Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24471 

Permit No. 17032 authorizes Mr. 

Moore to film gray (Eschrichtius 

robustus) and killer (Orcinus orca) 

whales in the eastern Aleutian Islands, 

primarily near Ikatan Bay and along the 

Ikatan Peninsula on the south side of 

Unimak Island, Alaska. The purpose of 

the project is to document killer whales 

hunting gray whales migrating through 

False Pass and Unimak Pass and to 

record the behavior of marine animals 

in the presence of a gray whale carcass. 

Filming will occur between April and 

June of each year. A maximum of 35 

killer whales and 10 gray whales could 

be closely approached annually. Footage 

will be obtained from vessel-mounted 

cameras, a polecam that may be 

submerged next to the boat, and, as the 

opportunity arises, from a remotely 

operated video camera in an underwater 

housing placed on the sea floor near a 

gray whale carcass. Footage will be used 

for a television program about predators 

and the challenges they face. The permit 

will expire on April 15, 2017. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9857 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XB132 

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; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the 

Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) 

to incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, three species of 

marine mammals during estuary 

management activities conducted at the 

mouth of the Russian River, Sonoma 

County, California. 

DATES: This authorization is effective for 

the period of one year, from April 21, 

2012, through April 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and 

related documents are available by 

writing to Tammy Adams, Acting Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

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

20910. 

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: Report of 

Activities and Monitoring Results (July 

2009 to December 2011); Russian River 

Estuary Outlet Channel Adaptive 

Management Plan; and Feasibility of 

Alternatives to the Goat Rock State 

Beach Jetty for Managing Lagoon Water 

Surface Elevations—A Study 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) 427–8401. 

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 

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 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) and requirements pertaining 

to 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 

January 27, 2012, from SCWA for 

issuance of an IHA for the taking, by 

Level B harassment only, of marine 

mammals incidental to ongoing 

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), 

and was subsequently issued a second 

IHA for incidental take associated with 

the same activities on April 21, 2011 (76 

FR 23306). Management activities 

include management of a naturallymstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

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 salmonids listed as 

threatened and endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), occurs 

only from May 15 through October 15 

(hereafter, the ‘‘lagoon management 

period’’). All estuary management 

activities are conducted by SCWA in 

accordance with a Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternative (RPA) included in 

NMFS’ Biological Opinion (BiOp) for 

Water Supply, Flood Control 

Operations, and Channel Maintenance 

conducted in the Russian River 

watershed (NMFS, 2008). Species 

known from the haul-out at the mouth 

of the Russian River include the harbor 

seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), and northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

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. 

The estuary is located about 97 km 

(60 mi) northwest of San Francisco in 

Sonoma County, near Jenner, California 

(see Figure 1 of SCWA’s application). 

The Russian River watershed 

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

Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake 

Counties. The mouth of the Russian 

River is located at Goat Rock State 

Beach; the estuary extends from the 

mouth upstream approximately 10 to 11 

km (6–7 mi) between Austin Creek and 

the community of Duncans Mills 

(Heckel 1994). The proposed action 

involves management of the estuary to 

prevent flooding while avoiding adverse 

modification to critical habitat for ESAlisted salmonids. During the lagoon 

management period only, this involves 

construction and maintenance of a 

lagoon outlet channel that would 

facilitate formation of a perched lagoon, 

which will 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. 

There are three components to 

SCWA’s ongoing 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 

objective of flood risk abatement; and 

(3) physical and biological monitoring 

in and near the estuary, required under 

the terms of the BiOp, to understand 

response to water surface elevation 

management in the estuary-lagoon 

system. In addition to these ongoing 

management activities, SCWA will 

conduct new monitoring work at the 

mouth of the Russian River during the 

period of this IHA. This additional 

activity comprises a plan to study the 

effects of a historical, dilapidated jetty 

on the formation and maintenance of 

the Russian River estuary, as required 

under RPA 2 of the 2008 BiOp. Through 

several phases from 1929-1948, the jetty 

and associated seawall, roadway, and 

railroad were constructed, reinforced 

and then abandoned by various entities. 

The plan for study of the jetty is 

described in greater detail in SCWA’s 

‘Feasibility of Alternatives to the Goat 

Rock State Beach Jetty for Managing 

Lagoon Water Surface Elevations—A 

Study Plan’ (ESA PWA, 2011a), 

available online (see ADDRESSES). 

SCWA’s estuary management 

activities generally 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 or to 

conduct artificial breaching. Pupping 

season for harbor seals at the mouth of 

the Russian River typically peaks during 

May. However, pupping is known to 

begin in March and may continue 

through the end of June; pupping season 

for harbor seals is conservatively 

defined here as March 15 to June 30. 

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. 

Equipment (e.g., bulldozer, excavator) 

is off-loaded in the parking lot of Goat 

Rock State Park and driven onto the 

beach via an existing access point. 

Personnel on the beach will 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 

will be two or more additional people 

on the beach (SCWA staff or regulatory 

agency staff) to observe the activities. 

SCWA staff will be followed by the 

equipment, which will 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). 

Lagoon Outlet Channel Management 

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. 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. 

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, and 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24473 

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. 

Implementation and Maintenance— 

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, 

equipment must be removed from the 

beach. SCWA seeks to avoid conducting 

management activities on weekends 

(Friday-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 

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). 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. 

Artificial breaching, as defined here, is 

conducted for the sole purpose of 

reducing flood risk, and thus is a 

different type of event, from an 

engineering perspective, than are the 

previously described lagoon 

management events. Artificial breaching 

activities occur in accordance with the 

BiOp, and primarily occur outside the 

lagoon management period (i.e., 

artificial breaching would primarily 

occur from 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. 

Physical and Biological Monitoring 

SCWA is required by the BiOp and 

other state and federal permits to collect 

biological and physical habitat data in 

conjunction with estuary management. 

Monitoring requires the use of boats and 

nets in the estuary, among other 

activities, and will require activities to 

occur in the vicinity of beach and river 

haul-outs (see Figure 4 of SCWA’s 

application); these monitoring activities 

have the potential to disturb pinnipeds. 

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. 

Jetty Study 

The jetty study will analyze the 

effects of the jetty on beach permeability 

and sand storage and transport. These 

physical processes are affected by the 

jetty, and, in turn, may affect seasonal 

water surface elevations and flood risk. 

Evaluating and quantifying these 

linkages will inform the development 

and evaluation of management 

alternatives for the jetty. The study 

involves delineation of two study 

transects perpendicular to the beach 

barrier (see Figure 5 of SCWA’s 

application), with six water seepage 

monitoring wells constructed (three per 

transect). In addition, geophysical 

surveys will be conducted in order to 

better understand the characteristics of 

the barrier beach substrate and the 

location and composition of buried 

portions of the jetty and associated 

structures. Once the initial geophysical 

surveys have been completed, 

additional surface electromagnetic 

profiles will be collected along the 

barrier beach in order to explore how 

the jetty impacts beach seepage relative 

to the natural beach berm. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of receipt of 

SCWA’s application and proposed IHA 

in the Federal Register on March 16, 

2012 (77 FR 15722). During the 30-day 

comment period, NMFS received a letter 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(MMC). The MMC recommended that 

NMFS issue the requested 

authorization, subject to inclusion of the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures as described in NMFS’ notice 

of proposed IHA and the application. 

All measures proposed in the initial 

Federal Register notice are included 

within the authorization and NMFS has 

determined that they will effect the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stocks and their habitats. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

The marine mammal species that may 

be harassed incidental to estuary 

management activities are the harbor 

seal, California sea lion, and the 

northern elephant seal. None of these 

species are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA, nor are they 

categorized as depleted under the 

MMPA. NMFS presented a more 

detailed discussion of the status of these 

stocks and their occurrence in the action 

area in the notice of the proposed IHA 

(77 FR 15722, March 16, 2012). 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

NMFS provided a detailed discussion 

of the potential effects of the specified 

activity on marine mammals in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR 

15722, March 16, 2012). A summary of 

anticipated effects is provided below. 

A significant body of monitoring data 

exists for pinnipeds at the mouth of the 

Russian River. Pinnipeds have coexisted with regular estuary 

management activity for decades, as 

well as with regular human use activity 

at the beach, and are likely habituated 

to human presence and activity. 

Nevertheless, SCWA’s estuary 

management activities have the 

potential to harass pinnipeds present on 

the beach. During breaching operations, 

past monitoring has revealed that some 

or all of the seals present typically move 

or flush from the beach in response to 

the presence of crew and equipment, 

though some may remain hauled-out. 

No stampeding of seals—a potentially 

dangerous occurrence in which large 

numbers of animals succumb to mass 

panic and rush away from a stimulus— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

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. 

California sea lions and northern 

elephant seals, which have been noted 

only infrequently in the action area, 

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 69 percent, California sea lions 

flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The 

rate for elephant seals declined to 0.1 

percent (VanBlaricom, 2011). 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, 

harbor seal 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 

2010–11, 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 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. Although 

pupping season is defined as March 15– 

June 30, the peak of pupping season is 

typically concluded by mid-May, when 

the lagoon management period begins. 

As such, it is expected that most 

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, 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. 

Therefore, based on a significant body 

of site-specific monitoring 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. NMFS has 

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 

NMFS provided a detailed discussion 

of the potential effects of this action on 

marine mammal habitat in the notice of 

the proposed IHA (77 FR 15722, March 

16, 2012). SCWA’s estuary management 

activities will result in temporary 

physical alteration of the Jenner haulout. 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, will likely increase 

suitability and availability of habitat for 

pinnipeds. Biological and water quality 

monitoring will not physically alter 

pinniped habitat. 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 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 2011 IHA, SCWA submitted a 

Report of Activities and Monitoring 

Results, covering the period of July 2009 

through December 2011. Under the 2011 

IHA, SCWA did not conduct any estuary 

management events, but did conduct 

associated biological and physical 

monitoring. During the course of these 

activities, SCWA did not exceed the 

take levels authorized under the 2011 

IHA. NMFS provided a detailed 

description of previous monitoring 

results in the notice of the proposed 

IHA (77 FR 15722, March 16, 2012). 

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 will continue the following 

mitigation measures, as implemented 

during the previous IHA, designed to 

minimize impact to affected species and 

stocks: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24475 

• SCWA crews will cautiously 

approach the haul-out ahead of heavy 

equipment to minimize the potential for 

sudden flushes, which may result in a 

stampede—a particular concern during 

pupping season. 

• SCWA staff will avoid walking or 

driving equipment through the seal 

haul-out. 

• Crews on foot will make an effort to 

be seen by seals from a distance, if 

possible, rather than appearing 

suddenly at the top of the sandbar, again 

preventing sudden flushes. 

• During breaching events, all 

monitoring will be conducted from the 

overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 

adjacent to the haul-out in order to 

minimize potential for harassment. 

• A water level management event 

may not occur for more than two 

consecutive days unless flooding threats 

cannot be controlled. 

In addition, SCWA will continue 

mitigation measures specific to pupping 

season (March 15–June 30), as 

implemented in the previous IHA: 

• SCWA will maintain a 1 week nowork period between water level 

management events (unless flooding is 

an immediate threat) to allow for an 

adequate disturbance recovery period. 

During the no-work period, equipment 

must be removed from the beach. 

• If a pup less than 1 week old is on 

the beach where heavy machinery will 

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 will 

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 1 week old 

are on the beach prior to a breaching 

event. 

• Physical and biological monitoring 

will not be conducted if a pup less than 

1 week old is present at the monitoring 

site or on a path to the site. 

Equipment will be driven slowly on 

the beach and care will be taken to 

minimize the number of shutdowns and 

start-ups when the equipment is on the 

beach. All work will 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 will 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 

determine whether they are likely to 

effect the least practicable adverse 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species and stocks and their habitat. Our 

evaluation of potential measures 

includes consideration of the following 

factors in relation to one another: (1) 

The manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure is expected to minimize 

adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) 

the proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; (3) the 

practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation, including 

consideration of personnel safety, and 

practicality of implementation. 

Injury, serious injury, or mortality to 

pinnipeds would likely result from 

startling animals inhabiting the haul-out 

into a stampede reaction, or from 

extended mother-pup separation as a 

result of such a stampede. Long-term 

impacts to pinniped usage of the haulout could result from significantly 

increased presence of humans and 

equipment on the beach. To avoid these 

possibilities, NMFS and SCWA have 

developed the previously described 

mitigation measures. These are designed 

to reduce the possibility of startling 

pinnipeds, by gradually apprising them 

of the presence of humans and 

equipment on the beach, and to reduce 

the possibility of impacts to pups by 

eliminating or altering management 

activities on the beach when pups are 

present and by setting limits on the 

frequency and duration of events during 

pupping season. During the past twelve 

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 

determined that the mitigation measures 

included in the final IHA provide the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impacts on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat. 

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. 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: 

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 

8 hours. All seals hauled out on the 

beach are counted every 30 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 2 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

30-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 will be recorded on 

a three-point scale that represents an 

increasing seal response to the 

disturbance. 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 

(i.e., movement or flight) will be 

considered as harassment under the 

MMPA. Weather conditions are 

recorded at the beginning of each 

census. These include temperature, 

percent cloud cover, and wind speed 

(Beaufort scale). Tide levels and estuary 

water surface elevations are correlated 

to the monitoring start and end times. 

In an effort towards understanding 

possible relationships between use of 

the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal 

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

River estuary are monitored as well. The 

peripheral haul-outs are visited for 10- 

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 

Activities associated with artificial 

breaching or initial construction of the 

outlet channel, as well as the 

maintenance of the channel that may be 

required, will be monitored for 

disturbances to the seals at the Jenner 

haul-out. A 1-day pre-event channel 

survey will be made within 1–3 days 

prior to constructing the outlet channel. 

The haul-out will be monitored on the 

day the outlet channel is constructed 

and daily for up to the maximum 2 days 

allowed for channel excavation 

activities. Monitoring will also occur on 

each day that the outlet channel is 

maintained using heavy equipment for 

the duration of the lagoon management 

period. Monitoring will 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 8 hours. On the 

day of the management event, pinniped 

monitoring begins at least 1 hour prior 

to the crew and equipment accessing the 

beach work area and continues through 

the duration of the event, until at least 

1 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 event monitoring. 

This provides an opportunity to 

qualitatively assess whether these haulouts are being used by seals displaced 

from the Jenner haul-out. This 

monitoring will 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 disturbance. 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 will 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. 

For all counts, the following 

information will 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— 

As described previously, 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 1 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 1 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 will contact the NMFS stranding 

response network immediately and also 

report the incident to NMFS’ Southwest 

Regional Office and NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources within 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. 

Reporting 

SCWA is required to submit a report 

on all activities and marine mammal 

monitoring results to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

Southwest Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, 90 days prior to the expiration 

of the IHA if a renewal is sought, or 

within 90 days of the expiration of the 

permit otherwise. This annual report 

will also be distributed to California 

State Parks and Stewards, and would be 

available to the public on SCWA’s Web 

site. This report will contain the 

following information: 

• The number of seals taken, by 

species and age class (if possible); 

• Behavior prior to and during water 

level management events; 

• Start and end time of activity; 

• Estimated distances between source 

and seals when disturbance occurs; 

• Weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, wind, etc.); 

• Haul-out reoccupation time of any 

seals based on post activity monitoring; 

• Tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation; and 

• Seal census from bi-monthly and 

nearby haul-out monitoring. 

The annual report includes 

descriptions of monitoring 

methodology, tabulation of estuary 

management events, summary of 

monitoring results, and discussion of 

problems noted and proposed remedial 

measures. SCWA will report any injured 

or dead marine mammals to NMFS’ 

Southwest Regional Office and NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

NMFS is authorizing SCWA 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 behavioral disturbance only. In 

addition, monitoring activities 

prescribed in the BiOp may result in 

harassment of additional individuals at 

the Jenner haul-out and at the three 

haul-outs located in the estuary. 

Estimates of the number of harbor seals, 

California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals that may be harassed by 

the 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24477 

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 1 and 2 detail the 

total number of authorized takes. 

Methodology of take estimation was 

discussed in detail in NMFS’ notice of 

proposed IHA (77 FR 15722, March 16, 

2012). Please note that the take 

estimates provided in NMFS’ notice of 

proposed IHA (Tables 5–6 in that 

document) contained several errors, 

which are corrected here. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HARBOR SEAL TAKES RESULTING FROM RUSSIAN RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES

Number of animals expected to occur a Number of events b c Potential total number of individual animals 

that may be taken 

Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15) 

Implementation: 105 d Implementation: 3 Implementation: 315 

Maintenance and Monitoring: 

May: 103 

June: 100 

July: 105 

Aug: 17 

Sept: 19 

Oct: 22 

Maintenance: 

May: 1 

June–Sept: 4/month 

Oct: 1 

Monitoring: 

June–Sept: 2/month 

Oct: 1 

Maintenance: 1,089 

Monitoring: 504 

Total: 1,908 

Artificial Breaching 

Oct: 22 Oct: 2 Oct: 44 

Nov: 11 Nov: 2 Nov: 22 

Dec: 45 Dec: 2 Dec: 90 

Jan: 96 Jan: 1 Jan: 96 

Feb: 89 Feb: 1 Feb: 89 

Mar: 146 Mar: 1 Mar: 146 

Apr: 173 Apr: 1 Apr: 173 

May: 103 May: 1 May: 103 

11 events maximum Total: 763 

Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys 

Jan: 96 

Feb: 89 

Mar: 146 

Apr: 131 

May: 119 

June: 134 

July: 237 

Aug: 108 

Sept: 36 

Oct: 36 

Nov: 90 

Dec: 45 

1 topographic survey/month 

2 geophysical surveys/month, Sep–Dec; 1/ 

month, July–Aug, Jan–Feb 

Surveys considered to have potential for take 

of 10 percent of animals present 

Jan: 20 

Feb: 18 

Mar: 15 

Apr: 13 

May: 12 

June: 13 

July: 48 

Aug: 22 

Sept: 12 

Oct: 12 

Nov: 27 

Dec: 15 

Total: 227 

Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary 

1 e 65 65 

Total 2,963 

aFor lagoon outlet channel management and artificial breaching events occurring from April through November, average daily number of animals is from observations at the mouth of the Russian River during breaching events (i.e., bar-closed conditions). For artificial breaching events 

occurring from December through March, and for all topographic and geophysical beach surveys, average daily number of animals is from observations at Russian River mouth during bar-open conditions, 2009–11. bFor implementation of the lagoon outlet channel, an event is defined as a single, two-day episode. It is assumed that the same individual 

seals would be hauled out during a single event. For the remaining activities, an event is defined as a single day on which an activity occurs. 

Some events may include multiple activities. c Number of events for artificial breaching derived from historical data. The average number of events for each month was rounded up to the 

nearest whole number; estimated number of events for December was increased from one to two because multiple closures resulting from storm 

events have occurred in recent years during that month. These numbers likely represent an overestimate, as the average annual number of 

events is six. dAlthough implementation could occur at any time during the lagoon management period, the highest daily average from any month during the 

lagoon management period was used. eBased on past experience, SCWA expects that no more than one seal may be present, and thus have the potential to be disturbed, at each 

of the three river haul-outs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

24478 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA SEA LION AND ELEPHANT SEAL TAKES RESULTING FROM RUSSIAN RIVER

ESTUARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Species 

Number of animals expected to 

occur 

Number of events 

Potential total 

number of individual animals that 

may be taken 

Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15) 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event) ...................................... 1 3 3 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event) .............................. 1 3 3 

Artificial Breaching 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event, Sept–Apr) ..................... 1 10 10 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event, Dec–May) ............. 1 7 7 

Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event, Sept–Apr) ..................... 1 18 18 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event, Dec–May) ............. 1 10 10 

Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per month, Sept–Apr) .................... 1 8 8 

Total 

California sea lion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 

Elephant seal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 

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 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 

increased availability of prey species 

(salmonids). No impacts are 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 number of animals authorized to 

be 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 authorizing take, by 

Level B harassment only, of 2,963 

harbor seals, 37 California sea lions, and 

20 northern elephant seals, representing 

8.7, 0.02, and 0.02 percent of the 

populations, respectively. However, this 

represents an overestimate of the 

number of individuals harassed over the 

duration of the proposed IHA, because 

the take estimates include multiple 

instances of harassment to a given 

individual. 

California sea lion and elephant seal 

pups are not known to occur within the 

action area and thus will not be affected 

by the specified activity. The action is 

not likely to cause injury or mortality to 

any harbor seal pup, nor will it impact 

mother-pup bonding. The peak of 

harbor seal pupping season occurs 

during May, when few management 

activities are anticipated. However, the 

pupping season has been conservatively 

defined as March 15–June 30 for 

mitigation purposes, and 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 will 

further ensure that mother-pup bonding 

is not likely to be interfered with. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, 

behavioral disturbance to pinnipeds at 

the mouth of the Russian River will be 

of low intensity and limited duration. 

To ensure minimal disturbance, SCWA 

will implement the mitigation measures 

described previously, which NMFS has 

determined will serve as the means for 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

effect on marine mammals stocks or 

populations and their habitat. NMFS 

finds that SCWA’s estuary management 

activities will result in the incidental 

take of small numbers of marine 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Notices 24479 

mammals, and that the authorized 

number of takes will have no more than 

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) 

and RPA, 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 

(FONSI) on March 30, 2010. NMFS has 

reviewed SCWA’s application and 

determined that there are no substantial 

changes to the proposed action and that 

there are no new direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from renewal of 

an IHA to SCWA. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that a new or supplemental 

EA or Environmental Impact Statement 

is unnecessary, and reaffirms the 

existing FONSI for this action. The 

existing EA and FONSI for this action 

are available for review at http:// 

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

incidental.htm. 

Determinations 

NMFS has determined that the impact 

of conducting the specific estuary 

management activities described in this 

notice and in the IHA request in the 

specific geographic region in Sonoma 

County, California may result, at worst, 

in a temporary modification in behavior 

(Level B harassment) of small numbers 

of marine mammals. Further, this 

activity is expected to result in a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks of marine mammals. The 

provision requiring that the activity not 

have an unmitigable impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stock of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses is not implicated for 

this action. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to SCWA to 

conduct estuary management activities 

in the Russian River from the period of 

April 21, 2012, through April 20, 2013, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: April 17, 2012. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9863 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Information Collection; Submission for 

OMB Review, Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (the 

Corporation), has submitted a public 

information collection request (ICR) 

entitled AmeriCorps Member 

Application Form for review and 

approval in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 

35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation, may be 

obtained by calling the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

Thomas Howard, Jr., at (202) 606–6697 

or email to toward@cns.gov. Individuals 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800– 

833–3722 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted, identified by the title of the 

information collection activity, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB 

Desk Officer for the Corporation for 

National and Community Service, by 

any of the following two methods 

within 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register: 

(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974, 

Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Corporation for National 

and Community Service; and 

(2) Electronically by email to: 

smar@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Propose ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

• Propose ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submissions of responses. 

Comments 

A 60-day public comment Notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 3, 2012. This comment 

period ended April 3, 2012. No public 

comments were received from this 

Notice. 

Description: The Corporation is 

seeking approval of the AmeriCorps 

Member Application Form which is 

used by individuals to apply to serve in 

an AmeriCorps program. 

Type of Review: Renewal. 

Agency: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Title: AmeriCorps Member 

Application Form. 

OMB Number: 3045–0054. 

Agency Number: None. 

Affected Public: Applicants to serve 

in AmeriCorps. 

Total Respondents: 225,000. 

Frequency: Ongoing. 

Average Time per Response: 1.25 

hours. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

281,250. 

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost (operating/ 

maintenance): None. 

Dated: April 16, 2012. 

Idara Nickelson, 

Chief Program Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9807 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES