Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14073 

regions for growth and success in the 

worldwide economy. In order to 

effectively administer and monitor its 

economic development assistance 

programs, EDA collects certain 

information from applications for, and 

recipients of, EDA investment 

assistance. 

A recipient must submit a written 

request to EDA to amend an investment 

award and provide such information 

and documentation as EDA deems 

necessary to determine the merit of 

altering the terms of an award (see 13 

CFR 302.7(a) of EDA’s regulations). EDA 

may require a recipient to submit a 

project service map and information 

from which to determine whether 

services are provided to all segments of 

the region being assisted (see CFR 

302.16(c) of EDA’s regulations). 

II. Method of Collection 

Paper report. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0610–0102. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a currently approved 

information collection). 

Affected Public: Current recipients of 

EDA construction (Public Works or 

Economic Adjustment) assistance, to 

include (1) cities or other political 

subdivisions of a state, including a 

special purpose unit of state or local 

government engaged in economic or 

infrastructure development activities, or 

a consortium of political subdivisions; 

(2) states; (3) institutions of higher 

education or a consortium of 

institutions of higher education; (4) 

public or private non-profit 

organizations or associations; (5) District 

Organizations; and (6) Indian Tribes or 

a consortia of Indian Tribes and (7) (for 

training, research, and technical 

assistance awards only) individuals and 

for-profit businesses. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 632 (600 requests for 

amendments to construction awards, 30 

requests for amendments to nonconstruction awards, 2 project service 

maps). 

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours 

for an amendment to a construction 

award, 1 hour for an amendment to a 

non-construction award, 6 hours for a 

project service map. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,242. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06191 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD810 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Russian River 

Estuary Management Activities 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Sonoma County Water Agency 

(SCWA) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to Russian River 

estuary management activities. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

SCWA to incidentally take marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

during the specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than April 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take 

Program, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Physical comments should be sent to 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910 and electronic comments 

should be sent to ITP.Laws@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to the 

Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/construction.htm 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of SCWA’s 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained by 

visiting the Internet at: 

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

incidental.htm. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed above (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

NMFS has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA; 2010) and associated 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) in accordance with NEPA and 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

These documents are posted at the 

aforementioned Internet address. 

Information in SCWA’s application, 

NMFS’ EA (2010), and this notice 

collectively provide the environmental 

information related to proposed 

issuance of this IHA for public review 

and comment. We will review all 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice as we complete the NEPA 

process, including a decision of whether 

to reaffirm the existing FONSI, prior to 

a final decision on the incidental take 

authorization request. 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14074 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

upon request by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

area, the incidental, but not intentional, 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals, providing that certain 

findings are made and the necessary 

prescriptions are established. 

The incidental taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals may be 

allowed only if NMFS (through 

authority delegated by the Secretary) 

finds that the total taking by the 

specified activity during the specified 

time period will (i) have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such taking must be set 

forth. 

The allowance of such incidental 

taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by 

harassment, serious injury, death, or a 

combination thereof, requires that 

regulations be established. 

Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization 

may be issued pursuant to the 

prescriptions established in such 

regulations, providing that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under the specific regulations. 

Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may 

authorize such incidental taking by 

harassment only, for periods of not more 

than one year, pursuant to requirements 

and conditions contained within an 

IHA. The establishment of these 

prescriptions requires notice and 

opportunity for public comment. 

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.’’ Except with 

respect to certain activities not pertinent 

here, section 3(18) of 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 

On January 21, 2015, we received an 

adequate and complete request from 

SCWA for authorization of the taking of 

marine mammals incidental to Russian 

River estuary management activities in 

Sonoma County, California. SCWA 

proposes to manage the naturallyformed barrier beach at the mouth of the 

Russian River in order to minimize 

potential for flooding adjacent to the 

estuary and to enhance habitat for 

juvenile salmonids, as well as to 

conduct biological and physical 

monitoring of the barrier beach and 

estuary. Flood control-related breaching 

of barrier beach at the mouth of the river 

may include artificial breaches, as well 

as construction and maintenance of a 

lagoon outlet channel. The latter 

activity, an alternative management 

technique conducted to mitigate 

impacts of flood control on rearing 

habitat for Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)-listed salmonids, occurs only 

from May 15 through October 15 

(hereafter, the ‘‘lagoon management 

period’’). Artificial breaching and 

monitoring activities may occur at any 

time during the one-year period of 

validity of the proposed IHA. 

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, and 

monitoring in the estuary requires the 

use of small boats. As a result, 

pinnipeds hauled out on the beach or at 

peripheral haul-outs in the estuary may 

exhibit behavioral responses that 

indicate incidental take by Level B 

harassment under the MMPA. Species 

known from the haul-out at the mouth 

of the Russian River or from peripheral 

haul-outs, and therefore anticipated to 

be taken incidental to the specified 

activity, include the harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina richardii), California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus), and northern 

elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). 

This would be the sixth such IHA, if 

issued. SCWA was first issued an IHA, 

valid for a period of one year, effective 

on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 17382), and was 

subsequently issued one-year IHAs for 

incidental take associated with the same 

activities, effective on April 21, 2011 (76 

FR 23306), April 21, 2012 (77 FR 

24471), April 21, 2013 (78 FR 23746), 

and April 21, 2014 (79 FR 20180). 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The proposed action involves 

management of the estuary to prevent 

flooding while preventing adverse 

modification to critical habitat for ESAlisted salmonids. Requirements related 

to the ESA are described in further 

detail below. During the lagoon 

management period, this involves 

construction and maintenance of a 

lagoon outlet channel that would 

facilitate formation of a perched lagoon. 

A perched lagoon, which is an estuary 

closed to tidal influence in which water 

surface elevation is above mean high 

tide, would reduce flooding while 

maintaining beneficial conditions for 

juvenile salmonids. Additional breaches 

of barrier beach may be conducted for 

the sole purpose of reducing flood risk. 

SCWA’s proposed activity was 

described in detail in our notice of 

proposed authorization prior to the 2011 

IHA (76 FR 14924; March 18, 2011); 

please see that document for a detailed 

description of SCWA’s estuary 

management activities. Aside from 

minor additions to SCWA’s biological 

and physical estuary monitoring 

measures, the specified activity remains 

the same as that described in the 2011 

document. 

Dates and Duration 

The specified activity may occur at 

any time during the one-year timeframe 

(April 21, 2015, through April 20, 2016) 

of the proposed IHA, although 

construction and maintenance of a 

lagoon outlet channel would occur only 

during the lagoon management period. 

In addition, there are certain restrictions 

placed on SCWA during the harbor seal 

pupping season. These, as well as 

periodicity and frequency of the 

specified activities, are described in 

further detail below. 

Specific Geographic Region 

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 (see Figure 2 of SCWA’s 

application); 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 and McIver, 1994). 

Detailed Description of Activities 

Within the Russian River watershed, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), SCWA and the Mendocino 

County Russian River Flood Control and 

Water Conservation Improvement 

District (District) operate and maintain 

federal facilities and conduct activities 

in addition to the estuary management, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14075 

including flood control, water diversion 

and storage, instream flow releases, 

hydroelectric power generation, channel 

maintenance, and fish hatchery 

production. The Corps, SCWA, and the 

District conducted these activities for 

many years before salmonid species in 

the Russian River were protected under 

the ESA. Upon determination that these 

actions were likely to affect ESA-listed 

salmonids, as well as designated critical 

habitat for these species, formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

was initiated. In 2008, NMFS issued a 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Water 

Supply, Flood Control Operations, and 

Channel Maintenance conducted by the 

Corps, SCWA, and the District in the 

Russian River watershed (NMFS, 2008). 

This BiOp found that the activities— 

including SCWA’s estuary management 

activities—authorized by the Corps and 

undertaken by SCWA and the District, 

if continued in a manner similar to 

recent historic practices, were likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

ESA-listed salmonids and were likely to 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

If a project is found to jeopardize a 

species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat, NMFS must develop and 

recommend a non-jeopardizing 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

(RPA) to the proposed project, in 

coordination with the federal action 

agency and any applicant. A component 

of the RPA described in the 2008 BiOp 

requires SCWA to collaborate with 

NMFS and modify their estuary water 

level management in order to reduce 

marine influence (i.e., high salinity and 

tidal inflow) and promote a higher water 

surface elevation in the estuary in order 

to enhance the quality of rearing habitat 

for juvenile salmonids. A program of 

potential incremental steps prescribed 

to reach that goal includes adaptive 

management of the outlet channel. 

SCWA is also required to monitor the 

response of water quality, invertebrate 

production, and salmonids in and near 

the estuary to water surface elevation 

management in the estuary-lagoon 

system. 

The analysis contained in the BiOp 

found that maintenance of lagoon 

conditions was necessary only for the 

lagoon management period. See NMFS’ 

BiOp (2008) for details of that analysis. 

As a result of that determination, there 

are three components to SCWA’s 

estuary management activities: (1) 

Lagoon outlet channel management, 

during the lagoon management period 

only, required to accomplish the dual 

purposes of flood risk abatement and 

maintenance of juvenile salmonid 

habitat; (2) traditional artificial 

breaching, with the sole goal of flood 

risk abatement; and (3) physical and 

biological monitoring. The latter 

activity, physical and biological 

monitoring, will remain the same as in 

past years but with the addition of a 

new monitoring activity. In 2014, 

acoustic telemetry of tagged steelhead 

was added to the fisheries monitoring 

activities. As is the case for other 

monitoring activities in the estuary, this 

activity involves at least two crew 

members in a small motorized boat 

travelling throughout the estuary. 

Therefore, as for other such activities in 

the estuary, the potential exists for 

disturbance of pinnipeds hauled-out at 

peripheral haul-outs. Please see the 

previously referenced Federal Register 

notice (76 FR 14924; March 18, 2011) 

for detailed discussion of lagoon outlet 

channel management, artificial 

breaching, and other physical and 

biological monitoring activities. 

NMFS’ BiOp determined that 

salmonid estuarine habitat may be 

improved by managing the Russian 

River estuary as a perched, freshwater 

lagoon and, therefore, stipulates as a 

RPA to existing conditions that the 

estuary be managed to achieve such 

conditions between May 15th and 

October 15th. In recognition of the 

complexity and uncertainty inherent in 

attempting to manage conditions in a 

dynamic beach environment, the BiOp 

stipulates that the estuarine water 

surface elevation RPA be managed 

adaptively, meaning that it should be 

planned, implemented, and then 

iteratively refined based on experience 

gained from implementation. The first 

phase of adaptive management, which 

has been implemented since 2010, is 

limited to outlet channel management 

(ESA PWA, 2014). The second phase, 

begun in 2014, requires study of and 

consideration of alternatives to a 

historical, dilapidated jetty present at 

Goat Rock State Beach (e.g., complete 

removal, partial removal). 

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, 2011), and was 

also described in detail in our notice of 

proposed authorization prior to the 2013 

IHA (78 FR 14985; March 8, 2013). 

Implementation of the study plan began 

in March 2014 with installation of wells 

monitoring water seepage through the 

barrier beach and geophysical mapping 

of the submerged substrate and 

structures. Visits to the well sites are not 

anticipated to disturb seals, as the wells 

are not located near the haul-out. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Harbor seals are the most common 

species inhabiting the haul-out at the 

mouth of the Russian River (Jenner 

haul-out) and fine-scale local abundance 

data for harbor seals have been recorded 

extensively since 1972. California sea 

lions and northern elephant seals have 

also been observed infrequently in the 

project area. In addition to the primary 

Jenner haul-out, there are eight 

peripheral haul-outs nearby (see Figure 

4 of SCWA’s application). These include 

North Jenner and Odin Cove to the 

north; Pocked Rock, Kabemali, and Rock 

Point to the south; and Penny Logs, 

Patty’s Rock, and Chalanchawi 

upstream within the estuary. 

This section briefly summarizes the 

range, population status, threats and 

human-caused mortality, and rangewide as well as local abundance of these 

species. We have reviewed SCWA’s 

detailed species descriptions, including 

life history information, for accuracy 

and completeness and refer the reader to 

Sections 3 and 4 of SCWA’s application 

instead of reprinting the information 

here. The following information is 

summarized largely from NMFS Stock 

Assessment Reports, which may be 

accessed at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

species.htm. 

Harbor Seals 

Harbor seals inhabit coastal and 

estuarine waters and shoreline areas of 

the northern hemisphere from temperate 

to polar regions. The eastern North 

Pacific subspecies is found from Baja 

California north to the Aleutian Islands 

and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines 

of evidence support the existence of 

geographic structure among harbor seal 

populations from California to Alaska 

(Carretta et al., 2014). However, because 

stock boundaries are difficult to 

meaningfully draw from a biological 

perspective, three separate harbor seal 

stocks are recognized for management 

purposes along the west coast of the 

continental U.S.: (1) Inland waters of 

Washington, (2) outer coast of Oregon 

and Washington, and (3) California 

(Carretta et al., 2014). Multiple stocks 

are recognized in Alaska. Placement of 

a stock boundary at the CaliforniaOregon border is not based on biology 

but is considered a political and 

jurisdictional convenience (Carretta et 

al., 2014). In addition, harbor seals may 

occur in Mexican waters, but these 

animals are not considered part of the 

California stock. Only the California 

stock is expected to be found in the 

project area. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14076 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

California harbor seals are not 

protected under the ESA or listed as 

depleted under the MMPA, and are not 

considered a strategic stock under the 

MMPA because annual human-caused 

mortality (43) is significantly less than 

the calculated potential biological 

removal (PBR; 1,641) (Carretta et al., 

2015). The population appears to be 

stabilizing at what may be its carrying 

capacity and the fishery mortality is 

declining. 

The best abundance estimate of the 

California stock of harbor seals is 30,968 

and the minimum population size of 

this stock is 27,348 individuals (Carretta 

et al., 2015). The entire population 

cannot be counted because some 

individuals are always away from haulout sites. In addition, complete pup 

counts are not possible as for other 

species of pinniped because pups are 

precocious and enter the water almost 

immediately after birth. Therefore, the 

best abundance estimate is estimated by 

counting the number of seals ashore 

during the peak haul-out period (May to 

July) and by multiplying this count by 

a correction factor equal to the inverse 

of the estimated fraction of seals on land 

(Carretta et al., 2014). The current 

abundance estimate, as well as the 

minimum population size, is based off 

of haul-out counts from 2012. 

Counts of harbor seals in California 

increased from 1981 to 2004, with a 

calculated annual net productivity rate 

of 9.2 percent for the period 1983–1994 

(Carretta et al., 2014). However, 

maximum net productivity rates cannot 

be estimated because measurements 

were not made when the stock size was 

very small, and the default maximum 

net productivity rate for pinnipeds (12 

percent per year) is considered 

appropriate for harbor seals (Carretta et 

al., 2014). 

Prior to state and federal protection 

and especially during the nineteenth 

century, harbor seals along the west 

coast of North America were greatly 

reduced by commercial hunting, with 

only a few hundred individuals 

surviving in a few isolated areas along 

the California coast (Carretta et al., 

2014). However, in the last half of this 

century, the population has increased 

dramatically. Data from 2004–09 

indicate that 18 (CV = 0.73) California 

harbor seals are killed annually in 

commercial fisheries. In addition, 

California stranding database records for 

2005–09 show an annual average of 12 

such events, which is likely an 

underestimate because most carcasses 

are not recovered. Two Unusual 

Mortality Events (UME) of harbor seals 

in California occurred in 1997 and 2000 

with the causes considered to be 

infectious disease (see 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/ 

mmume/; accessed January 30, 2014). 

All west coast harbor seals that have 

been tested for morbilliviruses were 

found to be seronegative, indicating that 

this disease is not endemic in the 

population and that this population is 

extremely susceptible to an epidemic of 

this disease (Ham-Lamme ́ et al., 1999). 

Harbor seal pupping normally occurs 

at the Russian River from March until 

late June, and sometimes into early July. 

The Jenner haul-out is the largest in 

Sonoma County. A substantial amount 

of monitoring effort has been conducted 

at the Jenner haul-out and surrounding 

areas. Concerned local residents formed 

the Stewards’ Seal Watch Public 

Education Program in 1985 to educate 

beach visitors and monitor seal 

populations. State Parks Volunteer 

Docents continue this effort towards 

safeguarding local harbor seal habitat. 

On weekends during the pupping and 

molting season (approximately MarchAugust), volunteers conduct public 

outreach and record the numbers of 

visitors and seals on the beach, other 

marine mammals observed, and the 

number of boats and kayaks present. 

Ongoing monthly seal counts at the 

Jenner haul-out were begun by J. 

Mortenson in January 1987, with 

additional nearby haul-outs added to 

the counts thereafter. In addition, local 

resident E. Twohy began daily 

observations of seals and people at the 

Jenner haul-out in November 1989. 

These datasets note whether the mouth 

at the Jenner haul-out was opened or 

closed at each observation, as well as 

various other daily and annual patterns 

of haul-out usage (Mortenson and 

Twohy, 1994). Recently, SCWA began 

regular baseline monitoring of the haulout as a component of its estuary 

management activity. Table 1 shows 

average daily numbers of seals observed 

at the mouth of the Russian River from 

1993–2005 and from 2009–14. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE DAILY NUMBER OF SEALS OBSERVED AT RUSSIAN RIVER MOUTH FOR EACH MONTH, 1993–2005; 

2009–14 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1993 ................................. 140 219 269 210 203 238 197 34 8 38 78 163 

1994 ................................. 138 221 243 213 208 212 246 98 26 31 101 162 

1995 ................................. 133 270 254 261 222 182 216 74 37 24 38 148 

1996 ................................. 144 175 261 247 157 104 142 65 17 29 76 139 

1997 ................................. 154 177 209 188 154 119 186 58 20 29 30 112 

1998 ................................. 119 151 192 93 170 213 232 53 33 21 93 147 

1999 ................................. 161 170 215 210 202 128 216 98 57 20 74 123 

2000 ................................. 151 185 240 180 158 245 256 63 46 50 86 127 

2001 ................................. 155 189 161 168 135 212 275 75 64 20 127 185 

2002 ................................. 117 12 20 154 134 213 215 89 43 26 73 126 

2003 ................................. — 1 26 161 164 222 282 100 43 51 109 116 

2004 ................................. 2 5 39 180 202 318 307 35 40 47 68 61 

2005 ................................. 0 7 42 222 220 233 320 145 — — — — 

Mean, 1993–2005 ............ 118 137 167 191 179 203 238 76 36 32 79 134 

2009 ................................. — — — — — — 219 117 17 22 96 80 

2010 ................................. 66 84 129 136 109 136 267 111 59 25 89 26 

2011 ................................. 116 92 162 124 128 145 219 98 31 53 92 48 

2012 ................................. 108 74 115 169 164 166 156 128 100 71 137 51 

2013 ................................. 51 108 158 112 162 139 411 175 77 58 34 94 

2014 ................................. 98 209 243 129 145 156 266 134 53 15 27 172 

Mean, 2012–14 1 .............. 89 131 173 137 157 154 158 146 78 50 66 106 

Data from 1993–2005 adapted from Mortenson and Twohy (1994) and E. Twohy (unpublished data). Data from 2009–14 collected by SCWA. 

Months represented by dash indicate periods where data were missing or incomplete. 

1 Mean calculated as a weighted average to account for unequal sample sizes between years. See SCWA application, Table 4. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14077 

The number of seals present at the 

Jenner haul-out generally declines 

during bar-closed conditions 

(Mortenson, 1996). SCWA’s pinniped 

monitoring efforts from 1996 to 2000 

focused on artificial breaching activities 

and their effects on the Jenner haul-out. 

Seal counts and disturbances were 

recorded from one to two days prior to 

breaching, the day of breaching, and the 

day after breaching (MSC, 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). In 

each year, the trend observed was that 

harbor seal numbers generally declined 

during a beach closure and increased 

the day following an artificial breaching 

event. Heckel and McIver (1994) 

speculated that the loss of easy access 

to the haul-out and ready escape to the 

sea during bar-closed conditions may 

account for the lower numbers. Table 2 

shows average daily seal counts 

recorded during SCWA monitoring of 

breaching events from 1996–2000 and 

2009–14, representing bar-closed 

conditions, when seal numbers decline. 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE NUMBER OF HARBOR SEALS OBSERVED AT THE MOUTH OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER DURING BREACHING

EVENTS (I.E., BAR-CLOSED CONDITIONS) BY MONTH

1996–2000 ....................... — — — 173 103 100 75 17 5 22 11 — 

2009–14 ........................... 41 90 130 80 80 97 117 — 33 24 36 51 

Dashes represent months when no estuary management events occurred. 

Mortenson (1996) observed that pups 

were first seen at the Jenner haul-out in 

late March, with maximum counts in 

May. In this study, pups were not 

counted separately from other age 

classes at the haul-out after August due 

to the difficulty in discriminating pups 

from small yearlings. From 1989 to 

1991, Hanson (1993) observed that 

pupping began at the Jenner haul-out in 

mid-April, with a maximum number of 

pups observed during the first two 

weeks of May. This corresponds with 

the peaks observed at Point Reyes, 

where the first viable pups are born in 

March and the peak is the last week of 

April to early May (SCWA, 2014). Based 

on this information, pupping season at 

the Jenner haul-out is conservatively 

defined here as March 15 to June 30. 

California Sea Lions 

California sea lions range from the 

Gulf of California north to the Gulf of 

Alaska, with breeding areas located in 

the Gulf of California, western Baja 

California, and southern California. Five 

genetically distinct geographic 

populations have been identified: (1) 

Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific 

Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of 

California, (4) Central Gulf of California 

and (5) Northern Gulf of California 

(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for 

the Pacific Temperate population are 

found within U.S. waters and just south 

of the U.S.-Mexico border, and animals 

belonging to this population may be 

found form the Gulf of Alaska to 

Mexican waters off Baja California. 

Animals belonging to other populations 

(e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into 

U.S. waters during non-breeding 

periods. For management purposes, a 

stock of California sea lions comprising 

those animals at rookeries within the 

U.S. is defined (i.e., the U.S. stock of 

California sea lions) (Carretta et al., 

2014). Pup production at the Coronado 

Islands rookery in Mexican waters is 

considered an insignificant contribution 

to the overall size of the Pacific 

Temperate population (Lowry and 

Maravilla-Chavez, 2005). 

California sea lions are not protected 

under the ESA or listed as depleted 

under the MMPA. Total annual humancaused mortality (389) is substantially 

less than the PBR (estimated at 9,200 

per year); therefore, California sea lions 

are not considered a strategic stock 

under the MMPA. There are indications 

that the California sea lion may have 

reached or is approaching carrying 

capacity, although more data are needed 

to confirm that leveling in growth 

persists (Carretta et al., 2014). 

The best abundance estimate of the 

U.S. stock of California sea lions is 

296,750 and the minimum population 

size of this stock is 153,337 individuals 

(Carretta et al., 2014). The entire 

population cannot be counted because 

all age and sex classes are never ashore 

at the same time; therefore, the best 

abundance estimate is determined from 

the number of births and the proportion 

of pups in the population, with 

censuses conducted in July after all 

pups have been born. Specifically, the 

pup count for rookeries in southern 

California from 2008 was adjusted for 

pre-census mortality and then 

multiplied by the inverse of the fraction 

of newborn pups in the population 

(Carretta et al., 2014). The minimum 

population size was determined from 

counts of all age and sex classes that 

were ashore at all the major rookeries 

and haul-out sites in southern and 

central California during the 2007 

breeding season, including all California 

sea lions counted during the July 2007 

census at the Channel Islands in 

southern California and at haul-out sites 

located between Point Conception and 

Point Reyes, California (Carretta et al., 

2014). An additional unknown number 

of California sea lions are at sea or 

hauled out at locations that were not 

censused and are not accounted for in 

the minimum population size. 

Trends in pup counts from 1975 

through 2008 have been assessed for 

four rookeries in southern California 

and for haul-outs in central and 

northern California. During this time 

period counts of pups increased at an 

annual rate of 5.4 percent, excluding six 

El Nino years when pup production 

declined dramatically before quickly 

rebounding (Carretta et al., 2014). The 

maximum population growth rate was 

9.2 percent when pup counts from the 

El Nin ̃ o years were removed. However, 

the apparent growth rate from the 

population trajectory underestimates the 

intrinsic growth rate because it does not 

consider human-caused mortality 

occurring during the time series; the 

default maximum net productivity rate 

for pinnipeds (12 percent per year) is 

considered appropriate for California 

sea lions (Carretta et al., 2014). 

Historic exploitation of California sea 

lions include harvest for food by Native 

Americans in pre-historic times and for 

oil and hides in the mid-1800s, as well 

as exploitation for a variety of reasons 

more recently (Carretta et al., 2014). 

There are few historical records to 

document the effects of such 

exploitation on sea lion abundance 

(Lowry et al., 1992). Data from 2003–09 

indicate that a minimum of 337 (CV = 

0.56) California sea lions are killed 

annually in commercial fisheries. In 

addition, a summary of stranding 

database records for 2005–09 shows an 

annual average of 65 such events, which 

is likely a gross underestimate because 

most carcasses are not recovered. 

California sea lions may also be 

removed because of predation on 

endangered salmonids (17 per year, 

2008–10) or incidentally captured 

during scientific research (3 per year, 

2005–09) (Carretta et al., 2014). Sea lion 

mortality has also been linked to the 

algal-produced neurotoxin domoic acid 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14078 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

(Scholin et al., 2000). There is currently 

a UME declaration in effect for 

California sea lions. Future mortality 

may be expected to occur, due to the 

sporadic occurrence of such harmful 

algal blooms. Beginning in January 

2013, elevated strandings of California 

sea lion pups have been observed in 

Southern California, with live sea lion 

strandings nearly three times higher 

than the historical average. The causes 

of this UME are under investigation 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/

mmume/californiasealions2013.htm; 

accessed January 29, 2014). 

Solitary California sea lions have 

occasionally been observed at or in the 

vicinity of the Russian River estuary 

(MSC, 1999, 2000), in all months of the 

year except June. Male California sea 

lions are occasionally observed hauled 

out at or near the Russian River mouth 

in most years: once in August 2009, 

January and December 2011, January 

2012, December 2013, and February 

2014. Other individuals were observed 

in the surf at the mouth of the river or 

swimming inside the estuary. Juvenile 

sea lions were observed during the 

summer of 2009 at the Patty’s Rock 

haul-out, and some sea lions were 

observed during monitoring of 

peripheral haul-outs in October 2009. 

The occurrence of individual California 

sea lions in the action area may occur 

year-round, but is infrequent and 

sporadic. 

Northern Elephant Seals 

Northern elephant seals gather at 

breeding areas, located primarily on 

offshore islands of Baja California and 

California, from approximately 

December to March before dispersing for 

feeding. Males feed near the eastern 

Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of 

Alaska, while females feed at sea south 

of 45°N (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le 

Boeuf et al., 1993). Adults then return 

to land between March and August to 

molt, with males returning later than 

females, before dispersing again to their 

respective feeding areas between 

molting and the winter breeding season. 

Populations of northern elephant seals 

in the U.S. and Mexico are derived from 

a few tens or hundreds of individuals 

surviving in Mexico after being nearly 

hunted to extinction (Stewart et al., 

1994). Given the recent derivation of 

most rookeries, no genetic 

differentiation would be expected. 

Although movement and genetic 

exchange continues between rookeries, 

most elephant seals return to their natal 

rookeries when they start breeding 

(Huber et al., 1991). The California 

breeding population is now 

demographically isolated from the Baja 

California population and is considered 

to be a separate stock. 

Northern elephant seals are not 

protected under the ESA or listed as 

depleted under the MMPA. Total annual 

human-caused mortality (8.8) is 

substantially less than the PBR 

(estimated at 4,882 per year); therefore, 

northern elephant seals are not 

considered a strategic stock under the 

MMPA. Modeling of pup counts 

indicates that the population has 

reached its Maximum Net Productivity 

Level, but has not yet reached carrying 

capacity (Carretta et al., 2014). 

The best abundance estimate of the 

California breeding population of 

northern elephant seals is 179,000 and 

the minimum population size of this 

stock is 81,368 individuals (Carretta et 

al., 2015). The entire population cannot 

be counted because all age and sex 

classes are never ashore at the same 

time; therefore, the best abundance 

estimate is determined by counting the 

number of pups produced and 

multiplying by the inverse of the 

expected ratio of pups to total animals 

(McCann, 1985). Specifically, the 

estimated number of pups born in 

California in 2010 (40,684) was used to 

extrapolate via a multiplier of 3.5 

suggested by Boveng (1988) and Barlow 

et al. (1993) for a rapidly growing 

population. The minimum population 

size was estimated by doubling the 

observed pup count (to account for the 

pups and their mothers) (Carretta et al., 

2015). An additional unknown number 

of northern elephant seals are at sea or 

hauled out at locations that were not 

censused and are not accounted for in 

the minimum population size. 

Trends in pup counts from 1958 

through 2005 show that northern 

elephant seal colonies are continuing to 

grow in California, but appear to be 

stable or slowly decreasing in Mexico 

(Stewart et al., 1994; Carretta et al., 

2014). Although growth rates as high as 

16 percent per year have been 

documented for elephant seal rookeries 

in the U.S. from 1959 to 1981 (Cooper 

and Stewart, 1983), much of this growth 

was supported by immigration from 

Mexico. The highest growth rate 

measured for the whole U.S./Mexico 

population was 8.3 percent between 

1965 and 1977. A generalized logistic 

growth model indicates that the 

maximum population growth rate is 

11.7 percent (Carretta et al., 2014). 

Data from 2000–05 indicate that a 

minimum of 8.8 (CV = 0.4) northern 

elephant seals are killed annually in 

commercial fisheries, including hookand-line, gillnet, and trawl fisheries. In 

addition, drift gillnet fisheries exist 

along the entire Pacific coast of Baja 

California and may take animals from 

this population, although few 

quantitative data and no species-specific 

information are available (Carretta et al., 

2014). A summary of stranding database 

records for 2000–04 shows an annual 

average of 1.6 non-fishery related 

mortalities, which is likely a gross 

underestimate because most carcasses 

are not recovered. 

Censuses of pinnipeds at the mouth of 

the Russian River have been taken at 

least semi-monthly since 1987. Elephant 

seals were noted from 1987–95, with 

one or two elephant seals typically 

counted during May censuses, and 

occasional records during the fall and 

winter (Mortenson and Follis, 1997). A 

single, tagged northern elephant seal 

sub-adult was present at the Jenner 

haul-out from 2002–07. This individual 

seal, which was observed harassing 

harbor seals also present at the haul-out, 

was generally present during molt and 

again from late December through 

March. A single juvenile elephant seal 

was observed at the Jenner haul-out in 

June 2009 and, in recent years, a subadult seal was observed in late summer 

of 2013–14. The occurrence of 

individual northern elephant seals in 

the action area has generally been 

infrequent and sporadic in the past 10 

years. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

A significant body of monitoring data 

exists for pinnipeds at the mouth of the 

Russian River. In addition, pinnipeds 

have co-existed with regular estuary 

management activity for decades, as 

well as with regular human use activity 

at the beach, and are likely habituated 

to human presence and activity. 

Nevertheless, SCWA’s estuary 

management activities have the 

potential to disturb pinnipeds present 

on the beach or at peripheral haul-outs 

in the estuary. During breaching 

operations, past monitoring has revealed 

that some or all of the seals present 

typically move or flush from the beach 

in response to the presence of crew and 

equipment, though some may remain 

hauled-out. No stampeding of seals—a 

potentially dangerous occurrence in 

which large numbers of animals 

succumb to mass panic and rush away 

from a stimulus—has been documented 

since SCWA developed protocols to 

prevent such events in 1999. While it is 

likely impossible to conduct required 

estuary management activities without 

provoking some response in hauled-out 

animals, precautionary mitigation 

measures, described later in this 

document, ensure that animals are 

gradually apprised of human approach. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14079 

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. However, based on a significant 

body of site-specific data, harbor seals 

are unlikely to sustain any harassment 

that may be considered biologically 

significant. Individual animals would, 

at most, flush into the water in response 

to maintenance activities but may also 

simply become alert or move across the 

beach away from equipment and crews. 

During 2013, SCWA observed that 

harbor seals are less likely to flush from 

the beach when the primary aggregation 

of seals is north of the breaching activity 

(please refer to Figure 2 of SCWA’s 

application), meaning that personnel 

and equipment are not required to pass 

the seals. Four artificial breaching 

events were implemented in 2013, with 

two of these events occurring north of 

the primary aggregation and two to the 

south (at approximately 800 and 150 ft 

distance) (SCWA, 2014). In both of the 

former cases, all seals present 

eventually flushed to the water, but 

when breaching activity remained to the 

south of the haul-out, only 11 and 53 

percent of seals, respectively, were 

flushed. 

California sea lions and northern 

elephant seals have been observed as 

less sensitive to stimulus than harbor 

seals during monitoring at numerous 

other sites. For example, monitoring of 

pinniped disturbance as a result of 

abalone research in the Channel Islands 

showed that while harbor seals flushed 

at a rate of 69 percent, California sea 

lions flushed at a rate of only 21 

percent. The rate for elephant seals 

declined to 0.1 percent (VanBlaricom, 

2010). In the event that either of these 

species is present during management 

activities, they would be expected to 

display a minimal reaction to 

maintenance activities—less than that 

expected of harbor seals. 

Although the Jenner haul-out is not 

known as a primary pupping beach, 

pups have been observed during the 

pupping season; therefore, we have 

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 recent 

monitoring, but may be 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. 

Similarly, the period of mother-pup 

bonding, critical time needed to ensure 

pup survival and maximize pup health, 

is not expected to be impacted by 

estuary management activities. Harbor 

seal pups are extremely precocious, 

swimming and diving immediately after 

birth and throughout the lactation 

period, unlike most other phocids 

which normally enter the sea only after 

weaning (Lawson and Renouf, 1985; 

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

Lawson and Renouf (1987) investigated 

harbor seal mother-pup bonding in 

response to natural and anthropogenic 

disturbance. In summary, they found 

that the most critical bonding time is 

within minutes after birth. As described 

previously, the peak of pupping season 

is typically concluded by mid-May, 

when the lagoon management period 

begins. As such, it is expected that 

mother-pup bonding would likely be 

concluded as well. The number of 

management events during the months 

of March and April has been relatively 

low in the past, 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. 

In summary, and based on extensive 

monitoring data, we believe 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 (Figure 4; 

SCWA, 2015), use of the haul-out 

despite decades of breaching events 

indicates that abandonment of the haulout is unlikely. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The purposes of the estuary 

management activities are to improve 

summer rearing habitat for juvenile 

salmonids in the Russian River estuary 

and/or to minimize potential flood risk 

to properties adjacent to the estuary. 

These activities would result in 

temporary physical alteration of the 

Jenner haul-out, but are essential to 

conserving and recovering endangered 

salmonid species, as prescribed by the 

BiOp. These salmonids are themselves 

prey for pinnipeds. In addition, with 

barrier beach closure, seal usage of the 

beach haul-out declines, and the three 

nearby river haul-outs may not be 

available for usage due to rising water 

surface elevations. Breaching of the 

barrier beach, subsequent to the 

temporary habitat disturbance, likely 

increases suitability and availability of 

habitat for pinnipeds. Biological and 

water quality monitoring would not 

physically alter pinniped habitat. Please 

see the previously referenced Federal 

Register notice (76 FR 14924; March 18, 

2011) for a more detailed discussion of 

anticipated effects on habitat. 

During SCWA’s pinniped monitoring 

associated with artificial breaching 

activities from 1996 to 2000, the number 

of harbor seals hauled out declined 

when the barrier beach closed and then 

increased the day following an artificial 

breaching event (MSC, 1997, 1998, 

1999, and 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). 

This response to barrier beach closure 

followed by artificial breaching has 

remained consistent in recent years and 

is anticipated to continue. However, it 

is possible that the number of pinnipeds 

using the haul-out could decline during 

the extended lagoon management 

period, when SCWA would seek to 

maintain a shallow outlet channel rather 

than the deeper channel associated with 

artificial breaching. Collection of 

baseline information during the lagoon 

management period is included in the 

monitoring requirements described later 

in this document. SCWA’s previous 

monitoring, as well as Twohy’s daily 

counts of seals at the sandbar (Table 1) 

indicate that the number of seals at the 

haul-out declines from August to 

October, so management of the lagoon 

outlet channel (and managing the 

sandbar as a summer lagoon) would 

have little effect on haul-out use during 

the latter portion of the lagoon 

management period. The early portion 

of the lagoon management period 

coincides with the pupping season. Past 

monitoring during this period, which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14080 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

represents some of the longest beach 

closures in the late spring and early 

summer months, shows that the number 

of pinnipeds at the haul-out tends to 

fluctuate, rather than showing the more 

straightforward declines and increases 

associated with closures and openings 

seen at other times of year (MSC, 1998). 

This may indicate that seal haul-out 

usage during the pupping season is less 

dependent on bar status. As such, the 

number of seals hauled out from May 

through July would be expected to 

fluctuate, but is unlikely to respond 

dramatically to the absence of artificial 

breaching events. Regardless, any 

impacts to habitat resulting from 

SCWA’s management of the estuary 

during the lagoon management period 

are not in relation to natural conditions, 

but rather in relation to conditions 

resulting from SCWA’s discontinued 

approach of artificial breaching during 

this period. 

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 salmonid 

abundance, ultimately providing more 

food for seals present within the action 

area. Thus, any impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. 

SCWA has proposed to continue the 

following mitigation measures, as 

implemented during the previous IHA, 

designed to minimize impact to affected 

species and stocks: 

• SCWA crews would cautiously 

approach the haul-out ahead of heavy 

equipment to minimize the potential for 

sudden flushes, which may result in a 

stampede—a particular concern during 

pupping season. 

• SCWA staff would avoid walking or 

driving equipment through the seal 

haul-out. 

• Crews on foot would make an effort 

to be seen by seals from a distance, if 

possible, rather than appearing 

suddenly, again preventing sudden 

flushes. 

• During breaching events, all 

monitoring would be conducted from 

the overlook on the bluff along Highway 

1 adjacent to the haul-out in order to 

minimize potential for harassment. 

• A water level management event 

may not occur for more than two 

consecutive days unless flooding threats 

cannot be controlled. 

In addition, SCWA proposes to 

continue mitigation measures specific to 

pupping season (March 15–June 30), as 

implemented in the previous IHAs: 

• SCWA will maintain a one week 

no-work period between water level 

management events (unless flooding is 

an immediate threat) to allow for an 

adequate disturbance recovery period. 

During the no-work period, equipment 

must be removed from the beach. 

• If a pup less than one week old is 

on the beach where heavy machinery 

would be used or on the path used to 

access the work location, the 

management action will be delayed 

until the pup has left the site or the 

latest day possible to prevent flooding 

while still maintaining suitable fish 

rearing habitat. In the event that a pup 

remains present on the beach in the 

presence of flood risk, SCWA would 

consult with NMFS to determine the 

appropriate course of action. SCWA will 

coordinate with the locally established 

seal monitoring program (Stewards’ Seal 

Watch) to determine if pups less than 

one week old are on the beach prior to 

a breaching event. 

• Physical and biological monitoring 

will not be conducted if a pup less than 

one week old is present at the 

monitoring site or on a path to the site. 

For all activities, personnel on the 

beach would include up to two 

equipment operators, three safety team 

members on the beach (one on each side 

of the channel observing the equipment 

operators, and one at the barrier to warn 

beach visitors away from the activities), 

and one safety team member at the 

overlook on Highway 1 above the beach. 

Occasionally, there would be two or 

more additional people (SCWA staff or 

regulatory agency staff) on the beach to 

observe the activities. SCWA staff 

would be followed by the equipment, 

which would then be followed by an 

SCWA vehicle (typically a small pickup 

truck, the vehicle would be parked at 

the previously posted signs and barriers 

on the south side of the excavation 

location). Equipment would be driven 

slowly on the beach and care would be 

taken to minimize the number of shutdowns and start-ups when the 

equipment is on the beach. All work 

would be completed as efficiently as 

possible, with the smallest amount of 

heavy equipment possible, to minimize 

disturbance of seals at the haul-out. 

Boats operating near river haul-outs 

during monitoring would be kept within 

posted speed limits and driven as far 

from the haul-outs as safely possible to 

minimize flushing seals. 

We have carefully evaluated SCWA’s 

proposed mitigation measures and 

considered their effectiveness in past 

implementation to preliminarily 

determine whether they are likely to 

effect the least practicable 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: (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; and (3) the 

practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

• Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

• A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

• A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

• A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing the severity 

of behavioral harassment only). 

• Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14081 

habitat during a biologically important 

time. 

• For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of SCWA’s 

proposed measures and on SCWA’s 

record of management at the mouth of 

the Russian River including information 

from monitoring of SCWA’s 

implementation of the mitigation 

measures as prescribed under the 

previous IHAs, we have preliminarily 

determined that the proposed mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA 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 incidental take 

authorizations 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 in the proposed action area. 

Any monitoring requirement we 

prescribe should accomplish one or 

more of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

defined zones of effect (thus allowing 

for more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to stimuli that we 

associate with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment or 

hearing threshold shifts; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take and how anticipated adverse effects 

on individuals may impact the 

population, stock, or species 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

• Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

pertinent information, e.g., received 

level, distance from source); 

• Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

pertinent information, e.g., received 

level, distance from source); 

• Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; or 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

SCWA submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring plan as part of the IHA 

application. It can be found on the 

Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/construction.htm. 

The plan, which has been successfully 

implemented by SCWA under previous 

IHAs, may be modified or supplemented 

based on comments or new information 

received from the public during the 

public comment period. 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? 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

In summary, past monitoring includes 

the following, which is proposed to 

continue should an IHA be issued: 

Baseline Monitoring—Seals at the 

Jenner haul-out are counted twice 

monthly for the term of the IHA. This 

baseline information will provide 

SCWA with details that may help to 

plan estuary management activities in 

the future to minimize pinniped 

interaction. This census begins at local 

dawn and continues for eight hours. All 

seals hauled out on the beach are 

counted every thirty minutes from the 

overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 

adjacent to the haul-out using spotting 

scopes. Monitoring may conclude for 

the day if weather conditions affect 

visibility (e.g., heavy fog in the 

afternoon). Counts are scheduled for 

two days out of each month, with the 

intention of capturing a low and high 

tide each in the morning and afternoon. 

Depending on how the sandbar is 

formed, seals may haul out in multiple 

groups at the mouth. At each thirtyminute count, the observer indicates 

where groups of seals are hauled out on 

the sandbar and provides a total count 

for each group. If possible, adults and 

pups are counted separately. 

In addition to the census data, 

disturbances of the haul-out are 

recorded. The method for recording 

disturbances follows those in Mortenson 

(1996). Disturbances would be recorded 

on a three-point scale that represents an 

increasing seal response to the 

disturbance (Table 3). The time, source, 

and duration of the disturbance, as well 

as an estimated distance between the 

source and haul-out, are recorded. It 

should be noted that only responses 

falling into Mortenson’s Levels 2 and 3 

will be considered as harassment under 

the MMPA, under the terms of this 

proposed IHA. 

TABLE 3—SEAL RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE

Level Type of response Definition 

1 ....................... Alert ......................................... Seal head orientation in response to disturbance. This may include turning head towards the 

disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, or 

changing from a lying to a sitting position. 

2 ....................... Movement ................................ Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals over short 

distances to hurried retreats many meters in length. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14082 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 3—SEAL RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE—Continued 

Level Type of response Definition 

3 ....................... Flight ........................................ All retreats (flushes) to the water, another group of seals, or over the beach. 

Weather conditions are recorded at 

the beginning of each census. These 

include temperature, percent cloud 

cover, and wind speed (Beaufort scale). 

Tide levels and estuary water surface 

elevations are correlated to the 

monitoring start and end times. 

In an effort towards understanding 

possible relationships between use of 

the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal 

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

River estuary are monitored as well (see 

Figure 4 of SCWA’s application). The 

peripheral haul-outs are visited for tenminute counts twice during each 

baseline monitoring day. All pinnipeds 

hauled out were counted from the same 

vantage point(s) at each haul-out using 

a high-powered spotting scope or 

binoculars. 

Estuary Management Event 

Monitoring, Lagoon Outlet Channel— 

Should the mouth close during the 

lagoon management period, SCWA 

would construct a lagoon outlet channel 

as required by the BiOp. Activities 

associated with the initial construction 

of the outlet channel, as well as the 

maintenance of the channel that may be 

required, would be monitored for 

disturbances to the seals at the Jenner 

haul-out. 

A one-day pre-event channel survey 

would be made within one to three days 

prior to constructing the outlet channel. 

The haul-out would be monitored on 

the day the outlet channel is 

constructed and daily for up to the 

maximum two days allowed for channel 

excavation activities. Monitoring would 

also occur on each day that the outlet 

channel is maintained using heavy 

equipment for the duration of the lagoon 

management period. Monitoring of 

outlet channel construction and 

maintenance would correspond with 

that described under the ‘‘Baseline’’ 

section previously, with the exception 

that management activity monitoring 

duration is defined by event duration, 

rather than being set at eight hours. On 

the day of the management event, 

pinniped monitoring begins at least one 

hour prior to the crew and equipment 

accessing the beach work area and 

continues through the duration of the 

event, until at least one hour after the 

crew and equipment leave the beach. 

In an attempt to understand whether 

seals from the Jenner haul-out are 

displaced to coastal and river haul-outs 

nearby when management events occur, 

other nearby haul-outs are monitored 

concurrently with monitoring of outlet 

channel construction and maintenance 

activities. This provides an opportunity 

to qualitatively assess whether these 

haul-outs are being used by seals 

displaced from the Jenner haul-out 

during lagoon outlet channel excavation 

and maintenance. This monitoring 

would not provide definitive results 

regarding displacement to nearby 

coastal and river haul-outs, as 

individual seals are not marked or 

photo-identified, but is useful in 

tracking general trends in haul-out use 

during lagoon outlet channel excavation 

and maintenance. As volunteers are 

required to monitor these peripheral 

haul-outs, haul-out locations may need 

to be prioritized if there are not enough 

volunteers available. In that case, 

priority would be assigned to the 

nearest haul-outs (North Jenner and 

Odin Cove), followed by the Russian 

River estuary haul-outs, and finally the 

more distant coastal haul-outs. 

Estuary Management Event 

Monitoring, Artificial Breaching 

Events—In accordance with the Russian 

River BiOp, SCWA may artificially 

breach the barrier beach outside of the 

summer lagoon management period, 

and may conduct a maximum of two 

such breachings during the lagoon 

management period, when estuary water 

surface elevations rise above seven feet. 

In that case, NMFS may be consulted 

regarding potential scheduling of an 

artificial breaching event to open the 

barrier beach and reduce flooding risk. 

Pinniped response to artificial 

breaching will be monitored at each 

such event during the term of the IHA. 

Methods would follow the census and 

disturbance monitoring protocols 

described in the ‘‘Baseline’’ section, 

which were also used for the 1996 to 

2000 monitoring events (MSC, 1997, 

1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 

2001). The exception, as for lagoon 

management events, is that duration of 

monitoring is dependent upon duration 

of the event. On the day of the 

management event, pinniped 

monitoring begins at least one hour 

prior to the crew and equipment 

accessing the beach work area and 

continues through the duration of the 

event, until at least one hour after the 

crew and equipment leave the beach. 

For all counts, the following 

information would be recorded in 

thirty-minute intervals: (1) Pinniped 

counts, by species; (2) behavior; (3) 

time, source and duration of any 

disturbance; (4) estimated distances 

between source of disturbance and 

pinnipeds; (5) weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, wind); and (5) tide levels 

and estuary water surface elevation. 

Monitoring During Pupping Season— 

The pupping season is defined as March 

15 to June 30. Baseline, lagoon outlet 

channel, and artificial breaching 

monitoring during the pupping season 

will include records of neonate (pups 

less than one week old) observations. 

Characteristics of a neonate pup 

include: Body weight less than 15 kg; 

thin for their body length; an umbilicus 

or natal pelage present; wrinkled skin; 

and awkward or jerky movements on 

land. SCWA will coordinate with the 

Seal Watch monitoring program to 

determine if pups less than one week 

old are on the beach prior to a water 

level management event. 

If, during monitoring, observers sight 

any pup that might be abandoned, 

SCWA would contact the NMFS 

stranding response network 

immediately and also report the 

incident to NMFS’ West Coast Regional 

Office and 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. 

Staffing—Monitoring is conducted by 

qualified individuals, which may 

include professional biologists 

employed by NMFS or SCWA or 

volunteers trained by the Stewards’ Seal 

Watch program (Stewards). All 

volunteer monitors are required to 

attend classroom-style training and field 

site visits to the haul-outs. Training 

covers the MMPA and conditions of the 

IHA, SCWA’s pinniped monitoring 

protocols, pinniped species 

identification, age class identification 

(including a specific discussion 

regarding neonates), recording of count 

and disturbance observations (including 

completion of datasheets), and use of 

equipment. Pinniped identification 

includes the harbor seal, California sea 

lion, and northern elephant seal, as well 

as other pinniped species with potential 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14083 

to occur in the area. Generally, SCWA 

staff and volunteers collect baseline data 

on Jenner haul-out use during the twicemonthly monitoring events. A schedule 

for this monitoring would be established 

with Stewards once volunteers are 

available for the monitoring effort. 

SCWA staff monitors lagoon outlet 

channel excavation and maintenance 

activities and artificial breaching events 

at the Jenner haul-out, with assistance 

from Stewards volunteers as available. 

Stewards volunteers monitor the coastal 

and river haul-out locations during 

lagoon outlet channel excavation and 

maintenance activities. 

Training on the MMPA, pinniped 

identification, and the conditions of the 

IHA is held for staff and contractors 

assigned to estuary management 

activities. The training includes 

equipment operators, safety crew 

members, and surveyors. In addition, 

prior to beginning each water surface 

elevation management event, the 

biologist monitoring the event 

participates in the onsite safety meeting 

to discuss the location(s) of pinnipeds at 

the Jenner haul-out that day and 

methods of avoiding and minimizing 

disturbances to the haul-out as outlined 

in the IHA. 

Reporting 

SCWA is required to submit a report 

on all activities and marine mammal 

monitoring results to the Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, and the 

West Coast Regional Administrator, 

NMFS, ninety days prior to the 

expiration of the IHA if a renewal is 

sought, or within ninety days of the 

expiration of the IHA 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 pinnipeds 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 pinnipeds when disturbance 

occurs; 

• Weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, wind, etc.); 

• Haul-out reoccupation time of any 

pinnipeds based on post-activity 

monitoring; 

• Tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation; and 

• Pinniped 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. 

Summary of Previous Monitoring 

SCWA complied with the mitigation 

and monitoring required under all 

previous authorizations. In accordance 

with the 2014 IHA, SCWA submitted a 

Report of Activities and Monitoring 

Results, covering the period of January 

1 through December 31, 2014. Previous 

monitoring reports (available at 

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

incidental/construction.htm) provided 

additional analysis of monitoring results 

from 2009–13. A barrier beach was 

formed eleven times during 2014, but 

SCWA was required to implement 

artificial breaching for only six of these 

closure events. The Russian River outlet 

was closed to the ocean for a total of 110 

days in 2014, including extended 

closures totaling 29 days during the 

lagoon management period. However, 

these closures all culminated in natural 

breaches and no outlet channel 

management events were required. 

During 2013, five artificial breaching 

events occurred (SCWA, 2014). In 

January 2012, the barrier beach was 

artificially breached after two days of 

breaching activity. There were also 

several periods over the course of the 

year where the barrier beach closed or 

became naturally perched and then 

subsequently breached naturally 

(SCWA, 2013). In 2011, no water level 

management activities occurred (SCWA, 

2012). In 2010, one lagoon management 

event and two artificial breaching events 

occurred (SCWA, 2011). Pinniped 

monitoring occurred no more than 3 

days before, the day of, and the day after 

each water level management activity. 

In addition, SCWA conducted biological 

and physical monitoring as described 

previously. During the course of these 

activities, SCWA did not exceed the 

take levels authorized under the 

relevant IHAs. 

Baseline Monitoring 

Baseline monitoring was performed to 

gather additional information about the 

population of harbor seals utilizing the 

Jenner haul-out including population 

trends, patterns in seasonal abundance 

and the influence of barrier beach 

condition on harbor seal abundance. 

The effect of tide cycle and time of day 

on the abundance of seals at the Jenner 

haul-out was explored in detail in a 

previous report (SCWA, 2012); data 

collected in 2013–14 did not change the 

interpretation of these findings. Baseline 

monitoring at the mouth of the Russian 

River was conducted concurrently with 

monitoring of the peripheral haul-outs, 

and was scheduled for two days out of 

each month with the intention of 

capturing a low and high tide each in 

the morning and afternoon. A total of 23 

baseline surveys were conducted in 

2014. Figure 3 of SCWA’s 2014 report 

shows the mean number of harbor seals 

during twice-monthly baseline 

monitoring events from 2010–14. 

Peak seal abundance, as determined 

by the single greatest count of harbor 

seals at the Jenner haul-out, was on 

March 6 (424 seals), and overall mean 

seal abundance at Jenner was greatest in 

July (mean = 266 ± 2.1 s.e.). Seal 

abundance was significantly greater in 

July and March compared to all other 

months except February. The July peak 

in abundance occurred during the 

summer molting period, while the 

March peak in abundance occurred 

prior to the start of pupping. Similar to 

previous years, seal abundance declined 

in the fall. The reduction in seal 

abundance during the fall months, 

while not atypical, may have been more 

severe for 2014 due to the long periods 

of barrier beach closures during those 

months. 

No distressed or abandoned pups 

were reported in 2014. Pup production 

at the Jenner haul-out was 23.2 percent 

of total seals as calculated from the peak 

pup count recorded on April 29 and the 

number of adult harbor seals present at 

the same time. Although lower than in 

2013, this level of production is more 

typical of past years as compared to 

2012, where 13.8 percent of seals were 

pups at the time of the peak pup count. 

The average of pups observed (when 

pups were present) during April and 

May have been similar between years, 

ranging from 12.9–15.4 for 2011–14. 

Comparison of count data between the 

Jenner and peripheral haul-outs did not 

show any obvious correlations (e.g., the 

number of seals occupying peripheral 

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

decrease as a result of disturbance 

caused by beach visitors). Please review 

SCWA’s report for a more detailed 

discussion. 

Water Level Management Activity 

Monitoring 

Six each pre-breaching, breaching, 

and post-breaching surveys were 

conducted in 2014. Artificial breaching 

events occurred on January 2, January 

30, March 24, October 22, November 17, 

and November 26. No injuries or 

mortalities were observed during 2014, 

and harbor seal reactions ranged from 

merely alerting to crew presence to 

flushing from the beach. No California 

sea lions were observed during water 

level management activities or during 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14084 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

biological and physical monitoring of 

the beach and estuary. A juvenile 

elephant seal was observed on several 

occasions. 

Total observed incidences of marine 

mammal take, by Level B harassment 

only, from water level management 

activity and biological and physical 

monitoring, was 2,116 harbor seals 

(detailed in Table 4) and two northern 

elephant seals (one each disturbed 

during activity indicated on July 22 and 

August 6 below). No California sea lions 

were observed during water level 

management activities or during 

biological and physical monitoring of 

the beach and estuary. While the 

observed take was significantly lower 

than the level authorized, it is possible 

that incidental take in future years 

could approach the level authorized. 

Actual take is dependent largely upon 

the number of water level management 

events that occur, which is 

unpredictable. Take of species other 

than harbor seals depends upon 

whether those species, which do not 

consistently utilize the Jenner haul-out, 

are present. The authorized take, though 

much higher than the actual take, was 

justified based on conservative 

estimated scenarios for animal presence 

and necessity of water level 

management. No significant departure 

from the method of estimation is used 

for the proposed IHA (see ‘‘Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment’’) for the 

same activities in 2015. 

TABLE 4—OBSERVED INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT (LEVEL B HARASSMENT ONLY) OF HARBOR SEALS DURING RUSSIAN

RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, 2013 

Date Event type 

Observed take 

Age class a Number 

Jan 2 ....................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... Adult ....................................... 80 

Jan 16 ..................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult ....................................... 54 

Jan 30 ..................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... Adult ....................................... 163 

Feb 6 ....................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult ....................................... 35 

Feb 20 ..................................... Baseline monitoring ................................................................. Adult ....................................... 12 

Mar 5 ....................................... Jetty study ............................................................................... Adult ....................................... 53 

Mar 20 ..................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult ....................................... 172 

Mar 23 ..................................... Pre-breaching survey .............................................................. Adult ....................................... 2 

Mar 24 ..................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... Adult ....................................... 110 

Apr 9 ....................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult ....................................... 10 

May 29 .................................... Fish seining ............................................................................. Adult ....................................... 12 

Jun 5 ....................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult, pup ............................... 142 + 5 

Jul 3 ........................................ Beach topographic survey ....................................................... Adult ....................................... 228 

Jul 22 ...................................... Jetty study ............................................................................... Adult ....................................... 186 

Jul 29 ...................................... Jetty study ............................................................................... Adult ....................................... 33 

Aug 6 ...................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... ................................................. 169 

Sep 18 .................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... ................................................. 165 

Sep 30 .................................... Jetty study ............................................................................... ................................................. 3 

Oct 16 ..................................... Beach topographic survey ....................................................... ................................................. 129 

Oct 22 ..................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... ................................................. 47 

Nov 14 .................................... Pre-breaching survey .............................................................. ................................................. 46 

Nov 17 .................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... ................................................. 103 

Nov 26 .................................... Artificial breaching ................................................................... ................................................. 162 

Total ................................. .................................................................................................. ................................................. 2,116 

aPups are counted separately through June, after which all seals are counted as adults as it becomes more difficult to accurately age 

individuals. 

It should be noted that one of the 

primary reasons for the increase in 

observed incidences of incidental take 

in 2013–14 (1,351 and 2,116) compared 

with prior years (208 in 2012, 42 in 

2011, 290 in 2010) was a change in 

protocol for the beach topographic 

surveys (although realized level of 

activity would be expected to remain a 

primary determinant in future years). 

Due to the frequent and prolonged river 

mouth closures in 2013—including 

closures of 25 days in June/July and 21 

days in September/October—there was 

an increased need to gather complete 

information about the topography and 

sand elevation of the beach to best 

inform water level management 

activities. 

This necessitated the survey crew to 

access the entire beach, including any 

area where seals were hauled out. 

Therefore, beginning on May 30, 2013, 

the methods for conducting the monthly 

topographic surveys of the barrier beach 

were changed. Previously, monitors at a 

distance would inform survey crews via 

radio if harbor seals became alert to 

their presence. Survey crews would 

then retreat or avoid certain areas as 

necessary to avoid behavioral 

harassment of the seals. According to 

the revised protocol, and provided that 

no neonates or nursing pups were on 

the haul-out, the survey crew would 

continue their approach. The survey 

crews would proceed in a manner that 

allowed for the seals to gradually vacate 

the beach before the survey proceeded, 

thereby reducing the intensity of 

behavioral reactions as much as 

possible, but the numbers of incidences 

of behavioral harassment nevertheless 

increased. SCWA expects that this 

revised protocol would remain in place 

for the coming year. 

SCWA continued to investigate the 

relative disturbance caused by their 

activities versus that caused by other 

sources (see Figures 5–6 of SCWA’s 

monitoring report as well as SCWA, 

2014). The data recorded during 2014 

do not differ from the findings reported 

in SCWA (2014). Harbor seals are most 

frequently disturbed by people on foot, 

with an increase in frequency of people 

present during bar-closed conditions 

(see Figures 5–6 of SCWA’s monitoring 

report). Kayakers are the next most 

frequent source of disturbance overall, 

also with an increase during bar-closed 

conditions. For any disturbance event it 

is often only a fraction of the total haulmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14085 

out that responds. Some sources of 

disturbance, though rare, have a larger 

disturbing effect when they occur. For 

example, disturbances from dogs occur 

less frequently, but these incidents often 

disturb over half of the seals hauled out. 

Conclusions 

The following section provides a 

summary of information available in 

SCWA’s monitoring report. The primary 

purpose of SCWA’s Pinniped 

monitoring plan is to detect the 

response of pinnipeds to estuary 

management activities at the Russian 

River estuary. However, as described 

previously, the questions listed below 

are also of specific interest. The limited 

data available thus far precludes 

drawing definitive conclusions 

regarding the key questions in SCWA’s 

monitoring plan, but we discuss 

preliminary conclusions and available 

evidence below. 

1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds 

haul out at the Russian River estuary 

mouth at Jenner? 

A summary of baseline pinniped 

monitoring provided in SCWA (2012) 

concluded that time of year, tidal state, 

and time of day all influenced harbor 

seal abundance at the Jenner haul-out. 

Baseline data collected from 2009–13 

indicate that the highest numbers of 

pinnipeds are observed at the Jenner 

haul-out in July (during the molting 

season; see Figure 3 of SCWA’s 

monitoring report), as would be 

expected on the basis of harbor seal 

biological and physiological 

requirements (Herder, 1986; Allen et al., 

1989; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; 

Hanan, 1996; Gemmer, 2002). Most 

notable for 2014 was the increase in the 

number of seals observed during 

February, March, and December. 

Although multiple factors likely 

influence harbor seal presence at the 

haul-out, SCWA believes that barrier 

beach condition (i.e., open or closed) 

may be significant. Daily average 

abundance of seals was lower during 

bar-closed conditions compared to baropen conditions. This effect is likely 

due to a combination of factors, 

including increased human disturbance, 

reduced access to the ocean from the 

estuary side of the barrier beach, and the 

increased disturbance from wave action 

when seals utilize the ocean side of the 

barrier beach. While earlier results 

suggested there may have been a 

relationship between the level of 

disturbance and river mouth condition 

(SCWA, 2013, 2014), in 2014 there was 

no evidence that there was a significant 

increase in the number of people near 

the haul-out or the number of 

disturbance events during mouth closed 

conditions. 

Overall, seals appear to utilize the 

Jenner haul-out throughout the tidal 

cycle. Seal abundance is significantly 

lower during the highest of tides when 

the haul-out is subject to an increase in 

wave overwash. Time of day had some 

effect on seal abundance at the Jenner 

haul-out, as abundance was greater in 

the afternoon hours compared to the 

morning hours. More analysis exploring 

the relationship of ambient temperature, 

incidence of disturbance, and season on 

time of day effects would help to 

explain why these variations in seal 

abundance occur. It is likely that a 

combination of multiple factors (e.g., 

season, tides, wave heights, level of 

beach disturbance) influence when the 

haul-out is most utilized. 

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? 

SCWA has, thus far, implemented the 

lagoon outlet channel only once (July 8, 

2010). The response of harbor seals at 

the Jenner haul-out to the outlet channel 

implementation activities was similar to 

responses observed during past artificial 

breaching events (MSC, 1997, 1998, 

1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). The 

harbor seals typically alert to the sound 

of equipment on the beach and leave the 

haul-out as the crew and equipment 

approach. Individuals then haul out on 

the beach while equipment is operating, 

leaving the beach again when 

equipment and staff depart, and 

typically begin to return to the haul-out 

within thirty minutes of the work 

ending. Because the barrier beach 

reformed soon after outlet channel 

implementation and subsequently 

breached on its own following the 2010 

event, maintenance of the outlet 

channel was not necessary and 

monitoring of the continued response of 

pinnipeds at the Jenner haul-out to 

maintenance of the outlet channel and 

management of the lagoon for the 

duration of the lagoon management 

period has not yet been possible. As 

noted previously, when breaching 

activities were conducted south of the 

haul-out location seals often remained 

on the beach during all or some of the 

breaching activity. This indicates that 

seals are less disturbed by activities 

when equipment and crew do not pass 

directly past their haul-out. 

3. Does the number of seals at the Jenner 

haul-out significantly differ from 

historic averages with formation of a 

summer lagoon in the Russian River 

estuary? 

The duration of closures in recent 

years has not generally been dissimilar 

from the duration of closures that have 

been previously observed at the estuary, 

and lagoon outlet channel 

implementation has occurred only once, 

meaning that there has been a lack of 

opportunity to study harbor seal 

response to extended lagoon conditions. 

A barrier beach has formed during the 

lagoon management period twelve times 

since SCWA began implementing the 

lagoon outlet channel adaptive 

management plan, with an average 

duration of nine days. However, the 

additional sustained river outlet 

closures observed in 2014 during the 

lagoon management period (maximum 

29 days) provide some information 

regarding the abundance of seals during 

the formation of a summer lagoon. 

While seal abundance was lower overall 

during bar-closed conditions, overall 

there continues to be a slight increasing 

trend in seal abundance. These 

observations may indicate that, while 

seal abundance exhibits a short-term 

decline following bar closure, the 

number of seals utilizing the Jenner 

haul-out overall during such conditions 

is not affected. Short-term fluctuations 

in abundance aside, it appears that the 

general trends of increased abundance 

during summer and decreased 

abundance during fall, which coincide 

with the annual molt and likely foraging 

dispersal, respectively, are not affected. 

Such short-term fluctuations are likely 

not an indicator that seals are less likely 

to use the Jenner haul-out at any time. 

4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out 

displaced to nearby river and coastal 

haul-outs when the mouth remains 

closed in the summer? 

Initial comparisons of peripheral 

(river and coastal) haul-out count data 

to the Jenner haul-out counts have been 

inconclusive (see Table 2 and Figures 7– 

8 of SCWA’s monitoring report), and 

further information from estuary 

management activities is needed. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, section 

3(18) of 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

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].’’ 

SCWA has requested, and NMFS 

proposes, authorization to take harbor 

seals, California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals, by Level B harassment 

only, incidental to estuary management 

activities. These activities, involving 

increased human presence and the use 

of heavy equipment and support 

vehicles, are expected to harass 

pinnipeds present at the haul-out 

through disturbance only. In addition, 

monitoring activities prescribed in the 

BiOp may harass additional animals at 

the Jenner haul-out and at the three 

haul-outs located in the estuary (Penny 

Logs, Patty’s Rock, and Chalanchawi). 

Estimates of the number of harbor seals, 

California sea lions, and northern 

elephant seals that may be harassed by 

the proposed activities is based upon 

the number of potential events 

associated with Russian River estuary 

management activities and the average 

number of individuals of each species 

that are present during conditions 

appropriate to the activity. As described 

previously in this document, monitoring 

effort at the mouth of the Russian River 

has shown that the number of seals 

utilizing the haul-out declines during 

bar-closed conditions. Tables 5 and 6 

detail the total number of estimated 

takes. 

Events associated with lagoon outlet 

channel management would occur only 

during the lagoon management period, 

and are split into two categories: (1) 

Initial channel implementation, which 

would likely occur between May and 

September, and (2) maintenance and 

monitoring of the outlet channel, which 

would continue until October 15. In 

addition, it is possible that the initial 

outlet channel could close through 

natural processes, requiring additional 

channel implementation events. Based 

on past experience, SCWA estimates 

that a maximum of three outlet channel 

implementation events could be 

required. Outlet channel 

implementation events would only 

occur when the bar is closed; therefore, 

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

take (Table 2). Construction of the outlet 

channel is designed to produce a 

perched outflow, resulting in conditions 

that more closely resemble bar-closed 

than bar-open with regard to pinniped 

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

is appropriate for estimating take during 

all lagoon management period 

maintenance and monitoring activity. 

As dates of outlet channel 

implementation cannot be known in 

advance, the highest daily average of 

seals per month—the March average for 

2009–14—is used in estimating take. For 

maintenance and monitoring activities 

associated with the lagoon outlet 

channel, which would occur on a 

weekly basis following implementation 

of the outlet channel, the average 

number of harbor seals for each month 

was used. 

Artificial breaching activities would 

also occur during bar-closed conditions. 

Data collected specifically during barclosed conditions may be used for 

estimating take associated with artificial 

breaching (Table 2). The number of 

estimated artificial breaching events is 

also informed by experience, and is 

equal to the annual average number of 

bar closures recorded for a given month 

from 1996–2013. 

Prior to 2014, for monthly 

topographic surveys on the barrier 

beach, SCWA estimated that only ten 

percent of seals hauled out would be 

likely to be disturbed by this activity, 

which involves two people walking 

along the barrier beach with a survey 

rod. During those surveys a pinniped 

monitor was positioned at the Highway 

1 overlook and would notify the 

surveyors via radio when any seals on 

the haul-out begin to alert to their 

presence. This enabled the surveyors to 

retreat slowly away from the haul-out, 

typically resulting in no disturbance. 

However, protocol for this monitoring 

activity has been changed (i.e., 

surveyors will continue cautiously 

rather than retreat when seals alert—this 

is necessary to collect required data) 

and the resulting incidences of take are 

now estimated as one hundred percent 

of the seals expected to be encountered. 

The exception to this change is during 

the pupping season, when surveyors 

would continue to avoid seals to reduce 

harassment of pups and/or mothers with 

neonates. For the months of March-May, 

the assumption that only ten percent of 

seals present would be harassed is 

retained. The number of seals expected 

to be encountered is based on the 

average monthly number of seals hauled 

out as recorded during baseline surveys 

conducted by SCWA in 2012–14 

(Table 1). 

For biological and physical habitat 

monitoring activities in the estuary, it 

was assumed that pinnipeds may be 

encountered once per event and flush 

from a river haul-out. The potential for 

harassment associated with these events 

is limited to the three haul-outs located 

in the estuary. In past experience, 

SCWA typically sees no more than a 

single harbor seal at these haul-outs, 

which consist of scattered logs and 

rocks that often submerge at high tide. 

TABLE 5—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: 117 d Implementation: 3 Implementation: 351. 

Maintenance and Monitoring: Maintenance: Maintenance: 1,160. 

May: 80 May: 1 

June: 97 June-Sept: 4/month 

July: 117 Oct: 1 

Aug: 17 Monitoring: Monitoring: 552. 

Sept: 33 June-Sept: 2/month 

Oct: 24 Oct: 1 

Total: 2,063. 

Artificial Breaching 

Oct: 24 Oct: 2 Oct: 48. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14087 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HARBOR SEAL TAKES RESULTING FROM RUSSIAN RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Number of animals expected to occur a Number of events b c

Potential total number of 

individual animals 

that may be taken 

Nov: 36 Nov: 2 Nov: 72. 

Dec: 51 Dec: 2 Dec: 102. 

Jan: 41 Jan: 1 Jan: 41. 

Feb: 90 Feb: 1 Feb: 90. 

Mar: 130 Mar: 1 Mar: 130. 

Apr: 80 Apr: 1 Apr: 80. 

May: 80 May: 2 May: 160. 

12 events maximum Total: 723 

Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys 

Jan: 89 

Feb: 131. 

Mar: 173. 

Apr: 137 

May: 157 

Jun: 154 

Jul: 158 

Aug: 146 

Sep: 78 

Oct: 50 

Nov: 66 

Dec: 106 

1 topographic survey/month; 100 percent of 

animals present Jun-Feb; 10 percent of animals present Mar-May 

Jan: 89 

Feb: 131 

Mar: 17 

Apr: 14. 

May: 16. 

Jun: 154 

Jul: 158 

Aug: 146 

Sep: 78 

Oct: 50 

Nov: 66 

Dec: 106. 

Total: 1,025 

Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary 

1 e 165 165 

Total 3,976 

aFor Lagoon Outlet Channel Management and Artificial Breaching, average daily number of animals corresponds with data from Table 2. For 

Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys, average daily number of animals corresponds with 2012–14 data from Table 1. 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 per month from 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. Number of events includes addition of acoustic telemetry surveys. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA SEA LION AND ELEPHANT SEAL TAKES RESULTING FROM RUSSIAN RIVER

ESTUARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Species 

Number of 

animals expected 

to occur a

Number of 

events a

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 6 6 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event) .................................... 1 6 6 

Artificial Breaching 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per month, Oct-May) ........................... 1 8 8 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per month, Oct-May) ................... 1 8 8 

Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per month year-round for topographical surveys) ........................................................................................................ 1 12 12 

Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per month year-round for topographical surveys) ........................................................................................................ 1 12 12 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CALIFORNIA SEA LION AND ELEPHANT SEAL TAKES RESULTING FROM RUSSIAN RIVER

ESTUARY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Species 

Number of 

animals expected 

to occur a

Number of 

events a

Potential total 

number of 

individual 

animals that 

may be taken 

Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary 

California sea lion (potential to encounter once per month, Jul-Feb) ............................. 1 8 8 

Northern elephant seal ....................................................................................................

(potential to encounter once per month, Jul-Feb) ........................................................... 1 8 8 

Total 

California sea lion .............................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 34 

Elephant seal ..................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 34 

aSCWA expects that California sea lions and/or northern elephant seals could occur during any month of the year, but that any such occurrence would be infrequent and unlikely to occur more than once per month. 

Analyses and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact Analysis 

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.’’ A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of Level B harassment takes alone is not 

enough information on which to base an 

impact determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through behavioral harassment, we 

consider other factors, such as the likely 

nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, and effects on 

habitat. 

Although SCWA’s estuary 

management activities may disturb 

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. While 

these impacts can occur year-round, 

they occur sporadically and for limited 

duration (e.g., a maximum of two 

consecutive days for water level 

management events). Seals will likely 

become alert or, at most, flush into the 

water in reaction to the presence of 

crews and equipment on the beach. 

While disturbance may occur during a 

sensitive time (during the March 15- 

June 30 pupping season), mitigation 

measures have been specifically 

designed to further minimize harm 

during this period and eliminate the 

possibility of pup injury or mother-pup 

separation. 

No injury, serious injury, or mortality 

is anticipated, nor is the proposed 

action likely to result in long-term 

impacts such as permanent 

abandonment of the haul-out. Injury, 

serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds 

would likely result from startling 

animals inhabiting the haul-out into a 

stampede reaction, or from extended 

mother-pup separation as a result of 

such a stampede. Long-term impacts to 

pinniped usage of the haul-out could 

result from significantly increased 

presence of humans and equipment on 

the beach. To avoid these possibilities, 

we have worked with SCWA to develop 

the previously described mitigation 

measures. These are designed to reduce 

the possibility of startling pinnipeds, by 

gradually apprising them of the 

presence of humans and equipment on 

the beach, and to reduce the possibility 

of impacts to pups by eliminating or 

altering management activities on the 

beach when pups are present and by 

setting limits on the frequency and 

duration of events during pupping 

season. During the past fifteen years of 

flood control management, 

implementation of similar mitigation 

measures has resulted in no known 

stampede events and no known injury, 

serious injury, or mortality. Over the 

course of that time period, management 

events have generally been infrequent 

and of limited duration. 

No pinniped stocks for which 

incidental take authorization is 

proposed 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. 

In summary, and based on extensive 

monitoring data, we believe 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 (Figure 4; 

SCWA, 2015), use of the haul-out 

despite decades of breaching events 

indicates that abandonment of the haulout is unlikely. 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 proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, we preliminarily 

find that the total marine mammal take 

from SCWA’s estuary management 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on the affected marine mammal species 

or stocks. 

Small Numbers Analysis 

The proposed number of animals 

taken for each species of pinnipeds can 

be considered small relative to the 

population size. There are an estimated 

30,968 harbor seals in the California 

stock, 296,750 California sea lions, and 

179,000 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14089 

activity, we are proposing to authorize 

take, by Level B harassment only, of 

3,976 harbor seals, 34 California sea 

lions, and 34 northern elephant seals, 

representing 12.8, 0.01, 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 these 

totals represent much smaller numbers 

of individuals that may be harassed 

multiple times. 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, we preliminarily find that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the populations of 

the affected species or 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. Therefore, we have determined 

that the total taking of affected species 

or stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

No species listed under the ESA are 

expected to be affected by these 

activities. Therefore, we have 

determined that a section 7 consultation 

under the ESA is not 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), including Reasonable 

and Prudent Alternatives, which 

prescribes modifications to SCWA’s 

estuary management activities. The 

effects of the proposed activities and 

authorized take would not cause 

additional effects for which section 7 

consultation would be required. 

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, we 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from issuance of 

the original IHA to SCWA for the 

specified activities and found that it 

would not result in any significant 

impacts to the human environment. We 

signed a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) on March 30, 2010. We 

have reviewed SCWA’s application for a 

renewed IHA for ongoing estuary 

management activities for 2015 and the 

2014 monitoring report. Based on that 

review, we have determined that the 

proposed action follows closely the 

IHAs issued and implemented in 2010– 

14 and does not present any substantial 

changes, or significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns which would 

require a supplement to the 2010 EA or 

preparation of a new NEPA document. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

determined that a new or supplemental 

EA or Environmental Impact Statement 

is unnecessary, and will, after review of 

public comments determine whether or 

not to reaffirm its FONSI. The 2010 EA 

is available for review at 

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

incidental/construction.htm. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, we propose to issue an 

IHA to SCWA for conducting the 

described estuary management activities 

in Sonoma County, California, for one 

year from the date of issuance, provided 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. The proposed IHA 

language is provided next. 

This section contains a draft of the 

IHA itself. The wording contained in 

this section is proposed for inclusion in 

the IHA (if issued). 

The Sonoma County Water Agency 

(SCWA), California, is hereby 

authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to 

harass marine mammals incidental to 

conducting estuary management 

activities in the Russian River, Sonoma 

County, California. 

1. This Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) is valid from April 

21, 2015 through April 20, 2016. 

2. This IHA is valid only for activities 

associated with estuary management 

activities in the Russian River, Sonoma 

County, California, including: 

(a) Lagoon outlet channel 

management; 

(b) Artificial breaching of barrier 

beach; 

(c) Geophysical surveys and other 

work associated with a jetty study; and 

(d) Physical and biological monitoring 

of the beach and estuary as required. 

3. General Conditions: 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of SCWA, its designees, and 

work crew personnel operating under 

the authority of this IHA. 

(b) SCWA is hereby authorized to 

incidentally take, by Level B harassment 

only, 3,976 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardii), 34 California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus), and 34 

northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris). 

(c) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 

3(b) of the Authorization or any taking 

of any other species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(d) If SCWA observes a pup that may 

be abandoned, it shall contact the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator immediately (562–980– 

3230; Justin.Viezbicke@noaa.gov) and 

also report the incident to NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources (301–427–8425; 

Benjamin.Laws@noaa.gov) within 48 

hours. Observers shall not approach or 

move the pup. 

4. Mitigation Measures: 

In order to ensure the least practicable 

impact on the species listed in 

condition 3(b), the holder of this 

Authorization is required to implement 

the following mitigation measures: 

(a) SCWA crews shall 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. 

(b) SCWA staff shall avoid walking or 

driving equipment through the seal 

haul-out. 

(c) Crews on foot shall 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. 

(d) During breaching events, all 

monitoring shall be conducted from the 

overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 

adjacent to the haul-out in order to 

minimize potential for harassment. 

(e) A water level management event 

may not occur for more than two 

consecutive days unless flooding threats 

cannot be controlled. 

(f) Equipment shall be driven slowly 

on the beach and care will be taken to 

minimize the number of shut-downs 

and start-ups when the equipment is on 

the beach. 

(g) All work shall be completed as 

efficiently as possible, with the smallest 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 

amount of heavy equipment possible, to 

minimize disturbance of seals at the 

haul-out. 

(h) Boats operating near river haulouts during monitoring shall be kept 

within posted speed limits and driven 

as far from the haul-outs as safely 

possible to minimize flushing seals. 

In addition, SCWA shall implement 

the following mitigation measures 

during pupping season (March 15-June 

30): 

(i) SCWA shall maintain a one week 

no-work period between water level 

management events (unless flooding is 

an immediate threat) to allow for an 

adequate disturbance recovery period. 

During the no-work period, equipment 

must be removed from the beach. 

(j) If a pup less than one 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 shall 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 shall 

consult with NMFS and CDFG to 

determine the appropriate course of 

action. SCWA shall coordinate with the 

locally established seal monitoring 

program (Stewards of the Coast and 

Redwoods) to determine if pups less 

than one week old are on the beach 

prior to a breaching event. 

(k) Physical and biological monitoring 

shall not be conducted if a pup less than 

one week old is present at the 

monitoring site or on a path to the site. 

5. Monitoring: 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct baseline monitoring 

and shall conduct additional monitoring 

as required during estuary management 

activities. Monitoring and reporting 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

the approved Pinniped Monitoring Plan. 

(a) Baseline monitoring shall be 

conducted twice-monthly for the term of 

the IHA. These censuses shall begin at 

dawn and continue for eight hours, 

weather permitting; the census days 

shall be chosen to ensure that 

monitoring encompasses a low and high 

tide each in the morning and afternoon. 

All seals hauled out on the beach shall 

be counted every thirty minutes from 

the overlook on the bluff along Highway 

1 adjacent to the haul-out using highpowered spotting scopes. Observers 

shall indicate where groups of seals are 

hauled out on the sandbar and provide 

a total count for each group. If possible, 

adults and pups shall be counted 

separately. 

(b) In addition, peripheral haul-outs 

shall be visited for ten-minute counts 

twice during each baseline monitoring 

day. 

(c) During estuary management 

events, monitoring shall occur on all 

days that activity is occurring using the 

same protocols as described for baseline 

monitoring, with the difference that 

monitoring shall begin at least one hour 

prior to the crew and equipment 

accessing the beach work area and 

continue through the duration of the 

event, until at least one hour after the 

crew and equipment leave the beach. In 

addition, a one-day pre-event survey of 

the area shall be made within one to 

three days of the event and a one-day 

post-event survey shall be made after 

the event, weather permitting. 

(d) Monitoring of peripheral haul-outs 

shall occur concurrently with event 

monitoring, when possible. 

(e) For all monitoring, the following 

information shall be recorded in thirtyminute intervals: 

i. Pinniped counts by species; 

ii. Behavior; 

iii. Time, source and duration of any 

disturbance, with takes incidental to 

SCWA actions recorded only for 

responses involving movement away 

from the disturbance or responses of 

greater intensity (e.g., not for alerts); 

iv. Estimated distances between 

source of disturbance and pinnipeds; 

v. Weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, percent cloud cover, and 

wind speed); and 

vi. Tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation. 

(a) All monitoring during pupping 

season shall include records of any 

neonate pup observations. SCWA shall 

coordinate with the Stewards’ 

monitoring program to determine if 

pups less than one week old are on the 

beach prior to a water level management 

event. 

6. Reporting: 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to: 

(a) Submit a report on all activities 

and marine mammal monitoring results 

to the Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, and the West Coast 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 

report must contain the following 

information: 

i. The number of seals taken, by 

species and age class (if possible); 

ii. Behavior prior to and during water 

level management events; 

iii. Start and end time of activity; 

iv. Estimated distances between 

source and seals when disturbance 

occurs; 

v. Weather conditions (e.g., 

temperature, wind, etc.); 

vi. Haul-out reoccupation time of any 

seals based on post-activity monitoring; 

vii. Tide levels and estuary water 

surface elevation; 

viii. Seal census from bi-monthly and 

nearby haul-out monitoring; and 

ix. Specific conclusions that may be 

drawn from the data in relation to the 

four questions of interest in SCWA’s 

Pinniped Monitoring Plan, if possible. 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

i. In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this IHA, such as an 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality, SCWA shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. The report must 

include the following information: 

A. Time and date of the incident; 

B. Description of the incident; 

C. Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

D. Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

E. Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

F. Fate of the animal(s); and 

G. Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with SCWA to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SCWA may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

i. In the event that SCWA discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

cause of the injury or death is unknown 

and the death is relatively recent (e.g., 

in less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), SCWA shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. 

The report must include the same 

information identified in 6(b)(i) of this 

IHA. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with SCWA 

to determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

ii. In the event that SCWA discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Notices 14091 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 

51548 (August 29, 2014); see also Letter from 

petitioner, Re: ‘‘Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Pipe From The People’s Republic of China: 

Request For Administrative Review’’ (July 31, 

2014). 

2See Letter from petitioner, Re: ‘‘Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From The People’s 

Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request For 

Administrative Review’’ (November 21, 2014). 

the lead observer determines that the 

injury or death is not associated with or 

related to the activities authorized in the 

IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

SCWA shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

and the West Coast Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of 

the discovery. SCWA shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. 

iii. Pursuant to sections 6(b)(ii–iii), 

SCWA may use discretion in 

determining what injuries (i.e., nature 

and severity) are appropriate for 

reporting. At minimum, SCWA must 

report those injuries considered to be 

serious (i.e., will likely result in death) 

or that are likely caused by human 

interaction (e.g., entanglement, 

gunshot). Also pursuant to sections 

6(b)(ii–iii), SCWA may use discretion in 

determining the appropriate vantage 

point for obtaining photographs of 

injured/dead marine mammals. 

7. Validity of this Authorization is 

contingent upon compliance with all 

applicable statutes and permits, 

including NMFS’ 2008 Biological 

Opinion for water management in the 

Russian River watershed. This 

Authorization may be modified, 

suspended or withdrawn if the holder 

fails to abide by the conditions 

prescribed herein, or if the authorized 

taking is having a more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stock of 

affected marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analysis, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for SCWA’s estuary management 

activities. Please include with your 

comments any supporting data or 

literature citations to help inform our 

final decision on SCWA’s request for an 

MMPA authorization. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Perry Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06236 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–911] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the People’s Republic of 

China: Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review; 2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is rescinding the 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (CWP) from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) for the period January 1, 

2013, through December 31, 2013. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 18, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1785. 

Background 

On August 29, 2014, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

CVD order on CWP from the PRC with 

respect to Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., 

Ltd., Beijing Jia Mei AO Trade Co., Ltd., 

Beijing Jinghua Global Trading Co., 

Benxi Northern Steel Pipes, Co. Ltd., 

CNOOC Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd., 

ETCO (China) International Trading Co., 

Ltd., Guangzhou Juyi Steel Pipe Co., 

Ltd., Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial, 

Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd., 

Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., 

Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., 

Pangang Chengdu Group Iron & Steel 

Co., Ltd., Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Haoyou 

Industry Trade Co., Tianjin 

Longshenghua Import & Export, Tianjin 

Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Weifang 

East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., WISCO & CRM 

Wuhan Materials & Trade., and Zhejiang 

Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd., 

covering the period January 1, 2013, 

through December 31, 2013, based on a 

request by Wheatland Tube Company 

(hereinafter, the petitioner).1 On 

November 21, 2014, the petitioner 

timely withdrew its request for an 

administrative review of the abovelisted companies.2 No other party 

requested a review. 

Rescission of Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Department will rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, if the party that requested the 

review withdraws its request within 90 

days of the publication of the notice of 

initiation of the requested review. In 

this case, the petitioner withdrew its 

request within the 90-day deadline, and 

no other party requested an 

administrative review of the CVD order. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the 

administrative review of CWP from the 

PRC covering the period January 1, 

2013, through December 31, 2013, in its 

entirety. 

Assessment 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess CVDs on all entries of CWP from 

the PRC made during the period of 

review at rates equal to the cash deposit 

of estimated CVDs required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

Notifications 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials, or 

conversion to judicial protective order, 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation that is subject to 

sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06237 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES