50304 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 210830–0172] 

RIN 0648–BJ87 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Lighthouse 

Repair and Tour Operations at 

Northwest Seal Rock, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the St. George Reef Lighthouse 

Preservation Society (Society) for 

authorization to take marine mammals 

over the course of 5 years (2021–2026) 

incidental to conducting aircraft 

operations, lighthouse renovation, light 

maintenance activities, and tour 

operations on the St. George Reef 

Lighthouse Station (Station) on 

Northwest Seal Rock (NWSR). Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is proposing 

regulations to govern that take, and 

requests comments on the proposed 

regulations. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notification of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 8, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal. Go to https://

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0079 in the Search box. 

Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8401. Electronic copies of the 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of the Society’s application 

and any supporting documents, as well 

as a list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Purpose and Need for Regulatory 

Action 

This proposed rule would establish a 

framework under the authority of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow 

for the authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to the Society 

conducting aircraft operations, 

lighthouse renovation, light 

maintenance activities, and tour 

operations on the Station on NWSR 

approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) 

northwest of Crescent City, CA. 

We received an application from the 

Society requesting 5-year regulations 

and authorization to take multiple 

species of marine mammals. Take 

would occur by Level B harassment 

incidental to acoustic and visual 

disturbance of pinnipeds during 

helicopter operations, lighthouse repair, 

and tour operations. Please see 

Background section below for 

definitions of harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Proposed Action 

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

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

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region for up to 5 years if, 

after notice and public comment, the 

agency makes certain findings and 

issues regulations that set forth 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to that activity and other means of 

effecting the ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ on the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (see the 

discussion below in the Proposed 

Mitigation section), as well as 

monitoring and reporting requirements. 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and 

the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 216, subpart I provide the legal 

basis for issuing this proposed rule 

containing 5-year regulations, and for 

any subsequent Letters of Authorization 

(LOAs). As directed by this legal 

authority, this proposed rule contains 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements. 

Summary of Major Provisions Within 

the Proposed Rule 

Following is a summary of the major 

provisions of this proposed rule 

regarding the Society’s activities. These 

measures include: 

• Required implementation of 

mitigation to minimize impact to 

pinnipeds and avoid disruption to 

dependent pups including several 

measures to approach haulouts 

cautiously to minimize disturbance, 

especially when pups are present. 

• Required monitoring of the project 

areas to detect the presence of marine 

mammals before initiating work. 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made, regulations 

are issued, and notice is provided to the 

public. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50305 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 

or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of a 

proposed rule and subsequent LOAs) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed rule 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Information in the Society’s 

application and this notification 

collectively provide the environmental 

information related to proposed 

issuance of these regulations and 

subsequent incidental take 

authorization for public review and 

comment. We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this 

notification prior to concluding our 

NEPA process or making a final 

decision on the request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 23, 2020, NMFS received a 

request from the Society for a proposed 

rule and LOAs to take marine mammals 

incidental to lighthouse maintenance 

and preservation activities at NWSR, 

offshore of Crescent City, CA. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on April 16, 2020. The 

Society’s request is for take of a small 

number of California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus), harbor seals 

(Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus), and northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) by Level B 

harassment only. Neither the Society 

nor NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity. On 

June 9, 2020 (85 FR 35268), we 

published a notice of receipt of the 

Coast Guard’s application in the Federal 

Register, requesting comments and 

information related to the request for 30 

days. We received no comments. 

NMFS previously issued nine 1-year 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

(IHAs) for similar work (75 FR 4774, 

January 29, 2010; 76 FR 10564, February 

25, 2011; 77 FR 8811, February 15, 

2012; 78 FR 71576, November 29, 2013; 

79 FR 6179, February 3, 2014; 81 FR 

9440, February 25, 2016; 82 FR 11005, 

February 17, 2017; 83 FR 19254, May 2, 

2018; and 84 FR 15598, April 16, 2019). 

Generally speaking, the Society 

complied with the requirements (e.g., 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of 

the previous IHAs. However, 

misunderstandings in past 

implementation have resulted in 

missing or incorrectly recorded 

monitoring data, which necessitates 

more frequent reporting in the first year 

(at least) of this rule to ensure 

appropriate monitoring and reporting 

implementation in the future. 

Information regarding their monitoring 

results may be found in the Potential 

Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat and 

Estimated Take sections. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The St. George Reef Lighthouse 

Station was built on NWSR in 1892 and 

is listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places. Covering much of the 

islet’s surface, the structure consists of 

a 14.5 meter (m) high (48 foot (ft)) ovalshaped concrete base (the caisson) that 

holds much of the equipment and 

infrastructure for the lighthouse tower, 

which sits on the top of one end of the 

base. The square tower consists of 

hundreds of granite blocks topped with 

a cast iron lantern room reaching 45.7 

m (150 ft) above sea level. An 

observation gallery platform surrounds 

the lantern room and provides a 360 

degree view to the caisson and rocks 

below. 

The purpose of the project is to 

conduct annual maintenance of the 

Station’s optical light system, 

emergency maintenance in the event of 

equipment failure, restoration activities, 

and lighthouse tours. Because NWSR 

has no safe landing area for boats, the 

Society accesses the Station via 

helicopter. Restoration work sessions 

can occur over 3-day weekends or 

longer one to two week sessions. The 

following specific aspects of the 

proposed activities would likely result 

in the take of marine mammals: 

Acoustic and visual stimuli from (1) 

helicopter landings and takeoffs; (2) 

noise generated during restoration 

activities (e.g., painting, plastering, 

welding, and glazing); (3) maintenance 

activities (e.g., bulb replacement and 

automation of the light system); and (4) 

human presence. Thus, NMFS 

anticipates these activities may 

occasionally cause behavioral 

disturbance (i.e., Level B harassment) of 

four pinniped species. It is expected 

that the disturbance to pinnipeds from 

the activities will be minimal and will 

be limited to Level B harassment. 

The regulations proposed here (and 

any issued LOAs) would replace annual 

IHAs, providing a reduction in the time 

and effort necessary to obtain individual 

incidental take authorizations. 

Dates and Duration 

The Society proposes to conduct the 

activities (aircraft operations, lighthouse 

restoration and maintenance activities, 

and public tours) with a maximum of 70 

helicopter flight days per year. The 

Society’s deed restricts normal access 

from June 1 through October 15 

annually, so currently proposed trips 

under this application would occur 

from October 16 through May 31. 

However, the Society is attempting to 

have the deed revised to allow visits at 

any time of the year. Therefore we will 

consider the implications of possible 

visits during any month of the year in 

our analyses below and we could issue 

LOAs to cover this time of year should 

the society be successful in revising 

their deed. The proposed regulations 

would be valid for a period of 5 years 

(January 1, 2022–December 31, 2026). 

Over the course of this 5-year 

authorization, the Society proposes a 

maximum of 350 days of activities. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The Station is located on NWSR 

(Figure 1), a small, rocky islet (41°50′24′′ 

N, 124°22′06′′ W), approximately 9 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

kilometers (km) (6.0 miles (mi)) offshore 

of Crescent City, California (41°46′48′′ 

N; 124°14′11′′ W). NWSR is 

approximately 91.4 meters (m) (300 feet 

(ft)) in diameter and peaks at 5.18 m (17 

ft) above mean sea level. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Lighthouse Restoration Activities 

Restoration and maintenance 

activities would involve the removal 

and restoration of interior plaster and 

paint, refurbishing structural and 

decorative metal, reworking original 

metal support beams throughout the 

lantern room and elsewhere, replacing 

glass as necessary, upgrading the 

present electrical system; and annual or 

biannual light beacon maintenance. The 

Society proposes to transport no more 

than 12 work crew members (requiring 

up to four round-trip flights) and 

equipment to NWSR for each restoration 

work session. Traditional work sessions 

in the past have been over 3-day long 

weekends. The Society now proposes to 

add occasional longer one to two week 

work sessions to address additional 

restoration needs. 

Public Tours 

The Society began conducting public 

tours to the lighthouse by helicopter in 

1998 in conjunction with restoration 

activities and proposes to conduct 

public tours at the Station on one day 

of a traditional 3-day work session and 

on one to two weekend days of the 

longer work trips. The maximum 

number of expected tourists is 36 people 

per tour day. 

Light Maintenance 

As required by the United States 

Coast Guard, in order to maintain St. 

George Reef Lighthouse as a Private Aid 

to Navigation, the Society needs to 

conduct maintenance of the light. 

Normally this would occur in 

conjunction with a longer restoration 

work session. However, if the beacon 

light fails, the Society proposes to send 

a crew of two to three people to the 

Station by helicopter as soon as possible 

to repair the beacon light. Each repair 

event requires a 1-day trip to the 

Station. 

The Society’s deed currently limits 

visits between June 1 and October 15 of 

each year, but does permit limited 

emergency light repair trips to the 

station during that time. Should the 

Society be successful in eliminating the 

deed restriction on visitation dates, no 

light maintenance trips would be 

considered ‘‘emergency’’. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50307 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Aircraft Operations 

Because NWSR has no safe landing 

area for boats, the proposed restoration, 

maintenance, and touring activities 

require the Society to transport work 

personnel, equipment, and tourists from 

the California mainland to NWSR by 

small helicopter. Helicopter landings 

take place adjacent to the tower on top 

of the oval base caisson. The landing 

area is small, so only small helicopters 

can be accommodated. The helicopter 

seats four passengers and one pilot and 

can also carry cargo in a net below the 

helicopter. 

The number of flights per day varies 

by activity (restoration, tours, or light 

maintenance). We count each arrival 

and departure flight separately. For 

traditional 3-day restoration work 

sessions the 12 work crew members are 

transported to the Station on the 

morning of the first day (typically a 

Friday). The first flight would depart 

from Crescent City Airport no earlier 

than 8:30 a.m. for a 6-minute flight to 

Northwest Seal Rock. The helicopter 

would land and take-off immediately 

after offloading personnel and 

equipment every 20 minutes. To 

transport all 12 people and gear requires 

4 departures and 4 arrivals on the first 

day for a total of 8 flights. The total 

duration of the first day’s aerial 

operations would last for approximately 

4 hours (hrs) and would end at 

approximately 12:30 p.m. Crew 

members would remain overnight at the 

Station and would not return to the 

mainland until the third day. 

For the second day, the Society may 

conduct a maximum of four flights (two 

arrivals and two departures) to transport 

additional materials, if needed. The 

total duration of the second day’s aerial 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP08SE21.004</GPH>

Figure 1. Location of the St. George Reef Lighthouse 
50308 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

operations could last up to 3 hrs. 

Second-day operations are only 

conducted if needed; flights on the 

second day do not always occur. 

For the final day of operations, the 

Society could conduct a maximum of 

eight flights (four arrivals and four 

departures) to transport the crew 

members and equipment/material back 

to the Crescent City Airport. The total 

duration of the third day’s helicopter 

operations could last up to 2 hrs. Thus 

the total number of flights for 

restoration work on a 3 day trip is 20 

(i.e., 8 Friday, 4 Saturday, 8 Sunday). 

The Society proposes no more than 14 

3-day work sessions per year. 

The number of flights and days of 

flights on a one to two week restoration 

trip would be similar to a 3 day trip. 

That is eight flights on the first and last 

days of the trip plus four flights 

potentially on 1 day in the middle of the 

trip as needed. The Society is proposing 

no more than eight long trips per year. 

To date no more than three trips per 

year have ever been conducted. The 

Society would have no more than two 

restoration work trips per month. 

On a 3-day restoration trip tours may 

occur on the last day. The tours would 

be scheduled on a weekend day on the 

beginning and or the end of the work 

party for the one to two week duration 

restoration trips. Additional flights 

would be conducted solely for the 

transport of tourists to and from the 

Lighthouse; those flights would be 

conducted in the later hours of the 

morning and early afternoon. The 

maximum number of expected tourists 

is 36 people per tour day. Thus the 

number of helicopter flights needed for 

tourists is 18 (9 arrivals and 9 

departures). It is expected that each 

flight would land every 15–20 minutes. 

The scheduled duration of each visit is 

one hour per tour group (each tour 

group is one helicopter load of people). 

The last tour group would leave the 

island before 2 p.m. The total number of 

helicopter flights on a tour day is thus 

no more than 26 (18 for tourists, 8 for 

work crew members). 

Light maintenance is expected to take 

no longer than 3 hours and one crew of 

two-three people. Only one-two 

helicopter landings at the Lighthouse 

are anticipated to ferry the crew an 

equipment to service the light. Thus a 

light maintenance trip requires a 

maximum of four flights on one day. 

Most if not all of the disturbance from 

the Society’s activity occurs on the 

flight days. When helicopters are not at 

the Station work crews remain inside or 

on the platform far above the marine 

mammals on the rocks below. Thus the 

number of flight days represents the 

general extent of the disturbance from 

these activities. The society proposes no 

more than 70 days of flight operations 

per year (4 for regular or emergency 

light maintenance trips and 66 for work 

restoration trips (with additional flights, 

but not days of flight activity on no 

more than 30 tour days). 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

Proposed Mitigation and Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and proposed to 

be authorized for this action, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’s SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal 

SARs (e.g., Carretta et al. 2020). All 

values presented in Table 1 are the most 

recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2019 SARs (Carretta et al. 2020) and 

draft 2020 SARs (available online at: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

TABLE 1—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions) 

California sea lion ............... Zalophus californianus .............. U.S ............................................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 

2014).

14,011 >320 

Northern fur seal ................. Callorhinus ursinus ................... California Breeding ................... -, D, N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 

2013).

451 1.8 

Steller sea lion .................... Eumetopias jubatus .................. Eastern U.S .............................. -, -, N 43,201 a (see SAR, 

43,201, 2017).

2,592 113 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50309 

TABLE 1—SPECIES THAT SPATIALLY CO-OCCUR WITH THE ACTIVITY TO THE DEGREE THAT TAKE IS REASONABLY LIKELY

TO OCCUR—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Pacific harbor seal .............. Phoca vitulina richardii .............. California ................................... -, -, N 30,968 (N/A, 27,348, 

2012).

1,641 43 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports, CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual Mortality/Serious Injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV 

associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 

As indicated above, all four species 

(with four managed stocks) in Table 1 

temporally and spatially co-occur with 

the activity to the degree that take is 

reasonably likely to occur, and we have 

proposed authorizing it. All species that 

could potentially occur in the proposed 

survey areas are included in Table 1. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions occur from 

Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to 

the southern tip of Baja California. Sea 

lions breed on the offshore islands of 

southern and central California from 

May through July (Heath and Perrin, 

2008). During the non-breeding season, 

adult and subadult males and juveniles 

migrate northward along the coast to 

central and northern California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Vancouver Island 

(Jefferson et al., 1993). They return 

south the following spring (Heath and 

Perrin 2008, Lowry and Forney 2005). 

Females and some juveniles tend to 

remain closer to rookeries (Antonelis et 

al., 1990; Melin et al., 2008). Adult 

females generally remain south of 

Monterey Bay, California throughout the 

year, feeding in coastal waters in the 

summer and offshore waters in the 

winter, alternating between foraging and 

nursing their pups on shore until the 

next pupping/breeding season (Melin 

and DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008). 

In warm water years (El Nin ̃ o), some 

females range as far north as 

Washington and Oregon, presumably 

following prey. The current maximum 

population growth rate for California sea 

lions is 12 percent (Carretta et al., 2019). 

Crescent Coastal Research (CCR) 

conducted a 3-year survey of the 

wildlife species on NWSR for the 

Society. They reported that counts of 

California sea lions on NWSR varied 

greatly (from 6 to 541) during the 

observation period from April 1997 

through July 2000. CCR reported that 

counts for California sea lions during 

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

August), and fall (September–October), 

averaged 60, 154, and 235, respectively 

(CCR 2001). NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) conducted 14 

annual marine mammal surveys over 19 

years (1998 to 2017) at St. George Reef. 

California sea lions were last 

documented at NWSR in July of 2003 

(11) (unpublished data, Beth Jaime, 

NMFS SWFSC, pers. comm., 2020). 

Northern Fur Seal 

Northern fur seals occur from 

southern California north to the Bering 

Sea and west to the Sea of Okhotsk and 

Honshu Island of Japan. NMFS 

recognizes two separate stocks of 

northern fur seals within U.S. waters: 

An Eastern Pacific stock distributed 

among sites in Alaska, British Columbia, 

and islets along the west coast of U.S. 

waters (i.e., St. Paul, St. George, and 

Bogoslof); and a California stock 

(including San Miguel Island and the 

Farallon Islands) (Muto et al., 2018). 

Northern fur seals breed in Alaska 

and migrate along the west coast during 

fall and winter. Due to their pelagic 

habitat, they are rarely seen from shore 

in the continental United States, but 

individuals occasionally come ashore 

on islands well offshore (i.e., Farallon 

Islands and Channel Islands in 

California). During the breeding season, 

approximately 45 percent of the 

worldwide population inhabits the 

Pribilof Islands in the Southern Bering 

Sea, with the remaining animals spread 

throughout the North Pacific Ocean 

(Caretta et al., 2015). 

Northern fur seals have not been 

observed during the NMFS SWFSC’s 

marine mammal surveys of St. George 

Reef from 1998 to 2017 (Beth Jaime, 

NMFS, pers. comm., 2020). However, 

CCR observed one male northern fur 

seal on Northwest Seal Rock in October, 

1998 (CCR 2001). It is possible that a 

few animals may use the island more 

often than indicated by the surveys, if 

they were mistaken for other otariid 

species (i.e., eared seals or fur seals and 

sea lions) (M. DeAngelis, NMFS, pers. 

comm., 2007). 

Steller Sea Lions 

Steller sea lions range extends from 

the North Pacific Rim from northern 

Japan to California with areas of 

abundance in the Gulf of Alaska and 

Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2019). 

Steller sea lions consist of two distinct 

stocks: The western and eastern stocks 

divided at 144° West longitude (Cape 

Suckling, Alaska). The western stock of 

Steller sea lions inhabit central and 

western Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian 

Islands, as well as coastal waters and 

breed in Asia (e.g., Japan and Russia). 

The eastern stock includes sea lions 

living in southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, California, Oregon, and 

Washington and is the only one in the 

project area. The stock was delisted 

under the ESA in 2013. 

The species is not known to migrate, 

but individuals, especially juveniles and 

adult males, disperse widely outside of 

the breeding season (late May through 

early August), thus potentially 

intermixing eastern and western stocks 

(Muto et al., 2018). Steller sea lions give 

birth in May through July and breeding 

commences a couple of weeks after 

birth. Pups are weaned during the 

winter and spring of the following year. 

A northward shift in the overall 

breeding distribution has occurred, with 

a contraction of the range in southern 

California and new rookeries 

established in southeastern Alaska 

(Pitcher et al., 2007). Overall, counts of 

pups in California, Oregon, British 

Columbia, and Southeast Alaska, as well 

as counts of non-pups in the same 

regions plus Washington has increased 

steadily since the 1980s. Stock increase 

has been attributed to escalation of pup 

counts in all regions (NMFS 2013). 

Steller sea lion numbers at NWSR 

ranged from 20 to 355 animals between 

1997 and 2000 (CCR 2001). Counts of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50310 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Steller sea lions during the spring 

(April–May), summer (June–August), 

and fall (September–October), averaged 

68, 110, and 56, respectively (CCR 

2001). A multi-year survey at NWSR 

between 2000 and 2004 showed Steller 

sea lion numbers ranging from 175 to 

354 in July (M. Lowry, NMFS/SWFSC, 

unpubl. data). The SWFSC surveys 

document a consistent presence of 

Steller sea lions at NWSR in 11 out of 

14 of yearly surveys between 1998 and 

2017 with an average of 240 individuals 

(Beth Jaime, NMFS, pers. comm., 2020). 

The largest presence of Steller sea lions 

at St. George Reef is found on Southwest 

Seal Rock, approximately 6 km (3.7 

miles) from NWSR, with an average of 

915 individuals observed among the 

SWFSC surveys (unpublished data, Beth 

Jaime, NMFS/SWFSC, pers. comm., 

2020). Southwest Seal Rock is a rookery 

that has contained up to 450 pups 

(Wright et al. 2017). Adults with pups 

are known to relocate from there to 

NWSR in the fall. (CCR 2001). Winter 

use of NWSR by Steller sea lions is 

thought to be minimal, due to 

inundation of the natural portion of the 

island by large swells. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Harbor seals are widely distributed in 

the North Atlantic and North Pacific. 

Phoca vitulina richardii inhabits coastal 

and estuarine areas from Mexico to 

Alaska (Carretta et al., 2020) and is the 

only stock present in the action area. 

In California, over 500 harbor seal 

haulout sites are widely distributed 

along the mainland and offshore 

islands, and include rocky shores, 

beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry 

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

and females give birth during the spring 

and summer, although, the pupping 

season varies with latitude. Females 

nurse their pups for an average of 24 

days and pups are ready to swim 

minutes after being born. Harbor seal 

pupping takes place at many locations 

and rookery size varies from a few pups 

to many hundreds of pups. The nearest 

harbor seal rookery relative to the 

proposed project site is at Castle Rock 

National Wildlife Refuge, located 

approximately located 965 m (0.6 mi) 

south of Point St. George, and 2.4 km 

(1.5 mi) north of the Crescent City 

Harbor in Del Norte County, California 

(US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

2007). 

CCR noted that harbor seal use of 

NWSR was minimal, with only one 

sighting of a group of six animals, 

during 20 observation surveys from 

1997 through 2000 (CCR 2001). They 

hypothesized that harbor seals may 

avoid the islet because of its distance 

from shore, relatively steep topography, 

and full exposure to rough and 

frequently turbulent sea swells. The 

SWFSC surveys did not record harbor 

seals at NWSR (unpublished data, Beth 

Jaime, NMFS/SWFSC, pers. comm., 

2020). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Proposed 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Acoustic and visual stimuli generated 

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

restoration activities (e.g., painting, 

plastering, welding, and glazing); (3) 

maintenance activities (e.g., bulb 

replacement and automation of the light 

system); and (4) human presence may 

have the potential to cause behavioral 

disturbance. 

Noise 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the sound measurements 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this proposed rule. 

Sound pressure is the sound force per 

unit area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (mPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) 

is the pressure resulting from a force of 

one newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. Sound pressure level 

(SPL) is the ratio of a measured sound 

pressure and a reference level. The 

commonly used reference pressure is 1 

mPa for under water, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re: 1 mPa. The commonly 

used reference pressure is 20 mPa for in 

air, and the units for SPLs are dB: 20 

mPa. 

SPL (in decibels (dB)) = 20 log 

(pressure/reference pressure). 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

expressed as the peak, the peak-peak, or 

the root mean square (rms). Root mean 

square is the square root of the 

arithmetic average of the squared 

instantaneous pressure values. All 

references to SPL in this document refer 

to the rms unless otherwise noted. SPL 

does not take into account the duration 

of a sound. 

Noise testing on the helicopter that 

has been used by the Society, a 

Robinson R66, as required for Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

approval, required an overflight at 150 

m (492 ft) above ground level, 109 knots 

(202 km/hr) and a maximum gross 

weight of 1,225 kg (2,700 lbs). The noise 

level measured on the ground at this 

distance and speed was 84.5 dB re: 20 

mPa (A-weighted). FAA testing also 

measured the sound levels on the 

ground for a typical helicopter takeoff 

and approach as 87.8 dB re: 20 mPa (Aweighted) (Robinson 2017). Based on 

this information, we expect that the 

received sound levels at the landing 

area on the Station’s caisson would be 

between 84.5 and 87.8 dB re: 20 mPa (Aweighted). These sound levels are below 

the NMFS behavioral threshold for 

airborne pinniped disturbance (90 dB 

for harbor seals and 100dB for all other 

pinnipeds) (NMFS 2016). 

There is a dearth of information on 

acoustic effects of helicopter overflights 

on pinniped hearing and 

communication (Richardson, et al., 

1995) and to NMFS’ knowledge, there 

has been no specific documentation of 

temporary threshold shift (TTS), let 

alone permanent threshold shift (PTS), 

in free-ranging pinnipeds exposed to 

helicopter operations during realistic 

field conditions (Baker et al., 2012; 

Scheidat et al., 2011). 

The primary factor that may influence 

abrupt movements of animals is engine 

noise, specifically changes in engine 

noise. The physical presence of aircraft 

could also lead to non-auditory effects 

on marine mammals involving visual or 

other cues. Airborne sound from a lowflying helicopter or airplane may be 

heard by marine mammals while at the 

surface or underwater. Responses by 

mammals could include hasty dives or 

turns, change in course, or flushing and 

stampeding from a haulout site. There 

are few well documented studies of the 

impacts of aircraft overflight over 

pinniped haulout sites or rookeries, and 

many of those that exist, are specific to 

military activities (Efroymson et al., 

2001). In 2008, NMFS issued an IHA to 

the USFWS for the take of small 

numbers of Steller sea lions and Pacific 

harbor seals, incidental to rodent 

eradication activities on an islet offshore 

of Rat Island, AK conducted by 

helicopter. The 15-minute aerial 

treatment consisted of the helicopter 

slowly approaching the islet at an 

elevation of over 1,000 ft (304.8 m); 

gradually decreasing altitude in slow 

circles; and applying the rodenticide in 

a single pass and returning to Rat Island. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50311 

The gradual and deliberate approach to 

the islet resulted in the sea lions present 

initially becoming aware of the 

helicopter and calmly moving into the 

water. Further, the USFWS reported that 

all responses fell well within the range 

of Level B harassment (i.e., limited, 

short-term displacement resulting from 

aircraft noise due to helicopter 

overflights). 

Several factors complicate the 

analysis of long- and short-term effects 

for aircraft overflights. Information on 

behavioral effects of overflights by 

military aircraft (or component 

stressors) on most wildlife species is 

sparse. Moreover, models that relate 

behavioral changes to abundance or 

reproduction, and those that relate 

behavioral or hearing effects thresholds 

from one population to another are 

generally not available. In addition, the 

aggregation of sound frequencies, 

durations, and the view of the aircraft 

into a single exposure metric is not 

always the best predictor of effects and 

it may also be difficult to calculate. 

Overall, there has been no indication 

that single or occasional aircraft flying 

above pinnipeds in water cause long 

term displacement of these animals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The Lowest 

Observed Adverse Effects Level 

(LOAEL) for aircraft elevation 

disturbance are rather variable for 

pinnipeds on land, ranging from just 

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

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

Bowles and Stewart (1980) estimated an 

LOAEL of 305 m (1,000 ft) for 

helicopters (low and landing) affecting 

California sea lions and harbor seals 

observed on San Miguel Island, CA; 

animals responded to some degree by 

moving within the haulout and entering 

into the water, stampeding into the 

water, or clearing the haul out 

completely. Both species always 

responded with the raising of their 

heads. California sea lions appeared to 

react more to the visual cue of the 

helicopter than the noise. 

It is possible that the initial helicopter 

approach to NWSR would cause a 

subset of the marine mammals hauled 

out to react. CCR found a range of from 

0 to 40 percent of all pinnipeds present 

on the island were temporarily 

displaced (flushed) due to initial 

helicopter landings in 1998. Their data 

suggested that the majority of these 

animals returned to the island once 

helicopter activities ceased, over a 

period of minutes to 2 hours (CCR, 

2001). Far fewer animals flushed into 

the water on subsequent takeoffs and 

landings, suggesting rapid habituation 

to helicopter landing and departure 

(CCR, 2001; Guy Towers, Society, pers. 

comm.). CCR’s data also showed that the 

number of pinnipeds that flush is low 

when takeoffs and landings occur less 

than 30 minutes apart, which is the case 

for all of the flights by the Society. 

Observations from monitoring to date 

for this work confirms the above pattern 

of partial flushing at initial landing and 

increasing habituation thereafter. 

Any noise associated with restoration 

and maintenance activities is likely to 

be from light construction (e.g., sanding, 

hammering, or use of hand drills). The 

Society will confine all restoration 

activities to inside the existing 

structure, which would occur mostly on 

the upper levels of the Station. 

Pinnipeds hauled out on NWSR do not 

have access to the upper levels of the 

Station and sound levels are not likely 

to exceed the thresholds. 

Human Presence 

The appearance of Society personnel 

may have the potential to cause Level B 

harassment of marine mammals hauled 

out on NWSR. Disturbance includes a 

variety of effects, from subtle to 

conspicuous changes in behavior, 

movement, and displacement. 

Disturbance may result in reactions 

ranging from an animal simply 

becoming alert to the presence of the 

Society’s restoration personnel (e.g., 

turning the head, assuming a more 

upright posture) to flushing from the 

haulout site into the water. NMFS does 

not consider the lesser reactions to 

constitute behavioral harassment, or 

Level B harassment takes, but rather 

assumes that pinnipeds that move 

greater than two body lengths or longer, 

or if already moving, a change of 

direction of greater than 90 degrees in 

response to the disturbance, or 

pinnipeds that flush into the water, are 

behaviorally harassed, and thus 

considered incidentally taken by Level 

B harassment. NMFS uses a 3-point 

scale (Table 2) to determine which 

disturbance reactions constitute take 

under the MMPA. Levels two and three 

(movement and flush) are considered 

take, whereas level one (alert) is not. 

Animals that respond to the presence of 

the Society’s personnel by becoming 

alert, but do not move or change the 

nature of locomotion as described, are 

not considered to have been subject to 

behavioral harassment. 

TABLE 2—DISTURBANCE SCALE OF PINNIPED RESPONSES TO IN-AIR SOURCES TO DETERMINE TAKE

Level Type of response Definition 

1 ............................. Alert ........................................ Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include 

turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body 

rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement of less than twice the animal’s body length. 

2 * ........................... Movement .............................. Movements in response to the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals at 

least twice the animal’s body length to longer retreats over the beach, or if already moving a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees. 

3 * ........................... Flush ...................................... All retreats (flushes) to the water. 

* Only Levels 2 and 3 are considered take, whereas Level 1 is not. 

Reactions to human presence, if any, 

depend on species, state of maturity, 

experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, time of day, and 

many other factors (Richardson et al., 

1995; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart 

2007). If a marine mammal does react 

briefly to human presence by changing 

its behavior or moving a small distance, 

the impacts of the change are unlikely 

to be significant to the individual, let 

alone the stock or population. However, 

if visual stimuli from human presence 

displace marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on 

individuals and populations could be 

significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 

2007; Weilgart, 2007). Nevertheless, this 

is not likely to occur during the 

proposed activities since rapid 

habituation or movement to nearby 

haulouts is expected to occur after a 

potential pinniped flush. 

Disturbances resulting from human 

activity can impact short- and long-term 

pinniped haulout behavior (Renouf et 

al., 1981; Schneider and Payne, 1983; 

Terhune and Almon, 1983; Allen et al., 

1984; Stewart, 1984; Suryan and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50312 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Harvey, 1999; and Kucey and Trites, 

2006). Numerous studies have shown 

that human activity can flush harbor 

seals off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1984; 

Calambokidis et al., 1991; and Suryan 

and Harvey 1999) or lead Hawaiian 

monk seals (Neomonachus 

schauinslandi) to avoid beaches 

(Kenyon 1972). In one case, human 

disturbance appeared to cause Steller 

sea lions to desert a breeding area at 

Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, 

Alaska (Kenyon 1962). 

In cases where vessels actively 

approached marine mammals (e.g., 

whale watching or dolphin watching 

boats), scientists have documented that 

animals exhibit altered behavior such as 

increased swimming speed, erratic 

movement, and active avoidance 

behavior (Acevedo, 1991; Trites and 

Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; 

Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 

interval (Richter et al., 2003), disruption 

of normal social behaviors (Lusseau 

2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 

activities which may increase energetic 

costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004). In 

1997, Henry and Hammil (2001) 

conducted a study to measure the 

impacts of small boats (i.e., kayaks, 

canoes, motorboats and sailboats) on 

harbor seal haul out behavior in Metis 

Bay, Quebec, Canada. During that study, 

the authors noted that the most frequent 

disturbances (n=73) were caused by 

lower speed, lingering kayaks, and 

canoes (33.3 percent) as opposed to 

motorboats (27.8 percent) conducting 

high speed passes. The seal’s flight 

reactions could be linked to a surprise 

factor by kayaks and canoes which 

approach slowly, quietly, and low on 

the water making them look like 

predators. However, the authors note 

that once the animals were disturbed, 

there did not appear to be any 

significant lingering effect on the 

recovery of numbers to their predisturbance levels. In conclusion, the 

study showed that boat traffic at current 

levels has only a temporary effect on the 

haul out behavior of harbor seals. 

In 2004, Acevedo-Gutierrez and 

Johnson (2007) evaluated the efficacy of 

buffer zones for watercraft around 

harbor seal haulout sites on Yellow 

Island, Washington. The authors 

estimated the minimum distance 

between the vessels and the haulout 

sites; categorized the vessel types; and 

evaluated seal responses to the 

disturbances. During the course of the 7- 

weekend study, the authors recorded 14 

human-related disturbances which were 

associated with stopped powerboats and 

kayaks. During these events, hauled out 

seals became noticeably active and 

moved into the water. The flushing 

occurred when stopped kayaks and 

powerboats were at distances as far as 

453 and 1,217 ft (138 and 371 m), 

respectively. The authors note that the 

seals were unaffected by passing 

powerboats, even those approaching as 

close as 128 ft (39 m), possibly 

indicating that the animals had become 

tolerant of the brief presence of the 

vessels and ignored them. The authors 

reported that on average, the seals 

quickly recovered from the disturbances 

and returned to the haulout site in less 

than or equal to 60 minutes. Seal 

numbers did not return to predisturbance levels within 180 minutes 

of the disturbance less than one quarter 

of the time observed. The study 

concluded that the return of seal 

numbers to pre-disturbance levels and 

the relatively regular seasonal cycle in 

abundance throughout the area counter 

the idea that disturbances from 

powerboats may result in site 

abandonment (Johnson and AcevedoGutierrez, 2007). 

Stampede 

There are other ways in which 

disturbance, as described previously, 

could result in more than Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. They 

are most likely to be consequences of 

stampeding, a potentially dangerous 

occurrence in which large numbers of 

animals succumb to mass panic and 

rush away from a stimulus. These 

situations are particularly injurious 

when: (1) Animals fall when entering 

the water at high-relief locations; (2) 

there is extended separation of mothers 

and pups; and (3) crushing of pups by 

large males occurs during a stampede. 

However, NMFS does not expect any of 

these scenarios to occur at NWSR as the 

proposed action occurs outside of the 

pupping/breeding season, no mother/ 

pup pairs are expected to be at the 

Station, there are no cliffs on NWSR, 

and previous monitoring has not 

recorded stampeding events during 

prior authorizations. The haulout sites 

at NWSR consist of ridges with 

unimpeded and non-obstructive access 

to the water. If disturbed, the small 

number of hauled out adult animals 

may move toward the water without risk 

of encountering barriers or hazards that 

would otherwise prevent them from 

leaving the area or increase injury 

potential. Moreover, the proposed area 

would not be crowded with large 

numbers of Steller sea lions, further 

eliminating the possibility of potentially 

injurious mass movements of animals 

attempting to vacate the haulout. Thus, 

in this case, NMFS considers the risk of 

injury, serious injury, or death to hauled 

out animals as extremely low. 

Stress Responses 

An animal’s perception of a threat 

may be sufficient to trigger stress 

responses consisting of some 

combination of behavioral responses, 

autonomic nervous system responses, 

neuroendocrine responses, or immune 

responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 

2000). In many cases, an animal’s first 

and sometimes most economical (in 

terms of energetic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor. Autonomic nervous system 

responses to stress typically involve 

changes in heart rate, blood pressure, 

and gastrointestinal activity. These 

responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50313 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003), however distress is an unlikely 

result of this project based on 

observations of marine mammals during 

previous projects in the area. 

Auditory Masking 

Sound can disrupt behavior through 

masking, or interfering with, an animal’s 

ability to detect, recognize, or 

discriminate between acoustic signals of 

interest (e.g., those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, aircraft, 

sonar) in origin. The ability of a noise 

source to mask biologically important 

sounds depends on the characteristics of 

both the noise source and the signal of 

interest (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, 

temporal variability, direction), in 

relation to each other and to an animal’s 

hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, 

frequency range, critical ratios, 

frequency discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. All anthropogenic 

sound sources, but especially chronic 

and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from 

vessel traffic), contribute to elevated 

ambient sound levels, thus intensifying 

masking. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The only direct habitat modification 

associated with the proposed activity is 

the restoration of the existing light 

station structures. Indirect effects of the 

activities on nearby feeding or haulout 

habitat are not expected. Increased noise 

levels are not likely to affect acoustic 

habitat or adversely affect marine 

mammal prey in the vicinity of the 

project area because source levels are 

low, transient, well away from the 

water, and do not readily transmit into 

the water. The Society would remove all 

waste, discarded materials and 

equipment from the island after each 

visit. Thus, NMFS does not expect that 

the proposed activity would have any 

effects on marine mammal habitat and 

NMFS expects that there will be no 

long- or short-term physical impacts to 

pinniped habitat on NWSR. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this 

rulemaking, which will inform both 

NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small 

numbers’’ and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

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). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to helicopter operations 

and lighthouse maintenance activities. 

Based on the nature of the activity, 

Level A harassment is neither 

anticipated nor proposed to be 

authorized. As discussed earlier, 

behavioral (Level B) harassment is 

limited to movement and flushing, 

defined by the disturbance scale of 

pinniped responses to in-air sources to 

determine take (Table 2). Furthermore, 

no mortality is anticipated or proposed 

to be authorized for this activity. Below 

we describe how the take is estimated. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The Society’s monitoring efforts 

reported zero marine mammals present 

on NWSR, in 2010. Furthermore, 

operations were not conducted in the 

years 2013 through 2016; thus, 

monitoring was not conducted. No visits 

occurred in 2020. Visits have occurred 

in all other years since 2010. 

Steller sea lions were first reported 

during restoration trips conducted in 

April (9) and November (350, with a 

maximum of 155/day) of 2011 (St. 

George Reef Lighthouse Preservation 

Society (SGRLPS) 2011). Zero 

observations of Steller sea lions were 

reported during the one 2012 restoration 

trip and three 2017 trips conducted 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50314 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(SGRLPS 2012, 2018). Four trips were 

conducted in 2018 (February, March, 

April, and November); only the 

November session reported any 

individuals (three) on site (SGRLPS 

2018). One restoration trip was 

conducted in November 2019 and had 

22 Steller sea lions present (SGRLPS 

2020). In the event of an emergency trip 

to the lighthouse for repairs in summer, 

or if deed restrictions are changed, more 

Steller sea lions may be present in June 

and July (up to 350–400 animals based 

on CCR (2001)). 

The maximum number of California 

sea lions present per day (160) was 

observed during the November 2011 

trip. The April and November 2011 trip 

maximums were 2 and 430 individuals, 

respectively (SGRLPS 2011). Zero 

California sea lions were reported 

during the March 2012 trip (SGRLPS 

2012). In 2017, the Society reported 16 

and zero California sea lions during 

March and April trips, and 16 during a 

November trip for a landing zone 

inspection (SGRLPS 2017). Observations 

for the 2018 season totaled 40 

individuals among its four trips 

(SGRLPS 2018). Eighteen California sea 

lions were reported during the 

November 2019 trip with a maximum of 

10 per day (SGRLPS 2020). Should deed 

restrictions be altered to allow access 

during summer months, numbers could 

be somewhat higher based on the data 

in CCR (2001). 

Northern fur seals have not been 

observed during any of the Society’s 

work from 2010 through 2019 (SGRLPS 

2010; 2011; 2012; 2017; 2018; 2020). 

The Society first reported 2 Pacific 

harbor seals on site during the March 

2012 restoration trip (SGRLPS 2012). 

Zero harbor seals were reported during 

the 2017, 2018, or 2019 work seasons 

(SGRLPS 2017; 2018; 2020). 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The monitoring observations described 

above serve as the underpinnings of the 

take estimate calculation used to 

determine the actual number of marine 

mammals that may be subject to take. 

Take estimates for each species for 

which take would be authorized were 

based on the following equation: 

Take estimate per species = maximum 

number of observations/day during 

prior monitoring * number of 

proposed operations days 

Based on the Society’s previous 

monitoring reports, the maximum 

number of observations per day for each 

species is: Steller sea lions 155, 

California sea lions 160, and Pacific 

harbor seals 2. No Northern fur seals 

have been seen in prior project 

monitoring but one was observed during 

the survey work for this project by CCR 

(2001), so we use one for these 

calculations. 

As discussed above, The Society is 

proposing no more than 70 flight days 

per year. This is an optimistic estimate 

that far exceeds prior efforts, but given 

adequate funding there is the need for 

extensive restoration work to the Station 

so the Society requested consideration 

of the additional days of work in the 

take estimate. Therefore NMFS 

estimates that approximately 10,850 

Steller sea lions (calculated by 

multiplying the maximum single-day 

count of Steller sea lions that could be 

present (155) by 70 days of activities), 

11,200 California sea lions, 140 Pacific 

harbor seals, and 70 Northern fur seals 

could be potentially taken by Level B 

behavioral harassment annually over the 

course of this rulemaking (Table 3). 

NMFS bases these estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals that might 

be affected on consideration of the 

number of marine mammals that could 

be on NWSR in a worst case scenario 

based on prior monitoring. Should deed 

restrictions be altered to allow access 

during summer months, numbers of 

California sea lions and Steller’s sea 

lions could be somewhat higher during 

a couple of those months based on the 

data in CCR (2001). Given these 

increases are limited in duration, only a 

fraction of the potential flight days 

could occur in summer, and the 

conservative nature of the maximum 

daily counts relative to the average 

observed animal counts from prior 

monitoring discussed above, we believe 

the proposed take estimates are 

adequately precautionary. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED ANNUAL LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKE CALCULATIONS AND PERCENTAGE OF EACH STOCK AFFECTED

Species 

Maximum 

number per 

day 

Days of 

proposed 

activity 

Proposed take Percent of 

stock 

California sea lion ............................................................................................ 160 70 11,200 4.3 

Steller sea lion ................................................................................................. 155 70 10,580 25.1 

Pacific harbor seal ........................................................................................... 2 70 140 0.5 

Northern fur seal .............................................................................................. 1 70 70 0.5 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to promulgate regulations 

and issue LOAs under Section 

101(a)(5)(A) 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 the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS does not have a regulatory 

definition for ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact.’’ NMFS regulations require 

applicants for incidental take 

authorizations to include information 

about the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50315 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

The mitigation strategies described 

below largely follow those required and 

successfully implemented under 

previous incidental take authorizations 

issued in association with this project. 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed: 

• No more than six flight days (up to 

two work trips) per month; 

• Avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during activity. If 

a marine mammal comes within 10 m of 

such activity, operations must cease 

until the animal leaves of its own 

accord; 

• Conduct training between 

construction supervisors and crews and 

tourists and the marine mammal 

monitoring team and relevant Society 

staff prior to the start of all visits and 

when new personnel join the work, so 

that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, monitoring protocols, and 

operational procedures are clearly 

understood. Visitors to the Station will 

be instructed to avoid unnecessary noise 

and not expose themselves visually to 

pinnipeds around the base of the 

lighthouse; 

• Halt loud outside activity upon 

observation on NWSR of either a species 

for which incidental take is not 

authorized or a species for which 

incidental take has been authorized but 

the authorized number of takes has been 

met; 

• Keep the door to the lower platform 

closed and barricaded to all tourists and 

other personnel. The door will only be 

opened when necessary and at a time 

when no animals are present on the 

lower platform; 

• Ensure that helicopter approach 

patterns to the NWSR shall be such that 

the timing and techniques are least 

disturbing to marine mammals. To the 

extent possible, the helicopter should 

approach NWSR when the tide is too 

high for marine mammals to haul out on 

NWSR. Avoid rapid and direct 

approaches by the helicopter to the 

station by approaching NWSR at a 

relatively high altitude (e.g., 800–1,000 

ft; 244–305 m). Before the final 

approach, the helicopter shall circle 

lower, and approach from an area where 

the density of pinnipeds is the lowest. 

If for any safety reasons (e.g., wind 

conditions or visibility) such helicopter 

approach and timing techniques cannot 

be achieved, the Society must abort the 

restoration and maintenance session for 

the day; 

• Employ a protected species 

observer (PSO) and establish monitoring 

locations as described in the application 

and Section 5 of any LOA. The Holder 

must monitor the project area to the 

maximum extent possible based on the 

required number of PSOs, required 

monitoring locations, and 

environmental conditions. For all 

helicopter flights at least one PSO must 

be used; and 

• Monitoring must take place for all 

take-offs and landings. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

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)(A) 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 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. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

• Monitoring must be conducted by 

qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, in 

accordance with the following: PSOs 

must be independent and have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. At least one PSO must have 

prior experience performing the duties 

of a PSO. Other PSOs may substitute 

other relevant experience, education 

(degree in biological science or related 

field), or training. PSOs resumes must 

be approved by NMFS prior to 

beginning any activity subject to these 

regulations. 

• PSOs must record all observations 

of marine mammals as described in 

Section 5 of any LOA, regardless of 

distance from the activity. PSOs shall 

document any behavioral reactions in 

concert with distance from the activity. 

PSOs must have the following 

additional qualifications: 

• Ability to conduct field 

observations and collect data according 

to assigned protocols; 

• Experience or training in the field 

identification of marine mammals, 

including the identification of 

behaviors; 

• Sufficient training, orientation, or 

experience with the construction 

operation to provide for personal safety 

during observations; 

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a 

report of observations including but not 

limited to the number and species of 

marine mammals observed; dates and 

times when in-water construction 

activities were conducted; dates, times, 

and reason for implementation of 

mitigation (or why mitigation was not 

implemented when required); and 

marine mammal behavior; 

• Ability to communicate orally, by 

radio or in person, with project 

personnel to provide real-time 

information on marine mammals 

observed in the area as necessary; 

• The Society must establish the 

following monitoring locations. For the 

first flight of the day a PSO with high 

definition camera will be on the first 

flight to the station. During all other 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50316 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

takeoffs and landings a PSO will be 

stationed on the platform of the lantern 

room gallery or on the last departing 

helicopter; 

• Aerial photo coverage of the island 

will be completed by an observer using 

a high definition camera. Photographs of 

all marine mammals hauled out on the 

island will be taken at an altitude 

greater than 300 meters. Photographs of 

marine mammals present at the last 

flight of the day will be taken from the 

helicopter or from the lantern room 

gallery platform just before the last 

flight; and 

• The Society and/or its designees 

must forward the photographs to a 

biologist capable of discerning marine 

mammal species if one is not present on 

the trip. The Society must provide the 

data to NMFS in the form of a report 

with a data table, any other significant 

observations related to marine 

mammals, and a report of restoration 

activities. The Society must make 

available the original photographs to 

NMFS or to other marine mammal 

experts for inspection and further 

analysis. 

Reporting 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

each activity period, or 60 days prior to 

a requested date of issuance of any 

future LOAs for projects at the same 

location, whichever comes first. For the 

first year of the activities, at least, the 

reports will be submitted quarterly; 

following submission of the first three 

quarterly reports, NMFS will evaluate 

whether it is appropriate to modify 

subsequent annual LOAs require annual 

reports, based on whether the 

information provided in the first three 

quarterly reports adequately complies 

with the requirement. The report will 

include an overall description of work 

completed, a narrative regarding marine 

mammal sightings, and associated PSO 

data sheets. Specifically, the report must 

include: 

• Dates and times (begin and end) of 

all marine mammal monitoring. 

• Activities occurring during each 

daily observation period. 

• PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring. 

• Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance. 

• Upon each flight, the following 

information will be reported: Name of 

PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO 

location and activity at time of sighting; 

time of sighting; identification of the 

animal(s) (e.g., genus/species, lowest 

possible taxonomic level, or 

unidentified), PSO confidence in 

identification, and the composition of 

the group if there is a mix of species; 

distance and bearing of the nearest 

marine mammal observed relative to the 

activity for each flight; estimated 

number of animals (min/max/best 

estimate); estimated number of animals 

by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); animal’s 

closest point of approach to activity; 

and description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing) 

using pinniped disturbance scale (Table 

2). 

• Number of marine mammals 

detected, by species. 

• Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered, a description of specific 

actions that ensued, and resulting 

changes in behavior of the animal(s), if 

any. 

If no comments are received from 

NMFS within 30 days, the draft final 

report will constitute the final report. If 

comments are received, a final report 

addressing NMFS comments must be 

submitted within 30 days after receipt of 

comments. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the activities discover an injured or 

dead marine mammal, the LOA-holder 

must immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the Society must immediately cease the 

specified activities until NMFS is able 

to review the circumstances of the 

incident and determine what, if any, 

additional measures are appropriate to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

LOA and regulations. The LOA-holder 

must not resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS. The report must 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(50 CFR 216.103). 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 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 harassment, NMFS considers 

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 effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

Activities associated with the 

restoration, light maintenance and tour 

projects, as described previously, have 

the potential to disturb or displace 

marine mammals. Specifically, the 

specified activities may result in take, in 

the form of Level B harassment 

(behavioral disturbance) from in-air 

sounds and visual disturbance. Potential 

takes could occur if individual marine 

mammals are present nearby when 

activity is happening. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50317 

No serious injury or mortality would 

be expected even in the absence of the 

proposed mitigation measures. For all 

species, no Level A harassment is 

anticipated given the nature of the 

activities, i.e., much of the anticipated 

activity would involve noises below 

thresholds and visual disturbance from 

tens of meters away, and measures 

designed to minimize the possibility of 

injury. The potential for injury is small 

for pinnipeds, and is expected to be 

essentially eliminated through 

implementation of the planned 

mitigation measures. 

Effects on individuals that are taken 

by Level B harassment, on the basis of 

reports in the literature as well as 

monitoring from other similar activities, 

will likely be limited to reactions such 

as alerts or movements away from the 

lighthouse structure. Most likely, 

individuals will simply move away 

from the sound source and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas. 

Reporting from prior years of these 

activities has similarly reported no 

apparently consequential behavioral 

reactions or long-term effects on marine 

mammal populations as noted above. 

Repeated exposures of individuals to 

relatively low levels of sound and visual 

disturbance outside of preferred habitat 

areas are unlikely to significantly 

disrupt critical behaviors. Thus, even 

repeated Level B harassment of some 

small subset of the overall stock is 

unlikely to result in any significant 

realized decrease in viability for the 

affected individuals, and thus would 

not result in any adverse impact to the 

stock as a whole. Level B harassment 

will be reduced to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact through use 

of mitigation measures described herein 

and, if sound and visual disturbance 

produced by project activities is 

sufficiently disturbing, animals are 

likely to simply avoid the area while the 

activity is occurring. 

In combination, we believe that these 

factors, as well as the available body of 

evidence from other similar activities, 

demonstrate that the potential effects of 

the specified activities will have only 

minor, short-term effects on individuals. 

The specified activities are not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival and will therefore not result in 

population-level impacts. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized. 

• No important habitat areas have 

been identified within the project area. 

• For all species, NWSR is a very 

small and peripheral part of their range. 

• Monitoring reports from prior 

activities at the site have documented 

little to no effect on individuals of the 

same species impacted by the specified 

activities. 

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, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS proposes to 

authorize is below one third of the 

estimated stock abundance of all species 

(in fact, take of individuals is less than 

10 percent of the abundance of all of the 

affected stocks except Steller sea lions, 

see Table 3). This is likely a 

conservative estimate because they 

assume all takes are of different 

individual animals which is likely not 

the case, especially within individual 

trips. Many individuals seen within a 

single multi-day trip are likely to be the 

same across consecutive days, but PSOs 

would count them as separate takes 

across days. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has 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. 

Adaptive Management 

The regulations governing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to Society 

lighthouse repair and tour operation 

activities would contain an adaptive 

management component. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with this proposed rule are designed to 

provide NMFS with monitoring data 

from the prior year(s) to allow 

consideration of whether any changes 

are appropriate. The use of adaptive 

management allows NMFS to consider 

new information from different sources 

to determine (with input from the 

Society regarding practicability) on an 

annual basis if mitigation or monitoring 

measures should be modified (including 

additions or deletions). Mitigation 

measures could be modified if new data 

suggests that such modifications would 

have a reasonable likelihood of reducing 

adverse effects to marine mammals and 

if the measures are practicable. 

Additionally, monitoring or reporting 

measures may be modified if 

appropriate and, in this case, the rule 

specifies quarterly monitoring and 

reporting requirements for the first year, 

which may subsequently be modified to 

annual requirements, based on NMFS 

evaluation of the first three reports. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring reports, as required by 

MMPA authorizations; (2) results from 

general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (3) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent, or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent LOAs. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50318 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the West Coast Regional 

Protected Resources Division Office. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Request for Information 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments, information, and 

suggestions concerning the Society’s 

request and the proposed regulations 

(see ADDRESSES). All comments will be 

reviewed and evaluated as we prepare a 

final rule and make final determinations 

on whether to issue the requested 

authorization. This notification and 

referenced documents provide all 

environmental information relating to 

our proposed action for public review. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement Executive 

Order 12866, the Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Society, a 501(c)(3) non-profit 

whose mission is to preserve the St. 

George Reef lighthouse, is the sole entity 

that would be subject to the 

requirements in these proposed 

regulations, and the Society is not a 

small governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization, or small business, as 

defined by the RFA. Because of this 

certification, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required and none has 

been prepared. 

This proposed rule contains a 

collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. These 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648–0151 

and include applications for regulations, 

subsequent LOAs, and reports. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: August 31, 2021. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 217—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE 

MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO 

SPECIFIED ACTIVITES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 217 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

■ 2. Add subpart F to part 217 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart F—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Lighthouse Repair and Tour 

Operations at Northwest Seal Rock, 

California 

Sec. 

217.50 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

217.51 Effective dates. 

217.52 Permissible methods of taking. 

217.53 Prohibitions. 

217.54 Mitigation requirements. 

217.55 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

217.56 Letters of Authorization. 

217.57 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

217.58 [Reserved] 

217.59 [Reserved] 

Subpart F—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Lighthouse Repair and 

Tour Operations at Northwest Seal 

Rock, California 

§ 217.50 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the St. George Reef Lighthouse 

Preservation Society (Society) and those 

persons it authorizes or funds to 

conduct activities on its behalf for the 

taking of marine mammals that occurs 

in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section and that occurs incidental 

to lighthouse repair and tour operation 

activities. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

the Society may be authorized in a 

Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it 

occurs within Pacific Ocean waters in 

the vicinity of Northwest Seal Rock near 

Crescent City, California. 

§ 217.51 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] through [DATE 5 YEARS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

§ 217.52 Permissible methods of taking. 

Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.56, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘Society’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 217.50(b) 

by Level B harassment associated with 

lighthouse repair and tour operation 

activities, provided the activity is in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of the regulations in 

this subpart and the appropriate LOA. 

§ 217.53 Prohibitions. 

Except for taking authorized by a LOA 

issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter 

and 217.56, it shall be unlawful for any 

person to do any of the following in 

connection with the activities described 

in § 217.50 may: 

(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.56; 

(b) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in such LOAs; 

(c) Take any marine mammal 

specified in such LOAs in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stocks of such 

marine mammal; or 

(e) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

§ 217.54 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 217.50(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

217.56 must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures shall include but 

are not limited to: 

(a) General conditions. (1) A copy of 

any issued LOA must be in the 

possession of the Society, supervisory 

personnel, pilot, protected species 

observers (PSOs), and any other relevant 

designees of the Holder operating under 

the authority of this LOA at all times 

that activities subject to this LOA are 

being conducted. 

(2) The Society shall conduct training 

between supervisors and crews and the 

marine mammal monitoring team and 

relevant Society staff prior to the start of 

all trips and when new personnel join 

the work, so that responsibilities, 

communication procedures, monitoring 

protocols, and operational procedures 

are clearly understood. Visitors to the 

Station will be instructed to avoid 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 50319 

unnecessary noise and not expose 

themselves visually to pinnipeds 

around the base of the lighthouse. 

(3) Avoid direct physical interaction 

with marine mammals during activity. If 

a marine mammal comes within 10 m of 

such activity, operations must cease 

until the animal leaves of its own 

accord. 

(4) Loud outside activity must be 

halted upon observation on Northwest 

Seal Rock (NWSR) of either a species for 

which incidental take is not authorized 

or a species for which incidental take 

has been authorized but the authorized 

number of takes has been met. 

(5) No more than two restoration trips, 

or 6 days of flight operations, are 

permitted per month. 

(b) Protocols. (1) The door to the 

lower platform will remain closed and 

barricaded to all tourists and other 

personnel. The door will only be 

opened when necessary and at a time 

when no animals are present on the 

lower platform. 

(2) The pilot will ensure that 

helicopter approach patterns to the 

NWSR shall be such that the timing and 

techniques are least disturbing to 

marine mammals. To the extent 

possible, the helicopter should 

approach NWSR when the tide is too 

high for marine mammals to haul out on 

NWSR. Avoid rapid and direct 

approaches by the helicopter to the 

station by approaching NWSR at a 

relatively high altitude (e.g., 800–1,000 

ft; 244–305 m). Before the final 

approach, the helicopter shall circle 

lower, and approach from an area where 

the density of pinnipeds is the lowest. 

If for any safety reasons (e.g., wind 

conditions or visibility) such helicopter 

approach and timing techniques cannot 

be achieved, the Society must abort the 

restoration and maintenance session for 

the day. 

(3) Monitoring shall be conducted by 

a trained PSO, who shall have no other 

assigned tasks during monitoring 

periods. Trained PSOs shall be placed at 

the best vantage point(s) practicable to 

monitor for marine mammals and 

implement mitigation procedures when 

applicable. The Society shall adhere to 

the following additional PSO 

qualifications: 

(i) Independent PSOs are required; 

(ii) At least one PSO must have prior 

experience working as an observer; 

(iii) Other observers may substitute 

education (degree in biological science 

or related field) or training for 

experience; and 

(iv) The Society shall submit PSO 

resumes for approval by NMFS prior to 

beginning any activity subject to these 

regulations. 

(4) The PSO must monitor the project 

area to the maximum extent possible 

based on the required monitoring 

locations and environmental conditions. 

They must record all observations of 

marine mammals as described in 

Section 5 of any LOA, regardless of 

distance from the activity. Monitoring 

must take place for all take-offs and 

landings. 

§ 217.55 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) PSOs shall document any 

behavioral reactions in concert with 

distance from any project activity. 

(b) Reporting—(1) Reporting 

frequency. (i) The Society shall submit 

a quarterly summary report to NMFS 

not later than 90 days following the end 

of each work quarter; after the first three 

quarterly submissions, NMFS will 

evaluate whether it is appropriate to 

modify to annual reports, and modify 

future LOAs as appropriate to indicate 

annual reporting requirements if so. The 

Society shall provide a final report 

within 30 days following resolution of 

comments on each draft report. 

(ii) These reports shall contain, at 

minimum, the following: 

(A) Dates and times (begin and end) 

of all marine mammal monitoring; 

(B) Activities occurring during each 

daily observation period; 

(C) PSO locations during marine 

mammal monitoring; 

(D) Environmental conditions during 

monitoring periods (at beginning and 

end of PSO shift and whenever 

conditions change significantly), 

including Beaufort sea state and any 

other relevant weather conditions 

including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, 

and overall visibility to the horizon, and 

estimated observable distance; 

(E) Upon each flight, the following 

information: Name of PSO who sighted 

the animal(s) and PSO location and 

activity at time of sighting; time of 

sighting; identification of the animal(s) 

(e.g., genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified), PSO 

confidence in identification, and the 

composition of the group if there is a 

mix of species; distance and bearing of 

each marine mammal observed relative 

to the activity for each flight; estimated 

number of animals (min/max/best 

estimate); estimated number of animals 

by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, 

group composition, etc.); animal’s 

closest point of approach and estimated 

time spent within the harassment zone; 

and description of any marine mammal 

behavioral observations (e.g., observed 

behaviors such as feeding or traveling), 

including an assessment of behavioral 

responses thought to have resulted from 

the activity (e.g., no response or changes 

in behavioral state such as ceasing 

feeding, changing direction, flushing, or 

breaching); 

(F) Number of marine mammals 

detected, by species; and 

(G) Detailed information about any 

implementation of any mitigation 

triggered, a description of specific 

actions that ensued, and resulting 

changes in behavior of the animal(s), if 

any. 

(2) The Society shall submit a 

comprehensive summary report to 

NMFS not later than 90 days following 

the conclusion of marine mammal 

monitoring efforts described in this 

subpart. 

(c) Reporting of injured or dead 

marine mammals. (1) In the event that 

personnel involved in the construction 

activities discover an injured or dead 

marine mammal, the LOA-holder must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov), 

NMFS and to West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury was 

clearly caused by activities specified at 

§ 217.50, the Society must immediately 

cease the specified activities until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the incident and 

determine what, if any, additional 

measures are appropriate to ensure 

compliance with the terms of these 

regulations and LOAs. The LOA-holder 

must not resume their activities until 

notified by NMFS. The report must 

include the following information: 

(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

(ii) Species identification (if known) 

or description of the animal(s) involved; 

(iii) Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

(iv) Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

(v) If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

(vi) General circumstances under 

which the animal was discovered. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 217.56 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

the Society must apply for and obtain an 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
50320 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 171 / Wednesday, September 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Society may apply for and obtain a 

renewal of the LOA. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by an 

LOA, the Society must apply for and 

obtain a modification of the LOA as 

described in § 217.207. 

(e) The LOA shall set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species, its habitat, 

and on the availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(3) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based 

on a determination that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an 

LOA shall be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 217.57 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 217.206 for the 

activity identified in § 217.200(a) shall 

be renewed or modified upon request by 

the applicant, provided that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for these 

regulations (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section); and 

(2) NMFS determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous LOA 

under these regulations were 

implemented. 

(b) For LOA modification or renewal 

requests by the applicant that include 

changes to the activity or the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting (excluding 

changes made pursuant to the adaptive 

management provision in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section) that do not change 

the findings made for the regulations or 

result in no more than a minor change 

in the total estimated number of takes 

(or distribution by species or years), 

NMFS may publish a notice of proposed 

LOA in the Federal Register, including 

the associated analysis of the change, 

and solicit public comment before 

issuing the LOA. 

(c) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 217.206 for the 

activity identified in § 217.200(a) may 

be modified by NMFS under the 

following circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may 

modify (including augment) the existing 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (after consulting with the 

Society regarding the practicability of 

the modifications) if doing so creates a 

reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring set forth 

in the preamble for these regulations. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in an LOA: 

(A) Results from the Society’s 

monitoring from the previous year(s). 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound or disturbance 

research or studies. 

(C) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent LOAs. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register and solicit public comment. 

(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

specified in LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.206, 

an LOA may be modified without prior 

notice or opportunity for public 

comment. Notice would be published in 

the Federal Register within 30 days of 

the action. 

§§ 217.58–217.59 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2021–19124 Filed 9–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BK68 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Amendment 21 to the Atlantic 

Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Announcement of availability of 

amendment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council has submitted Amendment 21 

to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan, incorporating the 

Environmental Assessment and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, for 

review by the Secretary of Commerce, 

and is requesting comments from the 

public. This action would allow for 

more controlled access to the scallop 

resource by the limited access and 

limited access general category fleets 

and increase monitoring to support a 

growing directed scallop fishery in 

Federal waters, including the Northern 

Gulf of Maine Management Area. These 

proposed management measures are 

intended to promote conservation of the 

scallop resource in the Northern Gulf of 

Maine Management Area and to manage 

total removals from the area by all 

fishery components. Amendment 21 

would also expand flexibility in the 

limited access general category 

individual fishing quota fishery to 

reduce impacts of potential decreases in 

ex-vessel price and increases in 

operating costs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The Council has prepared a 

draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 

for this action that describes the 

proposed measures in Amendment 21 to 

the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) and other 

considered alternatives and analyzes the 

impacts of the proposed measures and 

alternatives. The Council submitted a 

draft of the amendment to NMFS that 

includes the draft EA, a description of 

the Council’s preferred alternatives, the 

Council’s rationale for selecting each 

alternative, and a Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR). Copies of supporting 

documents used by the Council, 

including the EA and RIR, are available 

from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive 

Director, New England Fishery 

Management Council, 50 Water Street, 

Newburyport, MA 01950 and accessible 

via the internet in documents available 

at: https://www.nefmc.org/library/ 

amendment-21. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2021–0065, by: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0065 in the Search box. 

Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method or received after the end 

of the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS