the parking lot and driven onto the 

beach via an existing access point. 

Personnel on the beach would include 

up to two equipment operators, three 

safety team members on the beach (one 

on each side of the channel observing 

the equipment operators, and one at the 

barrier to warn beach visitors away from 

the activities), and one safety team 

member at the overlook on Highway 1 

above the beach. Occasionally, there 

would be two or more additional people 

on the beach (SCWA staff or regulatory 

agency staff) to observe the activities. 

SCWA staff would be followed by the 

equipment, which would then be 

followed by an SCWA vehicle (typically 

a small pickup truck, to be parked at the 

previously posted signs and barriers on 

the south side of the excavation 

location). 

Upon successful construction of an 

outlet channel, adaptive management, 

or maintenance, may be required for the 

channel to continue achieving 

performance criteria. In order to reduce 

disturbance to seals and other wildlife, 

as well as beach visitors, the amount 

and frequency of mechanical 

intervention will be minimized. As 

technical staff and maintenance crews 

gain more experience with 

implementing the outlet channel and 

observing its response, maintenance is 

anticipated to be less frequent, with 

events of lesser intensity. During 

pupping season, machinery may only 

operate on up to two consecutive 

working days, including during initial 

construction of the outlet channel. In 

addition, SCWA must maintain a one 

week no-work period between 

management events during pupping 

season, unless flooding is a threat, to 

allow for adequate disturbance recovery 

period. During the no-work period, 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14929 

equipment must be removed from the 

beach. SCWA seeks to avoid conducting 

management activities on weekends 

(Friday to Sunday) in order to reduce 

disturbance of beach visitors. In 

addition, activities are to be conducted 

in such a manner as to effect the least 

practicable adverse impacts to 

pinnipeds and their habitat as described 

later in this document (see 

‘‘Mitigation’’). 

Artificial Breaching 

As described previously, the estuary 

may close naturally throughout the year 

as a result of barrier beach formation at 

the mouth of the Russian River. 

Although closures may occur at any 

time of the year, the mouth usually 

closes during the spring, summer, and 

fall (Heckel 1994; Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; 

SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting 

2001). Natural breaching events occur 

when estuary water surface levels 

exceed the height of the barrier beach 

and overtop it, scouring an outlet 

channel that reconnects the Russian 

River to the Pacific Ocean. Closures 

result in lagoon formation in the estuary 

and, as water surface levels rise, 

flooding may occur. For decades, 

artificial breaching has been performed 

in the absence of natural breaching, in 

order to alleviate potential flooding of 

low-lying shoreline properties near the 

town of Jenner. 

Estuary management events, as 

described previously in this document, 

may be carefully engineered for the dual 

purpose of reducing flood risk while 

maintaining lagoon conditions 

appropriate for juvenile salmonids. 

However, artificial breaching, as defined 

here, is conducted for the sole purpose 

of reducing flood risk, and may occur at 

any time of the year. As prescribed in 

the BiOp, artificial breaching is limited 

to two events during the lagoon 

management period, but is unlimited 

outside the lagoon management period. 

Any estuary management event 

occurring outside of the lagoon 

management period will be an artificial 

breaching. 

Breaching has historically been 

performed in accordance with the 

Russian River Estuary Study 1992–1993 

(Heckel 1994). The beach berm is 

artificially breached by SCWA when the 

water surface elevation in the estuary is 

4.5–7.0 ft (1.4–2.1 m) as read at the 

Jenner gage. Breaching is performed by 

creating a deep cut in the closed beach 

berm, approximately 100 ft long by 25 

ft wide and 6 ft deep (30 x 8 x 2 m), 

by moving up to 1,000 yd3 (765 m3) of 

sand. Based on experience and beach 

topography at the time of the breach, the 

planform alignment of the breach is 

selected to maximize the success of the 

breaches. Breaching activities are 

typically conducted on outgoing tides to 

maximize the elevation head difference 

between the estuary water surface and 

the ocean. 

After the last portion of the beach 

berm is removed, water typically begins 

flowing out the channel at high 

velocities, scouring and enlarging the 

channel to widths of 50–100 ft (15–30 

m). As the channel evolves and 

meanders, it may reach lengths in 

excess of 400 ft (122 m). After 

breaching, the estuary is subject to 

saline water inflow throughout 

incoming tides. As with other outlet 

channel management activities, sand is 

placed onto the beach adjacent to the 

pilot channel. The size of the pilot 

channel may vary depending on the 

height of the sandbar to be breached, the 

tide level, and the water surface 

elevation in the estuary. 

Artificial breaching activities occur in 

accordance with the BiOp, and 

primarily occur outside the lagoon 

management period, i.e., October 16 to 

May 14. However, if conditions present 

unacceptable risk of flooding during the 

lagoon management period, SCWA may 

artificially breach the sandbar a 

maximum of two times during that 

period. Implementation protocol would 

follow that described previously for 

lagoon outlet channel management 

events, with the exception that only one 

piece of heavy equipment is likely to be 

required per event, rather than two. 

SCWA’s artificial breaching activities 

would involve the use of heavy 

equipment and increased human 

presence on the beach, in order to 

breach the barrier between the lagoon 

and the ocean. The use of heavy 

equipment and increased human 

presence has the potential to harass 

hauled-out marine mammals by causing 

movement or flushing into the water. 

Mitigation measures described later in 

this document are designed to minimize 

this harassment to the lowest 

practicable level. 

Physical and Biological Monitoring 

Implementation of the lagoon outlet 

channel adaptive management plan 

requires monitoring to measure changes 

in the bar and channel elevation, 

lengths, and widths, as well as flow 

velocities and observations of the bed 

structure (to identify bed forms and 

depth-dependent grain size distribution 

indicative of armoring) in the channel. 

In addition to the activities described 

for the lagoon outlet channel adaptive 

management plan, SCWA is required by 

the BiOp and other state and Federal 

permits to collect biological and 

physical habitat data in conjunction 

with estuary management. Fisheries 

seining and trapping, water quality 

monitoring, invertebrate/sediment 

sampling, and physical habitat 

measurements require the use of boats 

and nets in the estuary. Boating and 

other monitoring activities occur in the 

vicinity of river haul-outs (see Figure 4 

of SCWA’s application); these 

monitoring activities have the potential 

to disturb pinnipeds. Table 2 provides 

a summary of the monitoring tasks and 

the frequency of their implementation. 

The majority of monitoring is required 

under the BiOp and occurs 

approximately during the lagoon 

management period (mid-May through 

October or November, depending on 

river dynamics. Beach topographic 

surveys occur year-round. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Harbor seals are the most common 

species inhabiting the haul-out at the 

mouth of the Russian River (Jenner 

haul-out). California sea lions and 

northern elephant seals have also been 

observed infrequently in the project 

area. In addition to the Jenner haul-out, 

there are eight additional haul-outs 

nearby (see Figure 2 of SCWA’s Report 

of Activities and Monitoring Results). 

These include North Jenner and Odin 

Cove to the north; Pocked Rock, 

Kabemali, and Rock Point to the south; 

and Penny Logs, Patty’s Rock, and 

Chalanchawi upstream within the 

estuary. 

Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals in the eastern Pacific 

inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine 

areas from Baja California, Mexico, to 

the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. In 

California, approximately 400–600 

harbor seal haul-outs are widely 

distributed along the mainland and on 

offshore islands, including intertidal 

sandbars, rocky shores and beaches 

(Hanan 1996). 

The harbor seal population in 

California is estimated at approximately 

34,233 (Carretta et al. 2007). Counts of 

harbor seals in California showed a 

rapid increase from approximately 1972 

to 1990, though net production rates 

appeared to decline from 1982 to 1994. 

The decrease in population growth rate 

has occurred at the same time as a 

decrease in human-caused mortality and 

may be an indication that the 

population is reaching its 

environmental carrying capacity. 

In general, harbor seals do not 

undertake long migrations, but do travel 

300–500 km on occasion to find food or 

suitable breeding areas (Herder 1986). 

Harbor seals are rarely found in pelagic 

waters and typically stay within the 

tidal and intertidal zones. On land, 

harbor seals haul out on rocky outcrops, 

mudflats, sandbars and sandy beaches 

with unrestricted access to water and 

with minimal human presence. Haulout sites are important as resting sites 

for harbor seals, who feed 

opportunistically in shallow waters on 

fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods. 

Harbor seals are typically solitary while 

foraging, although small groups have 

been observed. They normally choose 

isolated sites for pupping, which 

normally occurs at the Russian River 

from March until late June, and 

sometimes into early July. The Jenner 

haul-out is the largest in Sonoma 

County. 

A substantial amount of monitoring 

effort has been conducted at the Jenner 

haul-out and surrounding areas. 

Concerned local residents formed the 

Stewards’ Seal Watch Public Education 

Program in 1985 to educate beach 

visitors and monitor seal populations. 

State Parks Volunteer Docents continue 

this effort towards safeguarding local 

harbor seal habitat. On weekends during 

the pupping and molting season 

(approximately March-August), 

volunteers conduct public outreach and 

record the numbers of visitors and seals 

on the beach, other marine mammals 

observed, and the number of boats and 

kayaks present. 

Ongoing monthly seal counts at the 

Jenner haul-out were begun by J. 

Mortenson in January 1987, with 

additional nearby haul-outs added to 

the counts thereafter. In addition, local 

resident E. Twohy began daily 

observations of seals and people at the 

Jenner haul-out in November 1989. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14931 

Table 3 shows average daily numbers of 

seals observed at the mouth of the 

Russian River from 1993–2005. These 

datasets note whether the mouth at the 

Jenner haul-out was opened or closed at 

each observation, as well as various 

other daily and annual patterns of haulout usage (Mortenson and Twohy 1994). 

The number of seals present at the 

Jenner haul-out generally declines 

during bar-closed conditions 

(Mortenson 1996). SCWA’s pinniped 

monitoring efforts from 1996 to 2000 

focused on artificial breaching activities 

and their effects on the Jenner haul-out. 

Seal counts and disturbances were 

recorded from one to two days prior to 

breaching, the day of breaching, and the 

day after breaching (Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; 

SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting 

2001). In each year, the trend observed 

was that harbor seal numbers generally 

declined during a beach closure and 

increased the day following an artificial 

breaching event. Heckel (1994) 

speculated that the loss of easy access 

to the haul-out and ready escape to the 

sea during bar-closed conditions may 

account for the lower numbers. Table 4 

shows average daily seal counts 

recorded during SCWA monitoring of 

breaching events from 1996–2000, 

representing bar-closed conditions, 

when seal numbers decline. 

Mortenson (1996) observed that pups 

were first seen at the Jenner haul-out in 

late March, with maximum counts in 

May. In this study, pups were not 

counted separately from other age 

classes at the haul-out after August due 

to the difficulty in discriminating pups 

from small yearlings. From 1989 to 

1991, Hanson (1993) observed that 

pupping began at the Jenner haul-out in 

mid-April, with a maximum number of 

pups observed during the first two 

weeks of May. This corresponds with 

the peaks observed at Point Reyes, 

where the first viable pups are born in 

March and the peak is the last week of 

April to early May (SCWA 2011). Based 

on this information, pupping season at 

the Jenner haul-out is conservatively 

defined here as March 15 to June 30. 

California Sea Lions 

California sea lions range from 

southern Mexico to British Columbia, 

Canada. The entire U.S. population has 

been estimated at 238,000, and grew at 

a rate of approximately six percent 

annually between 1975 and 2005 

(Carretta et al. 2007). Sea lions can be 

found at sea from the surf zone out to 

nearshore and pelagic waters. On land, 

sea lions are found resting and breeding 

in groups of various sizes, and haul out 

on rocky surfaces and outcroppings and 

beaches, as well as on manmade 

structures such as jetties. Sea lions 

prefer haul-out sites and rookeries near 

abundant food supplies, with easy 

access to water; although they may 

occasionally travel up rivers and bays in 

search of food. 

California sea lions exhibit seasonal 

migration patterns organized around 

their breeding activity. Sea lions breed 

at large rookeries in the Channel Islands 

in southern California, and on both 

sides of the Baja California peninsula, 

typically from May to August. Females 

tend to remain close to the rookeries 

throughout the year, while males 

migrate north after the breeding season 

in the late summer before migrating 

back south to the breeding grounds in 

the spring (CDFG 1990). No established 

rookeries are known north of Point 

Reyes, California, but large numbers of 

subadult and non-breeding or postbreeding male California sea lions are 

found throughout the Pacific Northwest. 

There is a mean seasonal pattern of peak 

numbers occurring in the northwest 

during fall, but local areas show high 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.003</GPH> EN18MR11.004</GPH>
14932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

annual and seasonal variability. Sea 

lions feed on fish and cephalopods. 

Although solitary feeders, sea lions 

often hunt in groups, which can vary in 

size according to the abundance of prey 

(CDFG 1990). 

Solitary California sea lions have 

occasionally been observed at or in the 

vicinity of the haul-out (Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1999, 2000). Individual sea 

lions were observed near the mouth of 

the Russian River in November and 

December of 2009; a single individual 

was observed hauled-out on one 

occasion in November 2009. Juvenile 

sea lions were observed during the 

summer of 2009 at the Patty’s Rock 

haul-out, and some sea lions were 

observed during monitoring of 

peripheral haul-outs in October 2009. 

The occurrence of individual California 

sea lions in the action area may 

generally occur from September through 

April, but is infrequent and sporadic. 

Northern Elephant Seals 

Populations of northern elephant 

seals in the U.S. and Mexico are derived 

from a few tens or hundreds of 

individuals surviving in Mexico after 

being nearly hunted to extinction 

(Stewart et al. 1994). Given the recent 

derivation of most rookeries, no genetic 

differentiation would be expected. 

Although movement and genetic 

exchange continues between rookeries, 

most elephant seals return to their natal 

rookeries when they start breeding 

(Huber et al. 1991). The California 

breeding population is now 

demographically isolated from the Baja 

California population and is considered 

to be a separate stock. Based on the 

estimated 35,549 pups born in 

California in 2005, the California stock 

was estimated at approximately 124,000 

(Carretta et al. 2009). Based on trends in 

pup counts, northern elephant seal 

colonies were continuing to grow in 

California through 2005 (Carretta et al. 

2009). 

Northern elephant seals breed and 

give birth in California and Baja 

California, Mexico, primarily on 

offshore islands from December to 

March (Stewart et al. 1994; Stewart and 

Huber 1993). Males feed near the 

eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf 

of Alaska, and females feed further 

south (Stewart and Huber 1993; Le 

Boeuf et al. 1993). Adults return to land 

between March and August to molt, 

with males returning later than females. 

Adults return to their feeding areas 

again between their spring/summer 

molting and their winter breeding 

seasons. Pups are born in early winter 

from December to January. Breeding 

occurs from December to March, and 

gestation lasts around eleven months. 

Northern elephant seals are 

polygamous; males establish dominance 

over large groups of females during the 

breeding season. 

Northern elephant seals range along 

the entire California coast, with 

breeding occurring in dense rookeries 

on offshore islands and at several 

mainland locations. From April to 

November, they feed at sea or haul out 

to molt at rookeries. Elephant seals feed 

at night in deep water, primarily on fish 

and cephalopods (CDFG 2009). 

Entanglement in marine debris, fishery 

interactions, and boat collisions are the 

main threats to elephant seals. 

Censuses of pinnipeds at the mouth of 

the Russian River have been taken at 

least semi-monthly since 1987. Elephant 

seals were noted from 1987–95, with 

one or two elephant seals typically 

counted during May censuses, and 

occasional records during the fall and 

winter (Mortenson and Follis 1997). A 

single, tagged northern elephant seal 

sub-adult was present at the Jenner 

haul-out from 2002–07. This individual 

seal, which was observed harassing 

harbor seals also present at the haul-out, 

was generally present during molt and 

again from late December through 

March. A single juvenile elephant seal 

was observed at the Jenner haul-out in 

June 2009. The occurrence of individual 

northern elephant seals in the action 

area has generally been infrequent and 

sporadic from December through March 

in the past ten years. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

As described previously, a significant 

body of monitoring data exists for 

pinnipeds at the mouth of the Russian 

River. In addition, pinnipeds have coexisted with regular estuary 

management activity for decades, as 

well as with regular human use activity 

at the beach, and are likely habituated 

to human presence and activity. 

Nevertheless, SCWA’s estuary 

management activities have the 

potential to harass pinnipeds present on 

the beach. During breaching operations, 

past monitoring has revealed that some 

or all of the seals present typically move 

or flush from the beach in response to 

the presence of crew and equipment, 

though some may remain hauled-out. 

No stampeding of seals—a potentially 

dangerous occurrence in which large 

numbers of animals succumb to mass 

panic and rush away from a stimulus— 

has been documented since SCWA 

developed protocols to prevent such 

events in 1999. While it is likely 

impossible to conduct required estuary 

management activities without 

provoking some response in hauled-out 

animals, precautionary mitigation 

measures, described later in this 

document, ensure that animals are 

gradually apprised of human approach. 

Under these conditions, seals typically 

exhibit a continuum of responses, 

beginning with alert movements (e.g., 

raising the head), which may then 

escalate to movement away from the 

stimulus and possible flushing into the 

water. Flushed seals typically re-occupy 

the haul-out within minutes to hours of 

the stimulus. In addition, eight other 

haul-outs exist nearby that may 

accommodate flushed seals. In the 

absence of appropriate mitigation 

measures, it is possible that pinnipeds 

could be subject to injury, serious 

injury, or mortality, likely through 

stampeding or abandonment of pups. 

Therefore, based on a significant body 

of site-specific data, harbor seals are 

unlikely to sustain any harassment that 

may be considered biologically 

significant. Individual animals would, 

at most, flush into the water in response 

to maintenance activities but may also 

simply become alert or move across the 

beach away from equipment and crews. 

California sea lions and northern 

elephant seals have been observed as 

less sensitive to stimulus than harbor 

seals during monitoring at numerous 

other sites. For example, monitoring of 

pinniped disturbance as a result of 

abalone research in the Channel Islands 

showed that while harbor seals flushed 

at a rate of 84 percent, California sea 

lions flushed at a rate of only sixteen 

percent. The rate for elephant seals 

declined to 0.2 percent (VanBlaricom 

2010). In the unlikely event that either 

of these species is present during 

management activities, they would be 

expected to display a minimal reaction 

to maintenance activities—less than that 

expected of harbor seals. 

Although the Jenner haul-out is not 

known as a primary pupping beach, 

pups have been observed during the 

pupping season; therefore, NMFS has 

evaluated the potential for injury, 

serious injury or mortality to pups. 

There is a lack of published data 

regarding pupping at the mouth of the 

Russian River, but SCWA monitors have 

observed pups on the beach. No births 

were observed during monitoring in 

2010, but were inferred based on signs 

indicating pupping (e.g., blood spots on 

the sand, birds consuming possible 

placental remains). Pup injury or 

mortality would be most likely to occur 

in the event of extended separation of a 

mother and pup, or trampling in a 

stampede. As discussed previously, no 

stampedes have been recorded since 

development of appropriate protocols in 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14933 

1999. Any California sea lions or 

northern elephant seals present would 

be independent juveniles or adults; 

therefore, analysis of impacts on pups is 

not relevant for those species. Pups less 

than one week old are characterized by 

being up to 15 kg, thin for their body 

length, or having an umbilicus or natal 

pelage. 

Similarly, the period of mother-pup 

bonding, critical time needed to ensure 

pup survival and maximize pup health, 

is not expected to be impacted by 

estuary management activities. Harbor 

seal pups are extremely precocious, 

swimming and diving immediately after 

birth and throughout the lactation 

period, unlike most other phocids 

which normally enter the sea only after 

weaning (Lawson and Renouf 1985; 

Cottrell et al. 2002; Burns et al. 2005). 

Lawson and Renouf (1987) investigated 

harbor seal mother-pup bonding in 

response to natural and anthropogenic 

disturbance. In summary, they found 

that the most critical bonding time is 

within minutes after birth. As described 

previously, the peak of pupping season 

is typically concluded by mid-May, 

when the lagoon management period 

begins. As such, it is expected that 

mother-pup bonding would likely be 

concluded as well. The number of 

management events during the months 

of March and April has been relatively 

low in the past (see Table 1), and the 

breaching activities occur in a single 

day over several hours. In addition, 

mitigation measures described later in 

this document further reduce the 

likelihood of any impacts to pups, 

whether through injury or mortality or 

interruption of mother-pup bonding. 

Based on extensive monitoring data, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds 

during estuary management activities 

would be behavioral harassment of 

limited duration (i.e., less than one day) 

and limited intensity (i.e., temporary 

flushing at most). Stampeding, and 

therefore injury or mortality, is not 

expected—nor been documented—in 

the years since appropriate protocols 

were established (see ‘‘Mitigation’’ for 

more details). Further, the continued, 

and increasingly heavy, use of the haulout despite decades of breaching events 

indicates that abandonment of the haulout is unlikely. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The purposes of the estuary 

management activities are to improve 

summer rearing habitat for juvenile 

salmonids in the Russian River estuary 

and/or to minimize potential flood risk 

to properties adjacent to the estuary. 

These activities would result in 

temporary physical alteration of the 

Jenner haul-out, but are essential to 

conserving and recovering endangered 

salmonid species, as prescribed by the 

BiOp. These salmonids are themselves 

prey for pinnipeds. In addition, with 

barrier beach closure, seal usage of the 

beach haul-out declines, and the three 

nearby river haul-outs may not be 

available for usage due to rising water 

surface elevations. Breaching of the 

barrier beach, subsequent to the 

temporary habitat disturbance, would 

likely increase suitability and 

availability of habitat for pinnipeds. 

Biological and water quality monitoring 

would not physically alter pinniped 

habitat. 

Construction of the lagoon outlet 

channel would alter the beach by 

creating a shallow outlet channel to 

convey river flow over the sandbar and 

minimize or eliminate tidal exchange 

during the lagoon management period. 

The gentle slope of the outlet channel 

would allow seals to travel through the 

channel, although the shallow depths 

would likely not allow for swimming 

through the channel. Depending on the 

barrier beach height and the location of 

the river’s thalweg when the beach 

closes, part of the outlet channel may be 

constructed in areas where seals 

typically haul out. Artificial breaching 

activities, as opposed to lagoon outlet 

channel creation, alter the habitat by 

creating a pilot channel through the 

closed sandbar. The location of the pilot 

channel is dependent on the height and 

width of the sandbar and the location of 

the river’s thalweg. The pilot channel 

could be constructed in areas where 

seals typically haul out. Construction of 

pilot channels for the lagoon outlet 

channel and artificial breaching events 

requires excavated sand to be sidecast 

on the beach. Any sand excavated 

would be graded on the adjacent beach 

in such a way as to minimize changes 

to beach topography. 

During SCWA’s pinniped monitoring 

associated with artificial breaching 

activities from 1996 to 2000, the number 

of harbor seals hauled out declined 

when the barrier beach closed and then 

increased the day following an artificial 

breaching event (Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; 

SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting 

2001). This response to barrier beach 

closure followed by artificial breaching 

is anticipated to continue. However, it 

is possible that the number of pinnipeds 

using the haul-out could decline during 

the extended lagoon management 

period, when SCWA would seek to 

maintain a shallow outlet channel rather 

than the deeper channel associated with 

artificial breaching. Collection of 

baseline information during the lagoon 

management period is included in the 

monitoring requirements described later 

in this document. SCWA’s previous 

monitoring, as well as Twohy’s daily 

counts of seals at the sandbar (Table 3) 

indicate that the number of seals at the 

haul-out declines from August to 

October, so management of the lagoon 

outlet channel (and managing the 

sandbar as a summer lagoon) would 

have little effect on haul-out use during 

the latter portion of the lagoon 

management period. The early portion 

of the lagoon management period 

coincides with the pupping season. Past 

monitoring during this period, which 

represents some of the longest beach 

closures in the late spring and early 

summer months, shows that the number 

of pinnipeds at the haul-out tends to 

fluctuate, rather than showing the more 

straightforward declines and increases 

associated with closures and openings 

seen at other times of year (Merritt 

Smith Consulting 1998). This may 

indicate that seal haul-out usage during 

the pupping season is less dependent on 

bar status. As such, the number of seals 

hauled out from May through July 

would be expected to fluctuate, but is 

unlikely to respond dramatically to the 

absence of artificial breaching events. 

Regardless, any impacts to habitat 

resulting from SCWA’s management of 

the estuary during the lagoon 

management period are not in relation 

to natural conditions, but rather in 

relation to conditions resulting from 

SCWA’s discontinued approach of 

artificial breaching during this period. 

Changes in haul-out elevation 

regularly occur with the tides at this site 

and any habitat that would be impacted 

by sidecast sand would be temporary. 

Pinnipeds seeking to haul out would 

still have access to the estuary/lagoon 

waters and would likely continue to 

naturally flush into the water during 

high water surface elevation periods. 

Therefore, the natural cycle of using the 

Jenner haul-out on a daily basis is not 

expected to change. Modification of 

habitat resulting from construction of 

the lagoon outlet channel or artificial 

breaching pilot channel would also be 

temporary in nature. Harbor seals are 

regularly observed crossing overland 

from the Pacific Ocean to haul out on 

the estuary side of the beach, even in 

bar-open conditions, so it is anticipated 

that seals would continue to use the 

haul-out in bar-closed, lagoon 

conditions. 

In summary, there will be temporary 

physical alteration of the beach. 

However, natural opening and closure 

of the beach results in the same impacts 

to habitat; therefore, seals are likely 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

adapted to this cycle. In addition, the 

increase in rearing habitat quality has 

the goal of increasing salmon 

abundance, ultimately providing more 

food for seals present within the action 

area. 

Summary of Previous Monitoring 

SCWA complied with the mitigation 

and monitoring required under the 

previous authorization. In accordance 

with the 2010 IHA, SCWA submitted a 

Report of Activities and Monitoring 

Results, covering the period of April 1 

through December 31, 2010. During the 

dates covered by the 2010 monitoring 

report, SCWA conducted one outlet 

channel implementation event, two 

artificial breaching events, and 

associated biological and physical 

monitoring. During the course of these 

activities, SCWA did not exceed the 

take levels authorized under the 2010 

IHA. 

Baseline Monitoring—Baseline 

monitoring was performed to gather 

additional information regarding a 

possible relationship between tides, 

time of day, and the highest pinniped 

counts at the Jenner haul-out and to gain 

a better understanding about which 

specific conditions harbor seals may 

prefer for hauling out at the mouth. 

Baseline monitoring of the peripheral 

haul-outs was conducted concurrently 

with monitoring at the mouth of the 

Russian River, and was scheduled for 

two days out of each month with the 

intention of capturing a low and high 

tide each in the morning and afternoon. 

Appendix D of SCWA’s monitoring 

report provides additional data, 

including weather conditions data 

collected during baseline monitoring. 

No species of pinnipeds other than 

harbor seals were observed at the Jenner 

or peripheral haul-outs during the 

baseline monitoring. Table 5 shows the 

mean number of harbor seal adults and 

pups (identified only during the 

pupping season) during twice monthly 

baseline monitoring events. The highest 

means were observed from the end of 

the pupping season into molt in 2010. 

Comparison of count data between the 

Jenner and peripheral haul-outs did not 

show any obvious correlations (e.g., the 

number of seals occupying peripheral 

haul-outs compared to the Jenner haulout did not necessarily increase or 

decrease as a result of disturbance 

caused by beach visitors). 

Water Level Management Activities— 

There were five barrier beach formations 

(bar closures) at the mouth of the 

Russian River from April through 

December, 2010 (Table 6). 

Implementation of the 2010 Lagoon 

Outlet Channel Adaptive Management 

Plan (PWA 2010) (i.e., construction of 

an outlet channel) occurred once in 

2010, on July 8. The outlet channel 

closed during high tide on the same day 

and the barrier beach naturally breached 

on July 11, 2010. SCWA artificially 

breached the barrier beach two times in 

2010. Both artificial breaching events 

occurred during the lagoon management 

period, following consultation with 

NMFS and CDFG regarding potential 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14935 

flood risk associated with high wave 

events and inflows into the Russian 

River estuary. The timing of the closures 

late in the lagoon management period 

meant that artificial breaching posed 

little or no risk to habitat for juvenile 

salmonids, while the potential for 

flooding was high. The artificial 

breaching events during the lagoon 

management period were allowed under 

the Incidental Take Statement provided 

in the BiOp (NMFS 2008). 

Monitoring was conducted before, 

during, and after each of these 

management events. Monitoring for the 

July 8 outlet channel implementation 

was conducted from July 7–9. For each 

of the two artificial breaching events, 

monitoring was conducted for four days; 

monitoring began the day before the 

event, was conducted on the day of the 

initial event (which failed in both cases) 

and on the day of the subsequent effort, 

and on the day after the successful 

effort. These dates were September 29– 

October 2 and October 10–13, 

respectively. As shown in Table 7, postevent seal counts increased in all cases. 

In addition, seals began returning to the 

beach following removal of equipment 

and crews within thirty minutes for two 

events (no return was observed due to 

lack of visibility for the October 12 

event), with large numbers of seals 

returning to the haul-outs within a 

maximum of three hours. 

No injuries or mortalities were 

observed during 2010, and harbor seal 

reactions ranged from merely alerting to 

crew presence to flushing from the 

beach. Please see SCWA’s Monitoring 

Report for narrative descriptions of each 

event. Appendix C of the Report 

contains estuary water surface 

elevations during baseline and water 

level management activity monitoring 

and Appendix F contains weather 

observations collected during water 

level management event monitoring. No 

species other than harbor seals were 

observed during monitoring. Total 

observed take of marine mammals 

resulting from SCWA’s estuary 

management activity during 2010 is 

shown in Table 7. Total observed take, 

by harassment only, from three estuary 

management events, and associated 

biological and physical monitoring 

prescribed by the BiOp, was 290 harbor 

seals. SCWA was authorized to take, by 

harassment only, 2,861 harbor seals, 

sixteen California sea lions, and eleven 

northern elephant seals. While the 

observed take was significantly lower 

than the level authorized, it is possible 

that incidental take in future years 

could approach the level authorized. 

Actual take is dependent largely upon 

the number of water level management 

events that occur, which is 

unpredictable. Take of species other 

than harbor seals depends upon 

whether those species, which do not 

consistently utilize the Jenner haul-out, 

are present. The authorized take, though 

much higher than the actual take, was 

justified based on conservative 

estimated scenarios for animal presence 

and necessity of water level 

management. No significant departure 

from the method of estimation is used 

for the proposed IHA (see ‘‘Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment’’) for the 

same activities in 2011. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.006</GPH>
14936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

The primary purpose of SCWA’s 

Pinniped Monitoring Plan is to detect 

the response of pinnipeds to estuary 

management activities at the Russian 

River estuary. However, the following 

questions are also of specific interest: 

1. Under what conditions do 

pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River 

estuary mouth at Jenner? 

2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out 

respond to activities associated with the 

construction and maintenance of the 

lagoon outlet channel and artificial 

breaching activities? 

3. Does the number of seals at the 

Jenner haul-out significantly differ from 

historic averages with formation of a 

summer lagoon in the Russian River 

estuary? 

4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out 

displaced to nearby river and coastal 

haul-outs when the mouth remains 

closed in the summer? 

The baseline data collected in 2010 

shows the highest number of pinnipeds 

observed at the Jenner haul-out during 

molt and the late part of pupping season 

(Table 5). The 2010 baseline effort 

focused on understanding whether tides 

affected the timing of the use of the 

Jenner haul-out by harbor seals. With 

limited data thus far, there does not 

appear to be a clear pattern indicating 

whether the haul-out is used by a 

greater number of seals during high or 

low tides. Additional evaluation and 

data is needed to understand the 

influence of tides on the daily timing of 

harbor seal use of the Jenner haul-out. 

It is likely that multiple factors (e.g., 

season, tides, wave heights, level of 

beach disturbance) influence level of 

haul-out use. Similarly, limited data 

collected in 2010, when only three 

management events took place and the 

duration of closure associated with the 

lagoon outlet channel implementation 

was not dissimilar from the duration of 

closures that have been previously 

observed at the estuary, precludes 

drawing conclusions regarding the key 

questions in SCWA’s Monitoring Plan. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

such species or stock and its habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. 

SCWA has proposed to continue the 

following mitigation measures, as 

implemented during the previous IHA, 

designed to minimize impact to affected 

species and stocks: 

• SCWA crews would cautiously 

approach the haul-out ahead of heavy 

equipment to minimize the potential for 

sudden flushes, which may result in a 

stampede—a particular concern during 

pupping season. 

• SCWA staff would avoid walking or 

driving equipment through the seal 

haul-out. 

• Crews on foot would make an effort 

to be seen by seals from a distance, if 

possible, rather than appearing 

suddenly at the top of the sandbar, again 

preventing sudden flushes. 

• During breaching events, all 

monitoring would be conducted from 

the overlook on the bluff along Highway 

1 adjacent to the haul-out in order to 

minimize potential for harassment. 

• A water level management event 

may not occur for more than two 

consecutive days unless flooding threats 

cannot be controlled. 

In addition, SCWA has proposed 

mitigation measures specific to pupping 

season (March 15–June 30), as 

implemented in the previous IHA: 

• SCWA will maintain a one week 

no-work period between water level 

management events (unless flooding is 

an immediate threat) to allow for an 

adequate disturbance recovery period. 

During the no-work period, equipment 

must be removed from the beach. 

• If a pup less than one week old is 

on the beach where heavy machinery 

would be used or on the path used to 

access the work location, the 

management action will be delayed 

until the pup has left the site or the 

latest day possible to prevent flooding 

while still maintaining suitable fish 

rearing habitat. In the event that a pup 

remains present on the beach in the 

presence of flood risk, SCWA would 

consult with NMFS and CDFG to 

determine the appropriate course of 

action. SCWA will coordinate with the 

locally established seal monitoring 

program (Stewards’ Seal Watch) to 

determine if pups less than one week 

old are on the beach prior to a breaching 

event. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14937 

• Physical and biological monitoring, 

as described in Table 2, will not be 

conducted if a pup less than one week 

old is present at the monitoring site or 

on a path to the site. 

Personnel on the beach would include 

up to two equipment operators, three 

safety team members on the beach (one 

on each side of the channel observing 

the equipment operators, and one at the 

barrier to warn beach visitors away from 

the activities), and one safety team 

member at the overlook on Highway 1 

above the beach. Occasionally, there 

would be two or more additional people 

on the beach (SCWA staff or regulatory 

agency staff) on the beach to observe the 

activities. SCWA staff would be 

followed by the equipment, which 

would then be followed by an SCWA 

vehicle (typically a small pickup truck, 

the vehicle would be parked at the 

previously posted signs and barriers on 

the south side of the excavation 

location). Equipment would be driven 

slowly on the beach and care would be 

taken to minimize the number of shut 

downs and start-ups when the 

equipment is on the beach. All work 

would be completed as efficiently as 

possible, with the smallest amount of 

heavy equipment possible, to minimize 

disturbance of seals at the haul-out. 

Boats operating near river haul-outs 

during monitoring would be kept within 

posted speed limits and driven as far 

from the haul-outs as safely possible to 

minimize flushing seals. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s mitigation measures as 

proposed and considered their 

effectiveness in past implementation, to 

preliminarily determine whether they 

are likely to effect the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks and their 

habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures includes consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: (1) The manner in which, and 

the degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals, (2) the proven or 

likely efficacy of the specific measure to 

minimize adverse impacts as planned; 

(3) the practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, and 

practicality of implementation. 

Injury, serious injury, or mortality to 

pinnipeds would likely result from 

startling animals inhabiting the haul-out 

into a stampede reaction, or from 

extended mother-pup separation as a 

result of such a stampede. Long-term 

impacts to pinniped usage of the haulout could result from significantly 

increased presence of humans and 

equipment on the beach. To avoid these 

possibilities, NMFS and SCWA have 

developed the previously described 

mitigation measures. These are designed 

to reduce the possibility of startling 

pinnipeds, by gradually apprising them 

of the presence of humans and 

equipment on the beach, and to reduce 

the possibility of impacts to pups by 

eliminating or altering management 

activities on the beach when pups are 

present and by setting limits on the 

frequency and duration of events during 

pupping season. During the past fifteen 

years of flood control management, 

implementation of similar mitigation 

measures has resulted in no known 

stampede events and no known injury, 

serious injury, or mortality. Over the 

course of that time period, management 

events have generally been infrequent 

and of limited duration. Based upon the 

SCWA’s record of management at the 

mouth of the Russian River, as well as 

information from monitoring SCWA’s 

implementation of the improved 

mitigation measures as prescribed under 

the previous IHA, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

The applicant has developed a 

Pinniped Monitoring Plan which 

describes the proposed monitoring 

efforts. This Monitoring Plan can be 

found on the NMFS Web site at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. The purpose of this 

monitoring plan, which is carried out 

collaboratively with the Stewards of the 

Coasts and Redwoods (Stewards) 

organization, is to detect the response of 

pinnipeds to estuary management 

activities at the Russian River estuary. 

SCWA has designed the plan both to 

satisfy the requirements of the IHA, and 

to address the following questions of 

interest (as described previously): 

1. Under what conditions do 

pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River 

estuary mouth at Jenner? 

2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out 

respond to activities associated with the 

construction and maintenance of the 

lagoon outlet channel and artificial 

breaching activities? 

3. Does the number of seals at the 

Jenner haul-out significantly differ from 

historic averages with formation of a 

summer (May 15 to October 15) lagoon 

in the Russian River estuary? 

4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out 

displaced to nearby river and coastal 

haul-outs when the mouth remains 

closed in the summer? 

In summary, monitoring includes the 

following: 

Baseline Monitoring 

Seals at the Jenner haul-out are 

counted twice monthly for the term of 

the IHA. This baseline information will 

provide SCWA with details that may 

help to plan estuary management 

activities in the future to minimize 

pinniped interaction. This census 

begins at local dawn and continues for 

eight hours. All seals hauled out on the 

beach are counted every thirty minutes 

from the overlook on the bluff along 

Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out 

using high powered spotting scopes. 

Monitoring may conclude for the day if 

weather conditions affect visibility (e.g., 

heavy fog in the afternoon). Counts are 

scheduled for two days out of each 

month, with the intention of capturing 

a low and high tide each in the morning 

and afternoon. Depending on how the 

sandbar is formed, seals may haul out in 

multiple groups at the mouth. At each 

thirty-minute count, the observer 

indicates where groups of seals are 

hauled out on the sandbar and provides 

a total count for each group. If possible, 

adults and pups are counted separately. 

In addition to the census data, 

disturbances of the haul-out are 

recorded. The method for recording 

disturbances follows those in Mortenson 

(1996). Disturbances would be recorded 

on a three-point scale that represents an 

increasing seal response to the 

disturbance (Table 5). The time, source, 

and duration of the disturbance, as well 

as an estimated distance between the 

source and haul-out, are recorded. It 

should be noted that only responses 

falling into Mortenson’s Levels 2 and 3 

will be considered as harassment under 

the MMPA, under the terms of this 

proposed IHA. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14938 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

Weather conditions are recorded at 

the beginning of each census. These 

include temperature, percent cloud 

cover, and wind speed (Beaufort scale). 

Tide levels and estuary water surface 

elevations are correlated to the 

monitoring start and end times. 

In an effort towards understanding 

possible relationships between use of 

the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal 

and river haul-outs, several other haulouts on the coast and in the Russian 

River estuary are monitored as well (see 

Figure 2 of SCWA’s Pinniped 

Monitoring Plan). The peripheral haulouts are visited for ten minute counts 

twice during each baseline monitoring 

day. All pinnipeds hauled out were 

counted from the same vantage point(s) 

at each haul-out using a high-powered 

spotting scope or binoculars. 

Estuary Management Event Monitoring 

Lagoon Outlet Channel—Should the 

mouth close during the lagoon 

management period, SCWA would 

construct a lagoon outlet channel as 

required by the BiOp and described 

previously in this document. Activities 

associated with the initial construction 

of the outlet channel, as well as the 

maintenance of the channel that may be 

required, would be monitored for 

disturbances to the seals at the Jenner 

haul-out. 

A one-day pre-event channel survey 

would be made within one to three days 

prior to constructing the outlet channel. 

The haul-out would be monitored on 

the day the outlet channel is 

constructed and daily for up to the 

maximum two days allowed for channel 

excavation activities. Monitoring would 

also occur on each day that the outlet 

channel is maintained using heavy 

equipment for the duration of the lagoon 

management period. Monitoring of 

outlet channel construction and 

maintenance would correspond with 

that described under the ‘‘Baseline’’ 

section previously, with the exception 

that management activity monitoring 

duration is defined by event duration, 

rather than being set at eight hours. On 

the day of the management event, 

pinniped monitoring begins at least one 

hour prior to the crew and equipment 

accessing the beach work area and 

continues through the duration of the 

event, until at least one hour after the 

crew and equipment leave the beach. 

In an attempt to understand whether 

seals from the Jenner haul-out are 

displaced to coastal and river haul-outs 

nearby when management events occur, 

other nearby haul-outs are monitored 

concurrently with monitoring of outlet 

channel construction and maintenance 

activities. This provides an opportunity 

to qualitatively assess whether these 

haul-outs are being used by seals 

displaced from the Jenner haul-out 

during lagoon outlet channel excavation 

and maintenance. This monitoring 

would not provide definitive results 

regarding displacement to nearby 

coastal and river haul-outs, as 

individual seals are not marked, but is 

useful in tracking general trends in 

haul-out use during lagoon outlet 

channel excavation and maintenance. 

As volunteers are required to monitor 

these peripheral haul-outs, haul-out 

locations may need to be prioritized if 

there are not enough volunteers 

available. In that case, priority would be 

assigned to the nearest haul-outs (North 

Jenner and Odin Cove), followed by the 

Russian River estuary haul-outs, and 

finally the more distant coastal haulouts. 

Artificial Breaching Events—Pinniped 

responses to SCWA’s artificial breaching 

activities were extensively monitored 

from 1996 to 2000 (Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; 

SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting 

2001). In accordance with the Russian 

River BiOp, SCWA may artificially 

breach the barrier beach outside of the 

summer lagoon management period, 

and may conduct a maximum of two 

such breachings during the lagoon 

management period, when estuary water 

surface elevations rise above seven feet. 

In that case, NMFS and CDFG may be 

consulted regarding potential 

scheduling of an artificial breaching 

event to open the barrier beach and 

reduce flooding risk. 

Pinniped response to artificial 

breaching will be monitored at each 

such event during the term of the IHA. 

Methods would follow the census and 

disturbance monitoring protocols 

described in the ‘‘Baseline’’ section, 

which were also used for the 1996 to 

2000 monitoring events (Merritt Smith 

Consulting 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; 

SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting 

2001). The exception, as for lagoon 

management events, is that duration of 

monitoring is dependent upon duration 

of the event. On the day of the 

management event, pinniped 

monitoring begins at least one hour 

prior to the crew and equipment 

accessing the beach work area and 

continues through the duration of the 

event, until at least one hour after the 

crew and equipment leave the beach. 

For all counts, the following 

information would be recorded in thirty 

minute intervals: (1) Pinniped counts, 

by species; (2) behavior; (3) time, source 

and duration of any disturbance; (4) 

estimated distances between source of 

disturbance and pinnipeds; (5) weather 

conditions (e.g., temperature, wind); 

and (5) tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation. 

Monitoring During Pupping Season— 

The pupping season is defined as March 

15 to June 30. Baseline, lagoon outlet 

channel, and artificial breaching 

monitoring during the pupping season 

will include records of neonate (pups 

less than one week old) observations. 

Characteristics of a neonate pup 

include: Body weight less than 15 kg; 

thin for their body length; an umbilicus 

or natal pelage present; wrinkled skin; 

and awkward or jerky movements on 

land. SCWA will coordinate with the 

Seal Watch monitoring program to 

determine if pups less than one week 

old are on the beach prior to a water 

level management event. 

If, during monitoring, observers sight 

any pup that might be abandoned, 

SCWA would contact the NMFS 

stranding response network 

immediately and also report the 

incident to NMFS’ Southwest Regional 

Office and NMFS Headquarters within 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14939 

48 hours. Observers will not approach 

or move the pup. Potential indications 

that a pup may be abandoned are no 

observed contact with adult seals, no 

movement of the pup, and the pup’s 

attempts to nurse are rebuffed. 

Staffing—Monitoring is conducted by 

qualified individuals with prior 

approval by NMFS. Generally, these 

individuals include professional 

biologists employed by NMFS or SCWA, 

or volunteers trained by the Stewards’ 

Seal Watch program (Stewards). All 

volunteer monitors are required to 

attend classroom-style training and field 

site visits to the haul-outs. Training 

covers the MMPA and conditions of the 

IHA, SCWA’s pinniped monitoring 

protocols, pinniped species 

identification, age class identification 

(including a specific discussion 

regarding neonates), recording of count 

and disturbance observations (including 

completion of datasheets), and use of 

equipment. Pinniped identification 

would include harbor seal, California 

sea lion, and northern elephant seal, as 

well as other pinniped species with 

potential to occur in the area. Generally, 

SCWA staff and volunteers collect 

baseline data on Jenner haul-out use 

during the twice monthly monitoring 

events. A schedule for this monitoring 

would be established with Stewards 

once volunteers are available for the 

monitoring effort. SCWA staff monitors 

lagoon outlet channel excavation and 

maintenance activities and artificial 

breaching events at the Jenner haul-out, 

with assistance from Stewards 

volunteers as available. Stewards 

volunteers monitor the coastal and river 

haul-out locations during lagoon outlet 

channel excavation and maintenance 

activities. 

Training on the MMPA, pinniped 

identification, and the conditions of the 

IHA is held for staff and contractors 

assigned to estuary management 

activities. The training includes 

equipment operators, safety crew 

members, and surveyors. In addition, 

prior to beginning each water surface 

elevation management event, the 

biologist monitoring the event 

participated in the onsite safety meeting 

to discuss the location(s) of pinnipeds at 

the Jenner haul-out that day and 

methods of avoiding and minimizing 

disturbances to the haul-out as outlined 

in the IHA. 

Reporting 

SCWA is required to submit a report 

on all activities and marine mammal 

monitoring results to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Southwest Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, 90 days prior to the expiration 

of the IHA if a renewal is sought, or 

within 90 days of the expiration of the 

permit otherwise. This annual report 

will also be distributed to California 

State Parks and Stewards, and would be 

available to the public on SCWA’s Web 

site. This report will contain the 

following information: 

• The number of seals taken, by 

species and age class (if possible); 

• behavior prior to and during water 

level management events; 

• start and end time of activity; 

• estimated distances between source 

and seals when disturbance occurs; 

• weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, wind, etc.); 

• haul-out reoccupation time of any 

seals based on post activity monitoring; 

• tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation; and 

• seal census from bi-monthly and 

nearby haul-out monitoring. 

The annual report includes 

descriptions of monitoring 

methodology, tabulation of estuary 

management events, summary of 

monitoring results, and discussion of 

problems noted and proposed remedial 

measures. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

SCWA is requesting, and NMFS is 

proposing, authorization to take harbor 

seals, California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals, by Level B harassment 

only, incidental to estuary management 

activities. These activities, involving 

increased human presence and the use 

of heavy equipment and support 

vehicles, are expected to harass 

pinnipeds present at the haul-out 

through disturbance only. In addition, 

monitoring activities prescribed in the 

BiOp may harass additional animals at 

the Jenner haul-out and at the three 

haul-outs located in the estuary (Penny 

Logs, Patty’s Rock, and Chalanchawi). 

Estimates of the number of harbor seals, 

California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals that may be harassed by 

the proposed activities is based upon 

the number of potential events 

associated with Russian River estuary 

management activities and the average 

number of individuals of each species 

that are present during conditions 

appropriate to the activity. As described 

previously in this document, monitoring 

effort at the mouth of the Russian River 

has shown that the number of seals 

utilizing the haul-out declines during 

bar-closed conditions. Tables 9 and 10 

detail the total number of estimated 

takes. 

Events associated with lagoon outlet 

channel management would occur only 

during the lagoon management period, 

and are split into two categories: (1) 

Initial channel implementation, which 

would likely occur between May and 

September, and (2) maintenance and 

monitoring of the outlet channel, which 

would continue until October 15. In 

addition, it is possible that the initial 

outlet channel could close through 

natural processes, requiring additional 

channel implementation events. Based 

on past experience, SCWA estimates 

that a maximum of three outlet channel 

implementation events could be 

required. Outlet channel 

implementation events would only 

occur when the bar is closed; therefore, 

it is appropriate to use data from barclosed monitoring events in estimating 

take (Table 4). Construction of the outlet 

channel is designed to produce a 

perched outflow, resulting in conditions 

that more closely resemble bar-closed 

than bar-open with regard to pinniped 

haul-out usage. As such, bar-closed data 

is appropriate for estimating take during 

all lagoon management period 

maintenance and monitoring activity. 

As dates of outlet channel 

implementation cannot be known in 

advance, the highest daily average of 

seals per month—from May—is used in 

estimating take. For maintenance and 

monitoring activities associated with the 

lagoon outlet channel, which would 

occur on a weekly basis following 

implementation of the outlet channel, 

the average number of harbor seals for 

each month was used. 

Artificial breaching activities would 

also occur during bar-closed conditions; 

however, data collected specifically 

during bar-closed conditions exists only 

for April through November (Table 4). 

These data may be used for estimating 

take associated with artificial breaching 

occurring during those months. For 

activity occurring from December 

through March, monitoring data that are 

not specific to bar conditions may be 

used for estimating take (Table 3). 

For biological and physical habitat 

monitoring activities in the estuary, it 

was assumed that pinnipeds may be 

encountered once per event and flush 

from a river haul-out. The potential for 

harassment associated with these events 

is limited to the three haul-outs located 

in the estuary. In past experience, 

SCWA typically sees no more than a 

single harbor seal at these haul-outs, 

which consist of scattered logs and 

rocks that often submerge at high tide. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
14940 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 14941 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 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.’’ 

In determining whether or not 

authorized incidental take will have a 

negligible impact on affected species 

stocks, NMFS considers a number of 

criteria regarding the impact of the 

proposed action, including the number, 

nature, intensity, and duration of Level 

B harassment take that may occur. 

Although SCWA’s estuary management 

activities may harass pinnipeds hauled 

out at the mouth of the Russian River, 

as well as those hauled out at several 

locations in the estuary during recurring 

monitoring activities, impacts are 

occurring to a small, localized group of 

animals. No mortality or injury is 

anticipated, nor will the proposed 

action result in long-term impacts such 

as permanent abandonment of the haulout. Seals will likely become alert or, at 

most, flush into the water in reaction to 

the presence of crews and equipment on 

the beach. However, breaching the 

sandbar has been shown to increase seal 

abundance on the beach, with seals 

quickly re-inhabiting the haul-out 

following cessation of activity. In 

addition, the implementation of the 

lagoon management plan may provide 

ideal increased availability of prey 

species (salmonids). No impacts would 

be expected at the population or stock 

level. 

No pinniped stocks known from the 

action area are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or 

determined to be strategic or depleted 

under the MMPA. Recent data suggests 

that harbor seal populations have 

reached carrying capacity; populations 

of California sea lions and northern 

elephant seals in California are also 

considered healthy. 

The proposed number of animals 

taken for each species of pinnipeds can 

be considered small relative to the 

population size. There are an estimated 

34,233 harbor seals in the California 

stock, 238,000 California sea lions, and 

124,000 northern elephant seals in the 

California breeding population. Based 

on extensive monitoring effort specific 

to the affected haul-out and historical 

data on the frequency of the specified 

activity, NMFS is proposing to authorize 

take, by Level B harassment only, of 

2,735 harbor seals, nineteen California 

sea lions, and fifteen northern elephant 

seals, representing 8.0, 0.008, and 0.012 

percent of the populations, respectively. 

However, this represents an 

overestimate of the number of 

individuals harassed over the duration 

of the proposed IHA, because a given 

individual is likely to be harassed 

multiple times. 

The proposed action would not be 

likely to cause injury or mortality to any 

harbor seal pup, nor would it impact 

mother-pup bonding. The peak of 

pupping season occurs during May, 

when few management activities are 

anticipated. However, any management 

activity that is required during pupping 

season will be delayed in the event that 

a pup less than one week old is present 

on the beach. As described previously 

in this document, harbor seal pups are 

precocious, and mother-pup bonding is 

likely to occur within minutes. Delay of 

events would further ensure that 

mother-pup bonding is not interfered 

with. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, 

behavioral disturbance to pinnipeds at 

the mouth of the Russian River would 

be of low intensity and limited duration. 

To ensure minimal disturbance, SCWA 

will implement the mitigation measures 

described previously, which NMFS has 

preliminarily determined will serve as 

the means for effecting the least 

practicable adverse effect on marine 

mammals stocks or populations and 

their habitat. NMFS preliminarily finds 

that SCWA’s estuary management 

activities will result in the incidental 

take of small numbers of marine 

mammals, and that the requested 

number of takes will have no more than 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN18MR11.010</GPH>
14942 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 

a negligible impact on the affected 

species and stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are no ESA-listed marine 

mammals found in the action area; 

therefore, no consultation under the 

ESA is required. As described elsewhere 

in this document, SCWA and the Corps 

consulted with NMFS under Section 7 

of the ESA regarding the potential 

effects of their operations and 

maintenance activities, including 

SCWA’s estuary management program, 

on ESA-listed salmonids. As a result of 

this consultation, NMFS issued the 

Russian River Biological Opinion 

(NMFS 2008), which prescribes 

modifications to SCWA’s estuary 

management activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6, NMFS 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from issuance of 

an IHA to SCWA. NMFS signed a 

Finding of No Significant Impact on 

March 30, 2010. NMFS has reviewed the 

proposed application and preliminarily 

determined that there are no substantial 

changes to the proposed action or new 

environmental impacts or concerns. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that a 

new or supplemental EA or 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

likely unnecessary. Before making a 

final determination in this regard and 

decision on whether or not to issue a 

Finding of No Significant Impact for this 

proposed action, NMFS will review 

public comments and information 

submitted by the public and others in 

response to this notice. The March 10, 

2010 EA, referenced above is available 

for review at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize the take of marine mammals 

incidental to SCWA’s estuary 

management activities, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: March 14, 2011. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6439 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Additions and 

Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Additions to and deletions from 

the Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: This action adds services to 

the Procurement List that will be 

provided by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities, and 

deletes products and a service from the 

Procurement List previously furnished 

by such agencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: 4/18/2011. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 

1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additions 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organizations that will provide the 

services to the Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to provide the 

services to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in 

connection with the services proposed 

for addition to the Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following services 

are added to the Procurement List: 

Services 

Service Type/Location: Contract Cook 

Support & Dining Facility Attendant, 

White Sands Missile Range, NM. 

NPA: Tresco, Inc., Las Cruces, NM. 

Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, XR 

W6BB ACA White Sands Missile, NM. 

The DoD contracting activity specifically 

identified its requirement as Contract Cook 

Support (CCS) and Dining Facility Attendant 

(DFA) Service in its Performance Work 

Statement (PWS). The dining facility (DFAC) 

associated with this service requirement is 

newly constructed and will be under the 

control and military management of the 2D 

Engineer Battalion when it relocates to White 

Sands Missile Range (WSMR) under a Base 

Realignment and Closure action. Food 

service personnel assigned to the battalion 

will operate and manage the DFAC and will 

be augmented by contractor-provided dining 

facility attendants (DFA). 

The PWS describes the DFA service tasks 

as preparation of vegetables, dining room 

service (prepare, maintain, clean dining 

areas; clean condiment containers; clean 

spills and remove soiled dinnerware; clean 

dining room tables, chairs, booths; clean 

dining room walls, baseboards, window 

ledges, doors, doorframes, ceiling fans, 

pictures, wall art, artificial plants, light 

fixtures, etc); buss and replace tray carts 

during meal serving periods; service and 

maintain patron self-service area; clean and 

sanitize food service equipment, utensil 

cleaning, and dishwashing; clean pots, pans, 

utensils, storage shelves, and racks; facility 

maintenance and sanitation; and provide 

trash and garbage service. 

Because the 2d Engineer Battalion is a 

deployable, combat unit, it may be absent 

from WSMR as its mission dictates. When 

deployed, the DFAC will be augmented by 

contractor-provided cooks to replace absent 

military food service personnel. The 

Contracting Officer stated that the military 

will retain management and operational 

control during deployments as a Government 

(civil service) contracting officer’s 

representative will assume those duties. At 

no time will the contractor be responsible for 

the management and operational control of 

the DFAC. 

Service Type/Location: Laundry & Dry 

Cleaning Service, F.E. Warren, AFB, WY. 

NPA: Goodwill Industrial Services 

Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO. 

Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, 

FA4613 90 CONS LGC, F.E. Warren AFB, 

WY. 

Service Type/Location: Custodial Service, 

185th Air Refueling Wing, Buildings 234 

and 241, 2920 Headquarters Avenue, 

Sioux City, IA. 

NPA: Goodwill Community Rehabilitation 

Services, Inc., Sioux City, IA. 

Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, 

XRAW7M8 USPFO Activity IA ARNG, 

Johnston, IA. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES