Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80471 

studies animals that fail to feed within 

10 days of capture. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activities proposed are consistent with 

the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Steller Sea Lion and 

Northern Fur Seal Research (NMFS 

2007), and that issuance of the permit 

would not have a significant adverse 

impact on the human environment. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32162 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ87 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; St. George Reef 

Light Station Restoration and 

Maintenance at Northwest Seal Rock, 

Del Norte County, CA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental take 

authorization; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the St. George Reef 

Lighthouse Preservation Society 

(SGRLPS), for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment incidental to 

conducting aircraft operations, and 

lighthouse renovation and light 

maintenance activities on the St. George 

Reef Light Station on Northwest Seal 

Rock (NWSR) in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to SGRLPS to incidentally 

harass, by Level B harassment only, four 

species of marine mammals during the 

specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than January 21, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to P. 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

ITP.Cody@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10-megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

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

incidental.htm#applications without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) 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 above address, telephoning the 

contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the 

internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. 

The following associated documents are 

also available at the same internet 

address: Environmental Assessment 

(EA) prepared by NMFS; and the finding 

of no significant impact (FONSI). 

Documents cited in this notice may be 

viewed, by appointment, during regular 

business hours, at the aforementioned 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713– 

2289 or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS 

Southwest Regional Office, (562) 980– 

3232. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to authorize, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking by harassment of 

small numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by United 

States citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and, a notice 

of a proposed authorization is provided 

to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals shall 

be granted if NMFS finds that the taking 

will have a negligible impact on the 

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

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant). The 

authorization must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking, other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat, and monitoring and 

reporting of such takings. 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 

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 small numbers of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the public comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny the 

authorization. 

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 a letter on October 13, 

2010, from the SGRLPS requesting the 

taking by harassment, of small numbers 

of marine mammals, incidental to 

aircraft operations and restoration and 

maintenance activities on the St. George 

Reef Light Station (Station). At NMFS’ 

request, the SGRLPS submitted a 

complete and adequate application on 

November 3, 2010. The SGRLPS aims to: 

(1) Restore and preserve the Station on 

a monthly basis (November 1–April 30, 

annually); and (2) perform periodic, 

annual maintenance on the Station’s 

optical light system. 

The Station, which is listed in the 

National Park Service’s National 

Register of Historic Places, is located on 

Northwest Seal Rock (NWSR) offshore 

of Crescent City, California in the 

northeast Pacific Ocean. 

The proposed activities would occur 

in the vicinity of a possible pinniped 

haul out site located on NWSR. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80472 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

Acoustic and visual stimuli generated 

by: (1) Helicopter landings/takeoffs; (2) 

noise generated during restoration 

activities (e.g., painting, plastering, 

welding, and glazing); (3) maintenance 

activities (e.g., bulb replacement and 

automation of the light system); and (4) 

human presence, may have the potential 

to cause any pinnipeds hauled out on 

NWSR to flush into the surrounding 

water or to cause a short-term 

behavioral disturbance. These types of 

disturbances are the principal means of 

marine mammal taking associated with 

these activities and the SGRLPS has 

requested an authorization to take 204 

California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus); 36 Pacific Harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina); 172 Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus); and six northern 

fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) by Level 

B harassment. 

This is SGRLPS’ second request for an 

IHA and the monitoring results from the 

first IHA appear in the Proposed 

Monitoring section of this notice. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

SGRLPS proposes to conduct the 

proposed activities (aircraft operations, 

lighthouse restoration, and light 

maintenance activities) between 

November 1 through April 30, annually, 

at a maximum frequency of one session 

per month. The proposed duration for 

each session would last no more than 

three days (e.g., Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday). 

Aircraft Operations 

Because NWSR has no safe landing 

area for boats, the proposed restoration 

activities would require the SGRLPS to 

transport personnel and equipment from 

the California mainland to NWSR by a 

small helicopter. Helicopter landings 

take place on top of the engine room 

(caisson) which is approximately 15 m 

(48 ft) above the surface of the rocks on 

NWSR. 

SGRLPS proposes to transport no 

more than 15 work crew members and 

equipment to NWSR for each session 

and estimates that each session would 

require no more than 36 helicopter 

landings/takeoffs per month. During 

landing, the helicopter would land on 

the caisson to allow the work crew 

members to disembark and retrieve their 

equipment located in a basket attached 

to the underside of the helicopter. The 

helicopter would then return to the 

mainland to pick up additional 

personnel and equipment. Even though 

SGRLPS would use the helicopter to 

transport work crew members and 

materials on the first and last days of the 

three-day activity, the helicopter would 

likely fly to and from the Station on all 

three days of the restoration and 

maintenance activities. 

Proposed schedule: SGRLPS would 

conduct a maximum of 16 flights (eight 

arrivals and eight departures) for the 

first day. The first flight would depart 

from Crescent City Airport at 

approximately 9 a.m. for a six-minute 

flight to NWSR. The helicopter would 

land and takeoff immediately after 

offloading personnel and equipment 

every 20 minutes (min). The total 

duration of the first day’s aerial 

operations would last for approximately 

three hours (hrs) and 34 min and would 

end at approximately 12:34 p.m. Crew 

members would remain overnight at the 

Station and would not return to the 

mainland on the first day. 

For the second day, the SGRLPS 

would conduct a maximum of 10 flights 

(five arrivals and five departures) to 

transport additional materials on and off 

the islet. The first flight would depart 

from Crescent City Airport at 9 a.m. for 

a six-minute flight to NWSR. The total 

duration of the second day’s aerial 

operations would last up to three hours. 

For the final day of operations, 

SGRLPS would conduct a maximum of 

ten helicopter flights (five arrivals and 

five departures) to transport the 

remaining crew members and 

equipment/material back to the Crescent 

City Airport. The total duration of the 

third day’s helicopter operations in 

support of restoration would last up to 

two hrs. 

As a mean of funding support for the 

restoration activities, the SGRLPS will 

conduct public tours of the Station 

during the last day of the proposed 

restoration and maintenance activities. 

SGRLPS proposes to transport visitors to 

the Station during the Sunday work 

window period. Although some of these 

flights would be conducted solely for 

the transportation of tourists, those 

flights would be conducted at a later 

stage when no pinnipeds are expected 

to be at the Station. The proposed IHA 

does not include additional allowance 

for animals that might be affected by 

additional flights for the transportation 

of tourists. 

Lighthouse Restoration Activities 

Restoration activities would include 

the removal of peeling paint and plaster, 

restoration of interior plaster and paint, 

refurbishing structural and decorative 

metal, reworking original metal support 

beams throughout the lantern room and 

elsewhere, replacing glass as necessary, 

and upgrading the present electrical 

system. The SGRLPS expects to 

complete most of the major restoration 

work within three years. 

Light Maintenance Activities 

The SGRLPS will need to conduct 

maintenance on the Station’s beacon 

light at least once or up to two times per 

year within the proposed work window. 

Scheduled light maintenance activities 

would coincide with lighthouse 

restoration activities conducted monthly 

during the period of November 1, 

through April 30, annually. The 

SGRLPS expects that maintenance 

activities would not exceed three hrs 

per each monthly session. 

Emergency Light Maintenance 

If the beacon light fails during the 

period from February 15, 2011, through 

April 30, 2011, or during the period of 

November 1, 2011, through December 

31, 2011, the SGRLPS proposes to send 

a crew of two to three people to the 

Station by helicopter to repair the 

beacon light. For each emergency repair 

event, the SGRLPS proposes to conduct 

a maximum of four flights (two arrivals 

and two departures) to transport 

equipment and supplies. The helicopter 

may remain on site or transit back to 

shore and make a second landing to 

pick up the repair personnel. 

In the case of an emergency repair 

between May 1, 2011, and October 31, 

2011, the SGRLPS would consult with 

the NMFS Southwest Regional Office 

(SWRO) to best determine the timing of 

the trips to the lighthouse, on a case-bycase basis, based upon the existing 

environmental conditions and the 

abundance and distribution of any 

marine mammals present on NWSR. 

The SWRO biologists would have realtime knowledge regarding the animal 

use and abundance of the NWSR at the 

time of the repair request and would 

make a decision regarding when the 

trips to the lighthouse can be made 

during the emergency repair time 

window that would have the least 

practicable adverse impact to marine 

mammals. The SWRO would also 

ensure that the SGRLPS’ request for 

incidental take during emergency 

repairs would not exceed the number of 

incidental take authorized in the 

proposed IHA. 

Complete automation of the light 

generating system and automatic backup 

system will minimize maintenance and 

emergency repair visits to the island. 

The light is solar powered using one 

solar panel; an installed second panel 

serves as a backup which is 

automatically activated if needed. A 

second smaller bulb in the lantern is 

activated if the primary bulb fails. Use 

of high quality, durable materials and 

thorough weatherproofing is planned to 

minimize trips for maintenance and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80473 

repair in the future. All tools and 

supplies are stored on the island so that 

a minimal number of transport trips for 

emergency maintenance will be 

necessary. 

Acoustic Source Specifications 

R44 Raven Helicopter 

The SGRLPS plans to charter a Raven 

R44 helicopter, owned and operated by 

Air Shasta Rotor and Wing, LLC. The 

Raven R44, which seats three passengers 

and one pilot, is a compact-sized (1134 

kilograms (kg), 2500 pounds (lbs)) 

helicopter with two-bladed main and 

tail rotors. Both sets of rotors are fitted 

with noise-attenuating blade tip caps 

that would decrease flyover noise. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the sound measurements 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. Sound 

pressure is the sound force per unit 

area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (μPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) 

is the pressure resulting from a force of 

one newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. Sound pressure level 

(SPL) is expressed as the ratio of a 

measured sound pressure and a 

reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure is 1 μPa for under 

water, and the units for SPLs are dB re: 

1 μPa. The commonly used reference 

pressure is 20 μPa for in air, and the 

units for SPLs are dB re: 20 μPa. 

SPL (in decibels (dB)) = 20 log 

(pressure/reference pressure). 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-peak (p-p), or the root mean square 

(rms). Root mean square, which is the 

square root of the arithmetic average of 

the squared instantaneous pressure 

values, is typically used in discussions 

of the effects of sounds on vertebrates 

and all references to SPL in this 

document refer to the root mean square 

unless otherwise noted. SPL does not 

take the duration of a sound into 

account. 

Characteristics of the Aircraft Noise 

Noise testing performed on the R44 

Raven Helicopter, as required for 

Federal Aviation Administration 

approval, required an overflight at 150 

m (492 ft) above ground level, 109 knots 

and a maximum gross weight of 1,134 

kg (2,500 lbs). The noise levels 

measured on the ground at this distance 

and speed were 81.9 decibels (dB) re: 20 

μPa (A-weighted) for the model R44 

Raven I, or 81.0 dB re: 20 μPa (Aweighted) for the model R44 Raven II 

(NMFS, 2007). 

The helicopter would land on the 

Station’s caisson and presumably, the 

received sound levels would increase 

above 81–81.9 dB re: 20 μPa (Aweighted) at the landing area. 

Characteristics of Restoration and 

Maintenance Noise 

Restoration and maintenance 

activities would involve the removal of 

peeling paint and plaster, restoration of 

interior plaster and paint, refurbishing 

structural and decorative metal, 

reworking original metal support beams 

throughout the lantern room and 

elsewhere, replacing glass as necessary, 

upgrading the present electrical system; 

and annual light beacon maintenance. 

Any noise associated with these 

activities is likely to be from light 

construction (e.g., sanding, hammering, 

or use of hand drills). The SGRLPS 

proposes to confine all restoration 

activities to the existing structure which 

would occur on the upper levels of the 

Station. The pinnipeds of NWSR do not 

have access to this area. 

NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli 

resulting from the proposed helicopter 

operations; noise from maintenance and 

restoration activities; and human 

presence has the potential to harass 

marine mammals, incidental to the 

conduct of the proposed activities. 

NMFS expects these disturbances to be 

temporary and result, at worst, in a 

temporary modification in behavior 

and/or low-level physiological effects 

(Level B Harassment) of small numbers 

of certain species of marine mammals. 

Description of the Specified Geographic 

Region 

The Station is located on a small, 

rocky islet (41°50′24′′ N, 124°22′06′′ W) 

approximately nine kilometers (km) (6.0 

miles (mi)) in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean, offshore of Crescent City, 

California (Latitude: 41°46′48′′ N; 

Longitude: 124°14′11′′ W). NWSR is 

approximately 91.4 m (300 ft) in 

diameter that peaks at 5.18 m (17 ft) 

above mean sea level. The Station, built 

in 1892, rises 45.7 m (150 ft) above the 

sea, consists of hundreds of granite 

blocks, is topped with a cast iron 

lantern room, and covers much of the 

surface of the islet. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Proposed Specified Activity 

The marine mammal species likely to 

be harassed incidental to helicopter 

operations, lighthouse restoration, and 

lighthouse maintenance on NWSR are 

the California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus), the Pacific Harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina), the eastern (Distinct 

Population Segment) U.S. stock of 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), 

and the eastern Pacific stock of northern 

fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). General 

information of these species can be 

found in Caretta et al., (2009) and Allen 

and Angliss (2010) and is available at 

the following URLs: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ 

po2009.pdf and http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ 

ak2009.pdf respectively. Refer to these 

documents for information on these 

species. Additional information on 

these species is presented below this 

section. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), nor are they categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA. The 

California sea lion includes three 

subspecies: Z. c. wollebaeki (on the 

Galapagos Islands), Z. c. japonicus (in 

Japan, but now thought to be extinct), 

and Z. c. californianus (found from 

southern Mexico to southwestern 

Canada; herein referred to as the 

California sea lion). The subspecies is 

comprised of three stocks: (1) The U.S. 

stock, beginning at the U.S./Mexico 

border extending northward into 

Canada; (2) the western Baja California 

stock, extending from the U.S./Mexico 

border to the southern tip of the Baja 

California peninsula; and (3) the Gulf of 

California stock, which includes the 

Gulf of California from the southern tip 

of the Baja California peninsula and 

across to the mainland and extends to 

southern Mexico (Lowry et al., 1992). 

In 2009, the estimated population of 

the U.S. stock of California sea lion 

ranged from 141,842 to 238,000 animals 

and the maximum population growth 

rate was 6.52 percent when pup counts 

from El Nin ̃ o years (1983, 1984, 1992, 

1993, 1998, and 2003) were removed 

(Carretta et al., 2009). 

Major rookeries for the California sea 

lion exist on the Channel Islands off 

southern California and on the islands 

situated along the east and west coasts 

of Baja California. Males are 

polygamous, establishing breeding 

territories that may include up to 

fourteen females. They defend their 

territories with aggressive physical 

displays and vocalization. Sea lions 

reach sexual maturity at four to five 

years old and the breeding season lasts 

from May to August. Most pups are born 

from May through July and weaned at 

10 months old. 

Crescent Coastal Research (CCR) 

conducted a three-year (1998–2000) 

survey of the wildlife species on NWSR 

for the SGRLPS. They reported that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80474 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

counts of California sea lions on NWSR 

varied greatly (from six to 541) during 

the observation period from April 1997 

through July 2000. CCR reported that 

counts for California sea lions during 

the spring (April–May), summer (June– 

August), and fall (September–October), 

averaged 60, 154, and 235, respectively 

(CCR, 2001). 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Pacific harbor seals are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA, nor are they categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA. The animals 

inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine 

areas from Baja California, Mexico, to 

the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. Pacific 

harbor seals are divided into two 

subspecies: P. v. stejnegeri in the 

western North Pacific, near Japan, and 

P. v. richardsi in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. The latter subspecies, recognized 

as three separate stocks, inhabits the 

west coast of the continental United 

States, including: The outer coastal 

waters of Oregon and Washington states; 

Washington state inland waters; and 

Alaska coastal and inland waters. Two 

of these stocks, the California stock and 

Oregon/Washington coast stock, of 

Pacific harbor seals are identified off the 

coast of Oregon and California for 

management purposes under the 

MMPA. However, the stock boundary is 

difficult to distinguish because of the 

continuous distribution of harbor seals 

along the west coast and any rigid 

boundary line is (to a greater or lesser 

extent) arbitrary, from a biological 

perspective (Carretta et al., 2009). Due 

to the location of the proposed project 

which is situated near the border of 

Oregon and California, both stocks 

could be present within the proposed 

project area. 

In 2009, the estimated population of 

the California of Pacific harbor seals 

ranged from 31,600 to 34,233 animals 

and the maximum population growth 

rate was 3.5 percent. The estimated 

population of the Oregon/Washington 

coast stocks was 24,732 animals 

(Carretta et al., 2009). 

In California, over 500 harbor seal 

haulout sites are widely distributed 

along the mainland and offshore 

islands, and include rocky shores, 

beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry 

et al., 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea 

and females give birth during the spring 

and summer, although the pupping 

season varies with latitude. Pups are 

nursed for an average of 24 days and are 

ready to swim minutes after being born. 

Harbor seal pupping takes place at many 

locations and rookery size varies from a 

few pups to many hundreds of pups. 

The nearest harbor seal rookery relative 

to the proposed project site is at Castle 

Rock National Wildlife Refuge, located 

approximately 965 m (0.6 mi) south of 

Point St. George, and 2.4 km (1.5 mi) 

north of the Crescent City Harbor in Del 

Norte County, California (USFWS, 

2007). 

CCR noted that harbor seal use of 

NWSR was minimal, with only one 

sighting of a group of six animals, 

during 20 observation surveys. They 

hypothesized that harbor seals may 

avoid the islet because of its distance 

from shore, relatively steep topography, 

and full exposure to rough and 

frequently turbulent sea swells. 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. However, they are categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA. Northern fur 

seals occur from southern California 

north to the Bering Sea and west to the 

Sea of Okhotsk and Honshu Island of 

Japan. Two separate stocks of northern 

fur seals are recognized within U.S. 

waters: An Eastern Pacific stock 

distributed among sites in Alaska, 

British Columbia; and a San Miguel 

Island stock distributed along the west 

coast of the continental U.S. 

Northern fur seals may temporarily 

haul out on land at other sites in Alaska, 

British Columbia, and on islets along 

the west coast of the continental United 

States, but generally this occurs outside 

of the breeding season (Fiscus, 1983). 

In 2009, the estimated population of 

the San Miguel Island stock ranged from 

5,096 to 9,424 animals and the 

maximum population growth rate was 

8.6 percent (Carretta et al., 2009). 

Northern fur seals breed in Alaska 

and migrate along the west coast during 

fall and winter. Due to their pelagic 

habitat, they are rarely seen from shore 

in the continental U.S., but individuals 

occasionally come ashore on islands 

well offshore (i.e., Farallon Islands and 

Channel Islands in California). During 

the breeding season, approximately 74 

percent of the worldwide population is 

found on the Pribilof Islands in Alaska, 

with the remaining animals spread 

throughout the North Pacific Ocean 

(Lander and Kajimura, 1982). 

CCR observed one male northern fur 

seal on NWSR in October, 1998 (CCR, 

2001). It is possible that a few animals 

may use the island more often that 

indicated by the CCR surveys, if they 

were mistaken for other otariid species 

(M. DeAngelis, NMFS, pers. comm.). 

Steller Sea Lion 

The Steller sea lion eastern stock is 

listed as threatened under the ESA and 

is categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA. Steller sea lions range along the 

North Pacific Rim from northern Japan 

to California (Loughlin et al., 1984), 

with centers of abundance and 

distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and 

Aleutian Islands, respectively. Two 

separate stocks of Steller sea lions were 

recognized within U.S. waters: an 

eastern U.S. stock, which includes 

animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska 

(144° W), and a western U.S. stock, 

which includes animals at and west of 

Cape Suckling (Loughlin, 1997). The 

species is not known to migrate, but 

individuals disperse widely outside of 

the breeding season (late May through 

early July), thus potentially intermixing 

with animals from other areas. 

In 2009, the estimated population of 

the eastern U.S. stock ranged from 

45,095 to 55,832 animals and the 

maximum population growth rate was 

3.1 percent (Allen and Angliss, 2009). 

The eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lions breeds on rookeries located in 

southeast Alaska, British Columbia, 

Oregon, and California; there are no 

rookeries located in Washington state. 

Counts of pups on rookeries conducted 

near the end of the birthing season are 

nearly complete counts of pup 

production. 

Despite the wide-ranging movements 

of juveniles and adult males in 

particular, exchange between rookeries 

by breeding adult females and males 

(other than between adjoining rookeries) 

appears low, although males have a 

higher tendency to disperse than 

females (NMFS 1995, Trujillo et al., 

2004, Hoffman et al., 2006). A 

northward shift in the overall breeding 

distribution has occurred, with a 

contraction of the range in southern 

California and new rookeries 

established in southeastern Alaska 

(Pitcher et al., 2007). 

CCR reported that Steller sea lion 

numbers at NWSR ranged from 20 to 

355 animals. Counts of Steller sea lions 

during the spring (April–May), summer 

(June–August), and fall (September– 

October), averaged 68, 110, and 56, 

respectively (CCR, 2001). A more recent 

survey at NWSR between 2000 and 2004 

showed Steller sea lion numbers ranged 

from 175 to 354 in July (M. Lowry, 

NMFS/SWFSC, unpubl. data). Winter 

use of NWSR by Steller sea lion is 

presumed to be minimal, due to 

inundation of the natural portion of the 

island by large swells. 

Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed 

Action Area 

There are several endangered 

cetaceans that have the potential to 

transit in the vicinity of NWSR 

including the blue (Balaenoptera 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80475 

musculus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

sei (Balaenoptera borealis), north 

Pacific right (Eubalena japonica), sperm 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and southern 

resident killer (Orcinus orca) whales. 

California (southern) sea otters 

(Enhydra lutris nereis), listed as 

threatened under the ESA and 

categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA, usually range in coastal waters 

within two km of shore. Neither CCR 

nor the SGRLPS has encountered 

California sea otters on NWSR during 

the course of the four-year wildlife 

study (CCR, 2001). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the 

sea otter and NMFS will not consider 

this species further in this proposed 

IHA notice. 

All of the aforementioned species are 

found farther offshore than the proposed 

action area and are not likely to be 

affected by the restoration and 

maintenance activities. Accordingly, 

NMFS will not consider these species in 

greater detail and the proposed IHA will 

only address requested take 

authorizations for pinnipeds. 

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals 

Acoustic and visual stimuli generated 

by: (1) Helicopter landings/takeoffs; (2) 

noise generated during restoration 

activities (e.g., painting, plastering, 

welding, and glazing); and (3) 

maintenance activities (e.g., bulb 

replacement and automation of the light 

system) may have the potential to cause 

Level B harassment of any pinnipeds 

hauled out on NWSR. The effects of 

sounds from helicopter operations and/ 

or restoration and maintenance 

activities might include one of the 

following: temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment or behavioral 

disturbance (Southall, et al., 2007). 

Hearing Impairment 

Marine mammals produce sounds in 

various important contexts—social 

interactions, foraging, navigating, and to 

responding to predators. The best 

available science suggests that 

pinnipeds have a functional aerial 

hearing sensitivity between 75 hertz 

(Hz) and 75 kilohertz (kHz) and can 

produce a diversity of sounds, though 

generally from 100 Hz to several tens of 

kHz (Southall, et al., 2007). 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and 

Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence 

the amount of threshold shift include 

the amplitude, duration, frequency 

content, temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of noise exposure. The 

magnitude of hearing threshold shift 

normally decreases over time following 

cessation of the noise exposure. The 

amount of threshold shift just after 

exposure is called the initial threshold 

shift. If the threshold shift eventually 

returns to zero (i.e., the threshold 

returns to the pre-exposure value), it is 

called temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Pinnipeds have the potential to be 

disturbed by airborne and underwater 

noise generated by the engine of the 

aircraft (Born, Riget, Dietz, and 

Andriashek, 1999; Richardson, Greene, 

Malme, and Thomson, 1995). Data on 

underwater TTS-onset in pinnipeds 

exposed to pulses are limited to a single 

study which exposed two California sea 

lions to single underwater pulses from 

an arc-gap transducer and found no 

measurable TTS following exposures up 

to 183 dB re: 1 μPa (peak-to-peak) 

(Finneran, Dear, Carder, and Ridgway, 

2003). 

TTS has been demonstrated and 

studied in certain captive odontocetes 

and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds 

(reviewed in Southall et al., 2007). In 

2004, researchers measured auditory 

fatigue to airborne sound in harbor 

seals, California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) 

after exposure to nonpulse noise for 25 

minutes (Kastak, Southall, Holt, Kastak, 

and Schusterman, 2004). In the study, 

the harbor seal experienced 

approximately 6 dB of TTS at 99 dB re: 

20 μPa. Onset of TTS was identified in 

the California sea lion at 122 dB re: 20 

μPa. The northern elephant seal 

experienced TTS-onset at 121 dB re: 20 

μPa (Kastak et al., 2004). 

There is a dearth of information on 

acoustic effects of helicopter overflights 

on pinniped hearing and 

communication (Richardson et al., 

1995) and to NMFS’ knowledge, there 

has been no specific documentation of 

TTS, let alone permanent threshold shift 

(PTS), in free-ranging pinnipeds 

exposed to helicopter operations during 

realistic field conditions. 

In 2008, NMFS issued an IHA to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

for the take of small numbers of Steller 

sea lions and Pacific harbor seals, 

incidental to rodent eradication 

activities on an islet offshore of Rat 

Island, AK conducted by helicopter. The 

15-minute aerial treatment consisted of 

the helicopter slowly approaching the 

islet at an elevation of over 1,000 feet 

(304.8 m); gradually decreasing altitude 

in slow circles; and applying the 

rodenticide in a single pass and 

returning to Rat Island. The gradual and 

deliberate approach to the islet resulted 

in the sea lions present initially 

becoming aware of the helicopter and 

calmly moving into the water. Further, 

the USFWS reported that all responses 

fell well within the range of Level B 

harassment (i.e., alert head raises 

without moving or limited, short-term 

displacement resulting from aircraft 

noise due to helicopter overflights). 

As a general statement from the 

available information, pinnipeds 

exposed to intense (approximately 110 

to 120 dB re: 20 μPa) nonpulse sounds 

often leave haulout areas and seek 

refuge temporarily (minutes to a few 

hours) in the water (Southall et al., 

2007). Any noise attributed to the 

SGRLPS’ proposed helicopter 

operations on NWSR would be shortterm (approximately 5 min per trip). 

NMFS would expect the ambient noise 

levels to return to a baseline state when 

helicopter operations have ceased for 

the day. Per Richardson et al. (1995), 

approaching aircraft generally flush 

animals into the water and noise from 

a helicopter is typically directed down 

in a ‘‘cone’’ underneath the aircraft. As 

the helicopter landings take place 15 m 

(48 ft) above the surface of the rocks on 

NWSR, NMFS presumes that the 

received sound levels would increase 

above 81–81.9 dB re: 20 μPa (Aweighted) at the landing pad. However, 

NMFS does not expect that the 

increased received levels of sound from 

the helicopter would cause TTS or PTS 

because the pinnipeds would flush 

before the helicopter approached 

NWSR; thus increasing the distance 

between the pinnipeds and the received 

sound levels on NWSR during the 

proposed action. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

There is increasing recognition that 

the effect of human disturbance on 

wildlife is highly dependent on the 

nature of the disturbance (Burger et al., 

1995; Klein et al., 1995; and Kucey, 

2005). Disturbances resulting from 

human activity can impact short- and 

long-term pinniped haul out behavior 

(Renouf et al., 1981; Schneider and 

Payne, 1983; Terhune and Almon, 1983; 

Allen et al., 1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan 

and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et al., 

2000; and Kucey and Trites, 2006). The 

apparent skittishness of both harbor 

seals and Steller sea lions raises 

concerns regarding behavioral and 

physiological impacts to individuals 

and populations experiencing high 

levels of human disturbance. It is well 

known that human activity can flush 

harbor seals off haul out sites (Allen et 

al., 1984; Calambokidis et al., 1991; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80476 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

Suryan and Harvey, 1999; Mortenson et 

al., 2000). 

The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi) has been shown to avoid 

beaches that have been disturbed often 

by humans (Kenyon, 1972). Stevens and 

Boness (2003) concluded that after the 

1997–98 El Nin ̃ o, when populations of 

the South American fur seal, 

Arctocephalus australis, in Peru 

declined dramatically, seals abandoned 

some of their former primary breeding 

sites, but continued to breed at adjacent 

beaches that were more rugged (i.e., less 

likely to be used by humans). 

Abandoned and unused sites were more 

likely to have human disturbance than 

currently used sites. In one case, human 

disturbance appeared to cause Steller 

sea lions to desert a breeding area at 

Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, 

Alaska (Kenyon, 1962). 

It is likely that the initial helicopter 

approach to the Station would cause a 

subset, or all of the marine mammals 

hauled out on NWSR to depart the rock 

and flush into the water. The physical 

presence of aircraft could also lead to 

non-auditory effects on marine 

mammals involving visual or other cues. 

Airborne sound from a low-flying 

helicopter or airplane may be heard by 

marine mammals while at the surface or 

underwater. In general, helicopters tend 

to be noisier than fixed wing aircraft of 

similar size and underwater sounds 

from aircraft are strongest just below the 

surface and directly under the aircraft. 

Noise from aircraft would not be 

expected to cause direct physical effects 

but have the potential to affect behavior. 

The primary factor that may influence 

abrupt movements of animals is engine 

noise, specifically changes in engine 

noise. Responses by mammals could 

include hasty dives or turns, change in 

course, or flushing and stampeding from 

a haul out site. There are few well 

documented studies of the impacts of 

aircraft overflight over pinniped haul 

out sites or rookeries, and many of those 

that exist, are specific to military 

activities (Efroymson et al., 2001). 

Several factors complicate the 

analysis of long- and short-term effects 

for aircraft overflights. Information on 

behavioral effects of overflights by 

military aircraft (or component 

stressors) on most wildlife species is 

sparse. Moreover, models that relate 

behavioral changes to abundance or 

reproduction, and those that relate 

behavioral or hearing effects thresholds 

from one population to another are 

generally not available. In addition, the 

aggregation of sound frequencies, 

durations, and the view of the aircraft 

into a single exposure metric is not 

always the best predictor of effects and 

it may also be difficult to calculate. 

Overall, there has been no indication 

that single or occasional aircraft flying 

above pinnipeds in water cause long 

term displacement of these animals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The Lowest 

Observed Adverse Effects Levels 

(LOAELs) are rather variable for 

pinnipeds on land, ranging from just 

over 150 m (492 ft) to about 2,000 m 

(6,562 ft) (Efroymson et al., 2001). A 

conservative (90th percentile) distance 

effects level is 1,150 m (3,773 ft). Most 

thresholds represent movement away 

from the overflight. Bowles and Stewart 

(1980) estimated an LOAEL of 305 m 

(1,000 ft) for helicopters (low and 

landing) in California sea lions and 

harbor seals observed on San Miguel 

Island, CA; animals responded to some 

degree by moving within the haul out 

and entering into the water, stampeding 

into the water, or clearing the haul out 

completely. Both species always 

responded with the raising of their 

heads. California sea lions appeared to 

react more to the visual cue of the 

helicopter than the noise. 

If pinnipeds are present on NWSR, it 

is likely that a helicopter landing at the 

Station would cause 100 percent of the 

pinnipeds on NWSR to flush; however, 

when present, they appear to show 

rapid habituation to helicopter landing 

and departure (Crescent Coastal 

Research, 2001; Guy Towers, SGRLPS, 

pers. com.). According to the CCR 

Report (2001), while up to 40 percent of 

the California and Steller sea lions 

present on the rock have been observed 

to enter the water on the first of a series 

of helicopter landings, as few as zero 

percent have flushed on subsequent 

landings on the same date. 

If pinnipeds are present on NWSR, 

Level B behavioral harassment of 

pinnipeds may occur during helicopter 

landing and takeoff from NWSR due to 

the pinnipeds temporarily moving from 

the rocks and lower structure of the 

Station into the sea due to the noise and 

appearance of helicopter during 

approaches and departures. It is 

expected that all or a portion of the 

marine mammals hauled out on the 

island will depart the rock and move 

into the water upon initial helicopter 

approaches. The movement to the water 

is expected to be gradual due to the 

required controlled helicopter 

approaches (see Proposed Mitigation 

section), the small size of the aircraft, 

the use of noise-attenuating blade tip 

caps on the rotors, and behavioral 

habituation on the part of the animals as 

helicopter trips continue throughout the 

day. During the sessions of helicopter 

activity, if present on NWSR, some 

animals may be temporarily displaced 

from the island and either raft in the 

water or relocate to other haul-outs. 

Sea lions have shown habituation to 

helicopter flights within a day at the 

project site and most animals are 

expected to return soon after helicopter 

activities cease for that day. By 

clustering helicopter arrival/departures 

within a short time period, animals are 

expected to show less response to 

subsequent landings. No impact on the 

population size or breeding stock of 

Steller sea lions, California sea lions, 

Pacific harbor seals, or northern fur 

seals is expected to occur. 

Restoration and maintenance 

activities would involve the removal of 

peeling paint and plaster, restoration of 

interior plaster and paint, refurbishing 

structural and decorative metal, 

reworking original metal support beams 

throughout the lantern room and 

elsewhere, replacing glass as necessary, 

upgrading the present electrical system; 

and annual light beacon maintenance. 

Any noise associated with these 

activities is likely to be from light 

construction (e.g., sanding, hammering, 

or use of hand drills) and the pinnipeds 

may be disturbed by human presence. 

Animals respond to disturbance from 

humans in the same way as they 

respond to the risk of predation, by 

avoiding areas of high risk, either 

completely or by using them for limited 

periods (Gill et al., 1996). 

Mortality 

Sudden movement of large numbers 

of animals may cause a stampede. In 

order to prevent such stampedes from 

occurring within the sea lion colony, 

certain mitigation requirements and 

restrictions, such as controlled 

helicopter approaches and limited 

access period during the pupping 

season, will be imposed should an IHA 

be issued. As such, and because any 

pinnipeds nearby likely would avoid 

the approaching helicopter, the SGRLPS 

anticipates that there will be no 

instances of injury or mortality during 

the proposed project. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The NMFS expects that there will be 

no long- or short-term physical impacts 

to pinniped habitat on NWSR. The 

SGRLPS proposes to confine all 

restoration activities to the existing 

structure which would occur on the 

upper levels of the Station which are 

not used by marine mammals. The 

SGRLPS would remove all waste, 

discarded materials and equipment from 

the island after each visit. The proposed 

activities will not result in any 

permanent impact on habitats used by 

marine mammals, including the food 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80477 

sources they use. The main impact 

associated with the proposed activity 

will be temporarily elevated noise levels 

and the associated direct effects on 

marine mammals, previously discussed 

in this notice. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) 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 the availability of such 

species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses. 

As a way to reduce potential Level B 

behavioral harassment to marine 

mammals that would result from the 

proposed project, NMFS proposes that 

the following mitigation measures 

would be required. 

Time and Frequency: Lighthouse 

restoration activities are to be conducted 

at maximum of once per month between 

February 15, 2011, through April 30, 

2011, or between November 1, 2011, 

through December 31, 2011. Each 

restoration session will last no more 

than three days. Maintenance of the 

light beacon will occur only in 

conjunction with restoration activities. 

Helicopter Approach and Timing 

Techniques: The SGRLPS shall ensure 

that helicopter approach patterns to the 

lighthouse will be such that the timing 

techniques are least disturbing to 

marine mammals. To the extent 

possible, the helicopter should 

approach NWSR when the tide is too 

high for the marine mammals to haulout on NWSR. 

Since the most severe impacts 

(stampede) are precipitated by rapid and 

direct helicopter approaches, initial 

approach to the Station must be offshore 

from the island at a relatively high 

altitude (e.g., 800–1,000 ft, or 244–305 

m). Before the final approach, the 

helicopter shall circle lower, and 

approach from area where the density of 

pinnipeds is the lowest. If for any safety 

reasons (e.g., wind condition) such 

helicopter approach and timing 

techniques cannot be achieved, the 

SGRLPS must abort the restoration and 

maintenance activities for that day. 

Avoidance of Visual and Acoustic 

Contact with People on Island: The 

SGRLPS members and restoration crews 

shall be instructed to avoid making 

unnecessary noise and not expose 

themselves visually to pinnipeds 

around the base of the lighthouse. 

Although no impacts from these 

activities were seen during the 2001 

CCR study, it is relatively simple to 

avoid this potential impact. The door to 

the lower platform (which is used at 

times by pinnipeds) shall remain closed 

and barricaded to all tourists and other 

personnel. 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the affected marine 

mammal species and stocks and their 

habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation, including 

safety and practicality of 

implementation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS 

or recommended by the public, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impacts on marine 

mammals species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring 

Summary of Previous Monitoring 

The SGRLPS complied with the 

mitigation and monitoring required 

under the previous authorization for the 

2010 season. In compliance with the 

2010 IHA, the SGRLPS submitted a final 

report on the activities at Station, 

covering the period of January 27, 2010 

through April 30, 2010. During the 

effective dates of the 2010 IHA, the 

SGRLPS conducted two sessions of 

aircraft operations and restoration 

activities on NWSR which did not 

exceed the activity levels analyzed 

under the 2010 authorization. 

The 2010 IHA required that the 

SGRLPS conduct a pre-restoration and 

post-restoration aerial survey of all 

marine mammals hauled-out on NWSR 

for each session. NMFS restricted the 

SGRLPS’ taking of aerial photographs to 

an altitude greater than 300 m (984 feet 

ft) during the first arrival flight and the 

last departure flight. This is the 

minimum altitude set within the 2010 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) Incidental 

Take Statement (ITS) which follows the 

reference distance of 300 m (984 feet ft) 

for in-air measurements and predictions 

established by Richardson et al. (1995). 

On February 26, 2010, the SGRLPS’ 

photographed the haulout areas on the 

initial approach to NWSR at an altitude 

of 900 m (2,953 ft). During the approach, 

the photographer observed no animals 

hauled out on NWSR. The SGRLPS 

observed no animals hauled on NWSR 

during the two-day restoration session 

and no pinnipeds were present during 

the helicopter’s February 28th departure 

flight to the mainland. 

On April 9, 2010, the SGRLPS’ 

photographed the haulout areas on the 

initial approach to NWSR at an altitude 

of 900 m (2,953 ft). Similar to the 

February session, the photographer 

observed no animals hauled out on 

NWSR during approach. The SGRLPS 

observed no animals hauled on NWSR 

during the three-day restoration session 

and no pinnipeds were present during 

the helicopter’s April 11th departure 

flight to the mainland. 

The SGRLPS observed no animals 

hauled on NWSR during the entirety of 

each session. As there were no observed 

impacts to pinnipeds from these 

activities, NMFS was unable to assess 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures 

for helicopter approaches set forth in 

the 2010 IHA. However, the 2010 IHA 

restricted SGRLP’s access to NWSR 

during the pupping season, thus 

effecting the least practical adverse 

impact on the species or stock. These 

results did not refute NMFS’ original 

findings. 

The dates, times, activities, absence/ 

presence information, and required 

monitoring are summarized in Tables 1 

and 2. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80478 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN FEBRUARY 2010 

Date Time Activity Monitoring 

conducted 

Animals 

present 

26–Feb ............. 8:30 PST .......... Helicopter flight—survey NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 8:30 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 8:31 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 8:46 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 8:47 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 9:05 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 9:06 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 9:36 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 9:37 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:00 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:01 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:20 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:21 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:40 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

27–Feb ............. 10:41 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:00 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:07 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:30 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:32 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:50 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 9:53 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 10:15 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 10:17 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 10:45 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 10:47 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 11:15 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 11:17 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 11:45 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 11:47 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 12:30 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

28–Feb ............. 12:35 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN APRIL 2010 

Date Time Activity Monitoring 

conducted 

Animals 

present 

9–Apr ................ 8:00 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR ......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 8:01 PST .......... Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 8:21 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR ......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 8:22 PST .......... Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 8:42 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR ......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 8:43 PST .......... Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 9:15 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR ......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 9:16 PST .......... Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 9:35 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR ......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 9:36 PST .......... Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:00 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:01 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:20 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:21 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:40 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrived NWSR (sling load operations) .................... Yes ................... Absent 

9–Apr ................ 10:41 PST ........ Helicopter flight—departed NWSR ...................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 9:05 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 9:10 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 9:31 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 9:36 PST .......... Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 9:57 PST .......... Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 10:02 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 10:23 PST ........ Helicopter flight—arrive NWSR ........................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

11–Apr .............. 10:28 PST ........ Helicopter flight—depart NWSR .......................................................... Yes ................... Absent 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80479 

At least once during the period 

between February 15, 2011, through 

April 30, 2011, or during the period of 

November 1, 2011, through December 

31, 2011 a qualified biologist shall be 

present during all three workdays at the 

Station. The biologist hired will be 

subject to approval of NMFS and this 

requirement may be modified 

depending on the results of the second 

year of monitoring. 

The qualified biologist shall 

document use of the island by the 

pinnipeds, frequency, (i.e., dates, time, 

tidal height, species, numbers present, 

and any disturbances), and note any 

responses to potential disturbances. In 

the event of any observed Steller sea 

lion injury, mortality, or the presence of 

newborn pup, the SGRLPS will notify 

the NMFS SWRO Administrator and the 

NMFS Director of Office of Protected 

Resources immediately. 

Aerial photographic surveys may 

provide the most accurate means of 

documenting species composition, age 

and sex class of pinnipeds using the 

project site during human activity 

periods. Aerial photo coverage of the 

island shall be completed from the same 

helicopter used to transport the SGRLPS 

personnel to the island during 

restoration trips. Photographs of all 

marine mammals hauled out on the 

island shall be taken at an altitude 

greater than 300 m (984 ft) by a skilled 

photographer, prior to the first landing 

on each visit included in the monitoring 

program. Photographic documentation 

of marine mammals present at the end 

of each three-day work session shall 

also be made for a before and after 

comparison. These photographs will be 

forwarded to a biologist capable of 

discerning marine mammal species. 

Data shall be provided to NMFS in the 

form of a report with a data table, any 

other significant observations related to 

marine mammals, and a report of 

restoration activities (see Reporting). 

The original photographs can be made 

available to NMFS or other marine 

mammal experts for inspection and 

further analysis. 

Proposed Reporting 

The SGRLPS personnel will record 

data to document the number of marine 

mammals exposed to helicopter noise 

and to document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. SGRLPS and 

NMFS will use the data to estimate 

numbers of animals potentially taken by 

Level B harassment. 

Interim Monitoring Report 

The SGRLPS will submit interim 

monitoring reports to the NMFS SWRO 

Administrator and the NMFS Director of 

Office of Protected Resources no later 

than 30 days after the conclusion of 

each monthly session. The interim 

report will describe the operations that 

were conducted and sightings of marine 

mammals near the proposed project. 

The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. 

Each interim report will provide: 

(i) A summary and table of the dates, 

times, and weather during all helicopter 

operations, and restoration and 

maintenance activities. 

(ii) Species, number, location, and 

behavior of any marine mammals, 

observed throughout all monitoring 

activities. 

(iii) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals that are 

known to have been exposed to acoustic 

stimuli associated with the helicopter 

operations, restoration and maintenance 

activities. 

(iv) A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures of 

the IHA and full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. 

Final Monitoring Report 

In addition to the interim reports, the 

SGRLPS will submit a draft Final 

Monitoring Report to NMFS no later 

than 90 days after the project is 

completed to the Regional 

Administrator and the Director of Office 

of Protected Resources at NMFS 

Headquarters. Within 30 days after 

receiving comments from NMFS on the 

draft Final Monitoring Report, the 

SGRLPS must submit a Final 

Monitoring Report to the Regional 

Administrator and the NMFS Director of 

Office of Protected Resources. If the 

SGRLPS receives no comments from 

NMFS on the draft Final Monitoring 

Report, the draft Final Monitoring 

Report will be considered to be the 

Final Monitoring Report. 

The final report will provide: 

(i) A summary and table of the dates, 

times, and weather during all helicopter 

operations, and restoration and 

maintenance activities. 

(ii) Species, number, location, and 

behavior of any marine mammals, 

observed throughout all monitoring 

activities. 

(iii) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals that are 

known to have been exposed to acoustic 

stimuli associated with the helicopter 

operations, restoration and maintenance 

activities. 

(iv) A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures of 

the IHA and full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

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]. 

Only take by Level B harassment is 

anticipated and authorized as a result of 

the helicopter operations and 

restoration and maintenance activities 

on NWSR. 

Based on pinniped survey counts 

conducted by CCR on NWSR in the 

spring of 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 

(CCR, 2001), NMFS estimates that 

approximately 204 California sea lions 

(calculated by multiplying the average 

monthly abundance of California sea 

lions (zero in April, 1997 and 34 in 

April,1998) present on NWSR by six 

months of the proposed restoration and 

maintenance activities), 172 Steller sea 

lions (NMFS’ estimate of the maximum 

number of Steller sea lions that could be 

present on NWSR with a 95-percent 

confidence interval), 36 Pacific harbor 

seals (calculated by multiplying the 

maximum number of harbor seals 

present on NWSR (6) by six months), 

and 6 northern fur seals (calculated by 

multiplying the maximum number of 

northern fur seals present on NWSR (1) 

by six months) could be potentially 

affected by Level B behavioral 

harassment over the course of the 

proposed IHA. Estimates of the numbers 

of marine mammals that might be 

affected are based on consideration of 

the number of marine mammals that 

could be disturbed appreciably by 

approximately 51 hrs of aircraft 

operations during the course of the 

proposed activity. These incidental 

harassment take numbers represent 

approximately 0.14 percent of the U.S. 

stock of California sea lion, 0.42 percent 

of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea 

lion, 0.11 percent of the California stock 

of Pacific harbor seals, and 0.06 percent 

of the San Miguel Island stock of 

northern fur seal. 

All of the potential takes are expected 

to be Level B behavioral harassment 

only. Because of the mitigation 

measures that will be required and the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80480 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

likelihood that some pinnipeds will 

avoid the area, no injury or mortality to 

pinnipeds is expected or requested. 

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 making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers: 

(1) The number of anticipated 

mortalities; 

(2) The number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; 

(3) The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; and 

(4) The context in which the takes 

occur. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that four species of marine 

mammals could be potentially affected 

by Level B harassment over the course 

of the IHA. For each species, these 

numbers are small (each, less than one 

percent) relative to the population size. 

No takes by Level A harassment, 

serious injury, or mortality are 

anticipated to occur as a result of the 

SGRLPS’ proposed activities, and none 

are authorized. Only short-term 

behavioral disturbance is anticipated to 

occur due to the brief and sporadic 

duration of the proposed activities; the 

availability of alternate areas near 

NWSR for marine mammals to avoid the 

resultant acoustic disturbance; and 

limited access to NWSR during the 

pupping season. Due to the nature, 

degree, and context of the behavioral 

harassment anticipated, the activities 

are not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that the 

SGRLPS’ planned helicopter operations 

and restoration/maintenance activities, 

will result in the incidental take of 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment only, and that the 

total taking from the helicopter 

operations and restoration/maintenance 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The Steller sea lion, eastern Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) is listed as 

threatened under the ESA and occurs in 

the planned action area. NMFS 

Headquarters’ Office of Protected 

Resources, Permits, Conservation, and 

Education Division conducted a formal 

section 7 consultation under the ESA 

with the Southwest Region, NMFS. On 

January 27, 2010, the Southwest Region 

issued a BiOp and concluded that the 

issuance of IHAs are likely to adversely 

affect, but not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of Steller sea lions. 

NMFS has designated critical habitat for 

the eastern Distinct Population Segment 

of Steller sea lions in California at An ̃ o 

Nuevo Island, Southeast Farallon Island, 

Sugarloaf Island and Cape Mendocino, 

California pursuant to section 4 of the 

ESA (see 50 CFR 226.202(b)). Northwest 

Seal Rock is neither within nor nearby 

these designated areas. Finally, the 

BiOp included an ITS for Steller sea 

lions. The ITS contains reasonable and 

prudent measures implemented by 

terms and conditions to minimize the 

effects of this take. 

NMFS has reviewed the 2010 BiOp 

and determined that there is no new 

information regarding effects to Stellar 

sea lions; the action has not been 

modified in a manner which would 

cause adverse effects not previously 

evaluated; there has been no new listing 

of species or designation of critical 

habitat that could be affected by the 

action; and, the action will not exceed 

the extent or amount of incidental take 

authorized in the 2010–2012 ITS. 

Therefore, the proposed IHA does not 

require the reinitiation of Section 7 

consultation under the ESA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

To meet NMFS’ NEPA requirements 

for the issuance of an IHA to the 

SGRLPS, NMFS prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2010 

that was specific to conducting aircraft 

operations and restoration and 

maintenance work on the St. George 

Reef Light Station. The EA, titled 

‘‘Issuance of an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization to Take Marine Mammals 

by Harassment Incidental to Conducting 

Aircraft Operations, Lighthouse 

Restoration and Maintenance Activities 

on St. George Reef Lighthouse Station in 

Del Norte County, California,’’ evaluated 

the impacts on the human environment 

of NMFS’ authorization of incidental 

Level B harassment resulting from the 

specified activity in the specified 

geographic region. At that time, NMFS 

concluded that issuance of an IHA 

November 1 through April 30, annually 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment and 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for the 2010 EA 

regarding the SGRLPS’ activities. In 

conjunction with the SGRLPS’ 2011 

application, NMFS has again reviewed 

the 2010 EA and determined that there 

are no new direct, indirect or 

cumulative impacts to the human and 

natural environment associated with the 

IHA requiring evaluation in a 

supplemental EA and NMFS, therefore, 

intends to reaffirm the 2010 FONSI. A 

copy of the EA and the FONSI for this 

activity is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Dated: December 16, 2010. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32164 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Notice of Availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) for Disposal and Reuse of Fort 

McPherson, GA 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA). 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

announces the availability of the FEIS, 

which evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the disposal and reuse of Fort 

McPherson, Georgia. 

DATES: The waiting period for the FEIS 

will end 30 days after publication of an 

NOA in the Federal Register by the U. 

S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the FEIS 

contact Mr. Larry Gissentanna, 

McPherson BRAC Environmental 

Coordinator, 1508 Hood Ave., Building 

714, Fort Gillem, GA 30297 or 

larry.gissentanna@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Larry Gissentanna at (404) 469–3559. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS 

covers activities associated with the 

disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, 

Georgia. In accordance with the 2005 

Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES