[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14924-14942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6439]


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

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91d8c5c1bfddf0e6e2d1fffef0f0bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="440d10146a08253337042a2b25256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>. 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

[[Page 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 haul-out 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 
km\2\ (1,485 mi\2\) 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

[[Page 14926]]

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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.001

    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

[[Page 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 yd\3\ (765 m\3\) 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 yd\3\ (1,529 m\3\) 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 yd\3\). A narrower channel 
increases the likelihood of scour-induced 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

[[Page 14928]]

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 Corps-permitted 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,

[[Page 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 yd\3\ (765 m\3\) 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.

[[Page 14930]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.002

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. 
Haul-out 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.

[[Page 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 haul-out usage 
(Mortenson and Twohy 1994).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.003

    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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.004

    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 post-breeding 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

[[Page 14932]]

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 co-existed 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

[[Page 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 
haul-out despite decades of breaching events indicates that abandonment 
of the haul-out 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

[[Page 14934]]

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 haul-out did not 
necessarily increase or decrease as a result of disturbance caused by 
beach visitors).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.005

    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

[[Page 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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.006

    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, post-event 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.

[[Page 14936]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.007

    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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> SCWA staff would avoid walking or driving equipment 
through the seal haul-out.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.

[[Page 14937]]

    <bullet> 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 haul-out 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.

[[Page 14938]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.008

    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 haul-outs on the coast and in the Russian River estuary 
are monitored as well (see Figure 2 of SCWA's Pinniped Monitoring 
Plan). The peripheral haul-outs 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 haul-outs.
    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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> The number of seals taken, by species and age class (if 
possible);
    <bullet> behavior prior to and during water level management 
events;
    <bullet> start and end time of activity;
    <bullet> estimated distances between source and seals when 
disturbance occurs;
    <bullet> weather conditions (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.);
    <bullet> haul-out reoccupation time of any seals based on post 
activity monitoring;
    <bullet> tide levels and estuary water surface elevation; and
    <bullet> 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 bar-closed 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

[[Page 14940]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.009


[[Page 14941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18MR11.010

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 haul-out. 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

[[Page 14942]]

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>