Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24517 

3The Director, Office of Export Enforcement, is 

the authorizing official for issuance of denial 

orders, pursuant to recent amendments to the 

Regulations (85 FR 73411, November 18, 2020). 

and considered a written submission 

from Vidaurri. 

Based upon my review of the record, 

including Vidaurri’s submission and 

consultations with BIS’s Office of 

Exporter Services, including its 

Director, and the facts available to BIS, 

I have decided to deny Vidaurri’s export 

privileges under the Regulations for a 

period of five years from the date of 

Vidaurri’s conviction. The Office of 

Exporter Services has also decided to 

revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which 

Vidaurri had an interest at the time of 

his conviction.3

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: 

First, from the date of this Order until 

March 29, 2024, Arnoldo Vidaurri, with 

a last known address of 113 Coronado 

Ave, Laredo, TX 78043, and when 

acting for or on his behalf, his 

successors, assigns, employees, agents 

or representatives (‘‘the Denied 

Person’’), may not directly or indirectly 

participate in any way in any 

transaction involving any commodity, 

software, or technology (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’) 

exported or to be exported from the 

United States that is subject to the 

Regulations, including, but not limited 

to: 

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using 

any license, license exception, or export 

control document; 

B. Carrying on negotiations 

concerning, or ordering, buying, 

receiving, using, selling, delivering, 

storing, disposing of, forwarding, 

transporting, financing, or otherwise 

servicing in any way, any transaction 

involving any item exported or to be 

exported from the United States that is 

subject to the Regulations, or engaging 

in any other activity subject to the 

Regulations; or 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or 

from any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, no person may, directly or 

indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export, reexport, or transfer (incountry) to or on behalf of the Denied 

Person any item subject to the 

Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

the Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby the Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession, or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from the Denied Person of 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been exported from the United 

States; 

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in 

the United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed, or controlled by the Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed, or 

controlled by the Denied Person if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification, or 

testing. 

Third, pursuant to Section 1760(e) of 

ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4819(e)) and Sections 

766.23 and 766.25 of the Regulations, 

any other person, firm, corporation, or 

business organization related to the 

Denied Person by ownership, control, 

position of responsibility, affiliation, or 

other connection in the conduct of trade 

or business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order in order to 

prevent evasion of this Order. 

Fourth, in accordance with part 756 of 

the Regulations, the Denied Person may 

file an appeal of this Order with the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. The appeal must 

be filed within 45 days from the date of 

this Order and must comply with the 

provisions of part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be 

delivered to the Denied Person and shall 

be published in the Federal Register. 

Sixth, this Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until March 29, 2024. 

John Sonderman, 

Director, Office of Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08793 Filed 4–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB961] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Punta 

Gorda Lighthouse Stabilization Project 

in Humboldt County, California 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the Punta Gorda 

Lighthouse Stabilization Project in 

Humboldt County, California. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-time, one-year renewal that could 

be issued under certain circumstances 

and if all requirements are met, as 

described in Request for Public 

Comments at the end of this notice. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

prior to making any final decision on 

the issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the final notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than May 26, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service and should be 

submitted via email to ITP.Fowler@

noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
24518 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, 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/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) 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 and either regulations are 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

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 

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. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

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 an 

IHA) with respect to potential impacts 

on the human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 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 IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. 

We will review all comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

and making a final decision on the IHA 

request. 

Summary of Request 

On August 30, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from the BLM for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to the 

Punta Gorda Lighthouse (PGL) 

Stabilization Project in Humboldt 

County, California. The application was 

deemed adequate and complete on 

February 15, 2022. The BLM’s request is 

for take of a small number of northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), 

Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina 

richardii), California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus), and Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) by Level 

B harassment only. Neither the BLM nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The PGL was established as an aid to 

navigation in 1912 along the northern 

California coast. While in use, the 

lighthouse station included the 

lighthouse, oil house, three residences, 

and numerous other small buildings 

typical of small military outposts. 

Although the lighthouse is located on 

the mainland, maintaining the station in 

the remote and rugged location along 

the coast proved to be too difficult and 

the U.S. Coast Guard decommissioned 

the lighthouse in 1951. The BLM 

assumed management of the site 

following the PGL’s decommission but 

was unable to keep up with the 

maintenance and after the windy ocean 

environment took a toll on the site, the 

BLM intentionally burned down the 

wooden structures of the station. The 

concrete lighthouse and oil house were 

all that remained when the site was 

listed in the National Registry of 

Historic Places in 1976. The BLM 

proposes to stabilize the lighthouse site, 

repair the remaining structures, and 

rebuild former structures. 

Dates and Duration 

The PGL stabilization and repair work 

will occur between June 1 and October 

1, 2022. Work crews are expected to 

work 8 to 10 hours per day, Monday 

through Friday. However, weekend 

work may be necessary intermittently to 

meet work schedule objectives, for a 

total of up to 122 days of work. The 

proposed IHA would be valid from June 

1, 2022 through October 1, 2022. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The PGL is located approximately 10 

kilometers (km; 6.2 miles (mi)) 

southwest of Petrolia, California and 18 

km (11.2 mi) south of Cape Mendocino, 

within the King Range National 

Conservation Area. The lighthouse is 

located along the Lost Coast Trail, 

which extends from the Mattole River to 

Shelter Cove, California, covering 

approximately 40 km (24.8 mi). The 

BLM would access the PGL by traveling 

along the coast from the north, 

originating at either the Windy Point 

Trailhead or the Trailhead at the 

Mattole Campground. 

The Lost Coast Trail is the longest 

stretch of undeveloped coastline in 

California. The coastline includes 

stretches of varyingly rocky and sandy 

beaches, including a black sand beach at 

the southern end of the trail. The area 

between the coastal bluffs and shoreline 

is typically very narrow, with many 

stretches of the trail impassible when 

high tides the cliff. In some areas, 

including the area immediately 

surrounding the PGL, there is a slight 

terrace at the base of the bluffs, just 

above the beach, that is suitable for 

hiking and camping above the high tide 

line. Scattered hauled-out pinnipeds 

may be found on the beach throughout 

the Lost Coast Trail, and are 

concentrated at haulout sites, such as 

the beach below the PGL. Pinnipeds are 

most often found on the beach itself, but 

occasionally venture beyond the beach 

and onto the marine terrace 

(Wonderland Guides, 2019). Please see 

the Description of Marine Mammals in 

the Area of Specified Activities section 

below for a detailed description of the 

marine mammals that are known to 

haul-out at the PGL and surrounding 

areas. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24519 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Despite occasional maintenance by 

BLM staff and lighthouse advocates, the 

PGL buildings need extensive repairs. 

Both of the remaining buildings (the 

lighthouse and the oil house) are 

constructed of reinforced concrete. The 

lighthouse building has a metal second 

story that once housed the lens. The 

concrete has experienced spalling where 

large chunks of the walls and ceiling 

break off due to water intrusion 

followed by expansion of rusty 

reinforcement steel (re-bar). The 

northern portion of the oil house 

foundation has cracked and separated 

from the rest of the structure. In 

addition, all metal structures (e.g., the 

second story of the lighthouse, the 

second story access stairs, above ground 

oil storage tanks) have experienced 

substantial corrosion. 

The BLM proposes to conduct 

stabilization and repair work at the PGL 

in stages. As part of the initiation phase, 

a portion of the marine terrace north of 

the PGL would be designated for staging 

and support of construction activities 

(e.g., parking vehicles, storing tools and 

materials, fuel storage and 

containment). A fence would be erected 

around the staging area and lighthouse 

station to prevent elephant seals from 

moving into the work zone. 

The first stage of correcting the 

deficiencies in the PGL station would 

consist of lead paint remediation and 

demolition of the failing concrete and 

re-bar, followed by treating the 

remaining structure to prevent further 

corrosion. Next, the BLM would 

demolish the roof of the oil house along 

with the northwestern corner of the oil 

house foundation. Once the concrete 

demolition is complete, concrete forms 

would be erected and new concrete 

poured in place. The new concrete 

would include corrosion inhibitors and 

would be formed to mimic the visual 

characteristics of the existing structures. 

To further prevent against corrosion, a 

sealing elastomeric (or similar product) 

would be applied once the new concrete 

has thoroughly dried. 

Some of the small metalwork on both 

floors of the lighthouse would be 

restored off sire and reinstalled during 

the project. The second story of the 

lighthouse would likely need to be 

repaired and restored onsite. In addition 

to the metalwork, the windows of the 

lighthouse would also be replaced. The 

new windows would likely be made of 

some form of plexiglass. 

The public is only allowed to access 

the PGL site on foot, as there are no 

developed roads that reach the PGL. 

However, due to the substantial 

construction activities proposed, the 

BLM would use vehicles to drive along 

the beach and marine terrace to 

transport construction materials and 

personnel. 

Equipment proposed for use in the 

PGL stabilization project include gas 

powered construction saws, various jack 

hammers, heavy equipment (likely a 

backhoe or small excavator), saws, and 

hand tools. Materials created during the 

demolition process would either be 

buried on site or transported to waste 

facilities by ground vehicles and/or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN26AP22.076</GPH>
24520 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

helicopter lifts. The ground vehicles 

would include all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), Side by Side ATVs (UTVs), and 

trucks. Helicopters may be used to 

transport supplies faster than ground 

transportation would allow. Helicopters 

would not land at the work site, but 

would hover approximately 50–100 feet 

(ft; 15–30 meters (m)) above ground for 

a short duration (up to 5 minutes) while 

the sling load is disconnected. 

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. NMFS fully considered 

all of this information, and we refer the 

reader to these descriptions, 

incorporated here by reference, instead 

of reprinting the information. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments) 

and more general information about 

these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ 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 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. 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’ SARs). While no 

serious injury or 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’ 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’ U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. 

All values presented in Table 1 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2020 SARs (Carretta et al., 2021; Muto 

et al., 2021) and draft 2021 SARs 

(available online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

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): 

Steller Sea Lion .......................... Eumetopias jubatus ........ Eastern U.S .............. -, -, N 43,201 (see SAR, 43,201, 2017) ..... 2,592 112 

California Sea Lion ..................... Zalophus californianus .... U.S ............................ -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 2014) .......... 14,011 >320 

Family Phocidae (earless seals): 

Northern Elephant Seal .............. Mirounga angustirostris .. California Breeding ... -, -, N 187,386 (N/A, 85,369, 2013) ............ 5,122 13.7 

Harbor Seal ................................ Phoca vitulina ................. 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: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is 

coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 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 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. 

California Sea Lion 

California sea lions are distributed 

along the west coast of North America 

from British Columbia to Baja California 

and throughout the Gulf of California. 

Breeding occurs on islands located in 

southern California, in western Baja 

California, Mexico, and the Gulf of 

California. Rookery sites in southern 

California are limited to the San Miguel 

Islands and the southerly Channel 

Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, 

and San Clemente (Carretta et al., 2017). 

Males establish breeding territories 

during May through July on both land 

and in the water. Females come ashore 

in mid-May and June where they give 

birth to a single pup approximately four 

to five days after arrival and will nurse 

pups for about a week before going on 

their first feeding trip. Females will 

alternate feeding trips with nursing 

bouts until the pup is weaned between 

four and 10 months of age (NMML 

2010). 

Adult and juvenile males will migrate 

as far north as British Columbia, Canada 

while females and pups remain in 

southern California waters in the nonbreeding season. In warm water (El 

Nin ̃ o) years, some females are found as 

far north as Washington and Oregon, 

presumably following prey. 

California sea lions have not been 

observed hauled-out at the PGL, but 

have been seen swimming in the 

nearshore waters and at other haulouts 

along the Lost Coast Trail and are 

therefore considered reasonably likely 

to occur on the beaches surrounding the 

lighthouse and along the access route. 

Steller Sea Lion 

There are two separate stocks of 

Steller sea lions, the Eastern U.S. stock, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24521 

which occurs east of Cape Suckling, 

Alaska (144° W), and the Western U.S. 

stock, which occurs west of that point. 

Only the Western stock of Steller sea 

lions, which is designated as the 

Western distinct population segment 

(DPS) of Steller sea lions, is listed as 

endangered under the ESA (78 FR 

66139; November 4, 2013). Unlike the 

Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, 

there has been a sustained and robust 

increase in abundance of the Eastern 

U.S. stock throughout its breeding 

range. The eastern stock of Steller sea 

lions includes animals born east of Cape 

Suckling, AK (144° W), and includes sea 

lions living in southeast Alaska, British 

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 

California. Any Steller sea lions in the 

PGL area are expected to belong to the 

Eastern U.S. stock. 

Despite the wide-ranging movements 

of juveniles and adult males in 

particular, exchange between rookeries 

by breeding adult females and males 

(other than between adjoining rookeries) 

appears low, although males have a 

higher tendency to disperse than 

females (NMFS, 1995; Trujillo et al., 

2004; Hoffman et al., 2006). A 

northward shift in the overall breeding 

distribution has occurred, with a 

contraction of the range in southern 

California and new rookeries 

established in southeastern Alaska 

(Pitcher et al., 2007). 

Like California sea lions, Steller sea 

lions have not been observed hauled-out 

at the PGL but have been observed at 

other haulouts along the Lost Coast Trail 

and are therefore considered reasonably 

likely to occur at the PGL or occur along 

the access route. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals range in the 

eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, 

from as far north as Alaska to as far 

south as Mexico. Northern elephant 

seals spend much of the year, generally 

about nine months, in the ocean. They 

are usually underwater, diving to depths 

of about 1,000 to 2,500 ft (305 to 762 m) 

for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only 

short breaks at the surface. They are 

rarely seen out at sea for this reason. 

While on land, they prefer sandy 

beaches. 

The northern elephant seal breeding 

population is distributed from central 

Baja California, Mexico to the Point 

Reyes Peninsula in northern California. 

Along this coastline, there are 13 major 

breeding colonies. Northern elephant 

seals breed and give birth primarily on 

offshore islands (Stewart et al., 1994), 

from December to March (Stewart and 

Huber, 1993). Males feed near the 

eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf 

of Alaska, and females feed farther 

south, south of 45° N (Stewart and 

Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et al., 1993). 

In mid-December, adult males begin 

arriving at rookeries, closely followed 

by pregnant females on the verge of 

giving birth. Females give birth to a 

single pup, generally in late December 

or January (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994) 

and nurse their pups for approximately 

4 weeks (Reiter et al., 1991). Upon pup 

weaning, females mate with an adult 

male and then depart the islands. The 

last adult breeders depart the islands in 

mid-March. The spring peak of elephant 

seals on the rookery occurs in April, 

when females and immature seals 

(approximately 1 to 4 years old) arrive 

at the colony to molt (a one-month 

process) (USFWS 2013). The year’s new 

pups remain on the island throughout 

both of these peaks, generally leaving by 

the end of April (USFWS 2013). The 

lowest numbers of elephant seals 

present at rookeries occurs during June, 

July, and August, when sub-adult and 

adult males molt. Another peak number 

of young seals returns to the rookery for 

a haul out period in October, and at that 

time some individuals undergo partial 

molt (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994). 

Northern elephant seals had 

occasionally been seen along the Lost 

Coast but a group of elephant seals 

colonized the beach below the PGL in 

2013 and 2014, and the colony has 

grown rapidly since then. 

Approximately 165 elephant seal pups 

were born during the 2020–2021 

breeding season, up from 110 the 

previous year. The highest attendance 

counted during the 2021 spring molt 

(i.e., April) totaled approximately 700 

individuals. The lowest elephant seal 

attendance of the year occurs in July 

and August. Juveniles and non-breeding 

females start to appear in September 

before the pregnant females begin 

arriving in mid-October (Goley et al., 

2021). 

Harbor Seal 

Pacific harbor seals inhabit near-shore 

coastal and estuarine areas from Baja 

California, Mexico, to the Pribilof 

Islands in Alaska. They are divided into 

two subspecies: P. v. stejnegeri in the 

western North Pacific, near Japan, and 

P. v. richardii in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. The latter subspecies occurs 

along the California coast. The 

California stock of harbor seals ranges 

from Mexico to the Oregon-California 

border. In California, 400–600 harbor 

seal haul-out sites are widely 

distributed along the mainland and 

offshore islands, and include rocky 

shores, beaches and intertidal sandbars 

(Lowry et al., 2008). 

Harbor seals mate at sea, and females 

give birth during the spring and 

summer, although the pupping season 

varies with latitude. Pups are nursed for 

an average of 24 days and are ready to 

swim minutes after being born. Harbor 

seal pupping takes place at many 

locations, and rookery size varies from 

a few pups to many hundreds of pups. 

Pupping generally occurs between 

March and June, and molting occurs 

between May and July (Lowry et al., 

2008). 

There are two large harbor seal 

haulout sites near the PGL, Sea Lion 

Gulch, approximately 2.5 km (1.5 mi) to 

the south, and the Mattole River Spit, 

approximately 6 km (3.7 km) to the 

north. A small group of harbor seals 

routinely haul-out on the beach near the 

intertidal zone and on the adjacent 

rocks below the PGL, approximately 120 

m (394 ft) from the oil house. Up to 180 

harbor seals have been observed at the 

PGL (Goley et al., 2021). Harbor seals 

typically have small home ranges and 

the seals present at the PGL haulout are 

likely to be present across multiple days 

(Waring et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2011). 

Although harbor seals commonly use 

the beach near the PGL for resting, very 

few pups have been observed in the area 

and the PGL is not considered a rookery 

site for harbor seals. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a 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 may or 

may not impact marine mammal species 

or stocks. 

Acoustic and visual stimuli generated 

by personnel working at the PGL and 

traversing the beach to access the work 

site, noise from construction equipment 

operating at the PGL, and helicopters 

hovering over the site to transport 

equipment and supplies may have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

disturbance. 

Human Presence 

The appearance of construction 

personnel may have the potential to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
24522 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

cause Level B harassment of marine 

mammals hauled-out at the PGL and 

along the proposed access routes. 

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 

BLM’s construction 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 2 and 3 

(movement and flush) are considered 

take, whereas level 1 (alert) is not. 

Animals that respond to the presence of 

BLM 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 under the MMPA, 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 

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 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 (Acevedo-Gutierrez and 

Johnson, 2007). Although no boats 

would be used in the PGL Stabilization 

Project, we expect that hauled-out 

pinnipeds exposed to the BLM’s 

vehicles and construction equipment 

would exhibit similar responses to those 

exposed to boats in the 2007 AcevedoGutierrez and Johnson study, and would 

quickly return to their haulout after the 

vehicles pass. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24523 

of a sound. NMFS has developed 

acoustic thresholds for behavioral 

disturbance from airborne noise (90 dB 

for harbor seals and 100 dB for all other 

pinnipeds; NMFS 2018). 

It is possible that the use of 

helicopters to transport materials, 

especially the helicopter hovering at the 

work site while the sling load is 

disconnected, would cause a subset of 

the marine mammals hauled-out at the 

PGL to react. There is little information 

available on the 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 specific type and 

model of helicopter that may be used for 

work at the PGL is not yet known, 

therefore the predicted source level of 

noise from the helicopter that could be 

used to estimate distances to the 

behavioral disturbance threshold is also 

unknown. However, NMFS has 

considered that while noise from the 

helicopter is likely to affect the degree 

to which marine mammals respond to 

the stimulus, the physical presence of 

aircraft could also lead to non-auditory 

effects on marine mammals involving 

visual or other cues. Marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the helicopter are 

likely to exhibit behavioral responses 

(e.g., hasty dives or turns, change in 

course, or flushing and stampeding from 

a haulout site, as a result of visual 

detection of the helicopter) regardless of 

the received SPL. 

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. 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). Bowles and 

Stewart (1980) observed the effects of 

helicopter flights over 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. 

In a study of the effects of helicopter 

landings at the St. George Reef 

Lighthouse on Northwest Seal Rock off 

the coast of Crescent City, California, 

Crescent Coastal Research (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). 

Demolition and construction work at 

the PGL would include use of gas 

powered construction saws, jack 

hammers, heavy equipment (likely a 

backhoe or small excavator), saws, and 

hand tools. Fencing would be erected to 

prevent marine mammals from entering 

the work area. Received sound levels for 

seals hauled out on the beaches below 

the PGL are not likely to exceed the 

behavioral disturbance thresholds. 

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 the PGL as 

the proposed action would occur 

outside of the pupping/breeding season 

for elephant seals and late enough in the 

harbor seal pupping season that any 

pups present would likely be old 

enough to accompany their mother 

during a flushing event, there are no 

cliffs at the PGL, and monitoring from 

IHAs for similar activities has not 

recorded stampeding events (e.g., Point 

Blue Conservation Science, 2020; 

University of California Santa Cruz 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies 

of Coastal Oceans, 2021). 

The haulout sites at the PGL consist 

of low sloping sandy beaches with 

unimpeded and non-obstructive access 

to the water. If disturbed, the small 

number of hauled-out 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. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined the BLM’s proposed 

activities pose no risk that disturbed 

animals may fall and be injured or 

killed as a result of disturbance at highrelief locations and thus there is no risk 

that these disturbances will result in 

Level A harassment or mortality/serious 

injury. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impact to 

marine mammal habitat associated with 

the construction activity is the 

temporary occupation of marine 

mammal habitat by BLM personnel and 

equipment but no permanent impacts 

would occur. The footprint of the PGL 

station would not change, and although 

vagrant elephant seals occasionally 

enter the compound, the lighthouse 

station itself is not considered to be 

suitable marine mammal habitat. During 

the stabilization project, a fence would 

be erected to exclude a portion of the 

marine terrace from use by elephant 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
24524 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

seals. The area expected to be fenced is 

usually unoccupied during the 

proposed construction window so few 

animals are expected to be displaced. 

Hauled out pinnipeds may temporarily 

leave the area if disturbed by acoustic or 

visual stimuli from project activities, 

but would likely return to the area once 

activities are concluded. The duration of 

displacement could vary from minutes, 

which would be expected for animals 

disturbed along the access route that 

may return to the haulout once the 

construction personnel pass by (e.g., 

Allen et al., 1985), to hours or days, for 

animals that flush from the beach below 

the PGL. The Lost Coast has miles of 

suitable undeveloped habitat for 

displaced animals to relocate during 

construction activities. The direct 

effects to pinnipeds appear at most to 

displace the animals temporarily from 

their haulout sites, and we do not 

expect, and have not observed during 

previous authorizations, that the 

pinnipeds would permanently abandon 

a haulout site as a result of the PGL 

stabilization project. 

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. It may be 

necessary for the BLM to bring a fuel 

storage tank to the PGL site to power 

generators and heavy equipment. Fuel 

would be stored behind fencing upland 

of the beach and the fuel tank would 

have a secondary containment system in 

place. To prevent chemical leaks, the 

BLM would inspect all equipment prior 

to attempting to cross Four Mile Creek 

while accessing the worksite. Debris 

generated by the construction activities 

(e.g., removed concrete and metal 

structures) would either be buried 

onsite or removed by overland transit or 

helicopter lifts. Any materials not 

removed would be buried well upland 

of the beach, far away from any 

potential haulout areas. Buried material 

would consist of existing elements of 

the lighthouse station, no new materials 

would be introduced and left behind. 

NMFS does not expect that the 

proposed activities would have any 

long- or short-term physical impacts to 

pinniped habitat at the PGL. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determinations. 

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 construction personnel 

and equipment, including helicopters 

used to transport materials. Based on 

the nature of the activity, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. For the 

BLM’s proposed activities, 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). As described previously, no 

serious injury or mortality is anticipated 

or proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

proposed take numbers are estimated. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide information 

about the occurrence of marine 

mammals, including density or other 

relevant information, that will inform 

the take calculations. 

Researchers from Humboldt State 

University (HSU) regularly conduct 

census counts of pinnipeds at the PGL 

and surrounding areas along the 

northern California coast (e.g., Goley et 

al., 2021). Counts of northern elephant 

seals and harbor seals at the PGL during 

the effective dates of the proposed IHA 

(June 1 through October 1) are presented 

below. 

TABLE 3—NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL CENSUS COUNTS

2019 counts 2020 counts 

Date Number of seals 

observed Date Number of seals observed 

June 8 ..................................................................... 101 June 4 .................................................................... 177 

June 15 ................................................................... 74 June 11 .................................................................. 83 

June 23 ................................................................... 34 June 14 .................................................................. 80 

July 7 ...................................................................... 40 June 24 .................................................................. 37 

July 14 .................................................................... 50 June 27 .................................................................. 38 

July 21 .................................................................... 54 July 4 ...................................................................... 36 

August 3 .................................................................. 39 July 12 .................................................................... 39 

August 21 ................................................................ 44 July 16 .................................................................... 38 

August 31 ................................................................ 62 July 24 .................................................................... 36 

September 15 ......................................................... 162 July 30 .................................................................... 38 

September 27 ......................................................... 244 August 6 ................................................................. 32 

August 9 ................................................................. 28 

August 13 ............................................................... 28 

August 20 ............................................................... 27 

August 27 ............................................................... 33 

August 30 ............................................................... 48 

September 5 ........................................................... 60 

September 19 ......................................................... 133 

September 27 ......................................................... 177 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24525 

The average daily count of elephant 

seals at the PGL during the effective 

dates of the proposed IHA (June 1 

through October 1) was 82.2 in 2019 and 

61.5 in 2020. Across both years, the 

average daily count was 69.1 elephant 

seals (Goley et al., 2021). A large portion 

of the elephant seals present at the PGL 

are uniquely tagged and dye stamped to 

identify individuals, and the same 

individuals were identified at the PGL 

haulout on multiple days. 

TABLE 4—HARBOR SEAL CENSUS COUNTS

2019 counts 2020 counts 

Date Number of seals 

observed Date Number of seals observed 

June 8 ..................................................................... 51 June 14 .................................................................. 55 

June 15 ................................................................... 107 June 27 .................................................................. 77 

June 23 ................................................................... 81 July 12 .................................................................... 90 

July 7 ...................................................................... 116 July 24 .................................................................... 123 

July 14 .................................................................... 180 August 9 ................................................................. 73 

July 21 .................................................................... 123 August 30 ............................................................... 36 

August 3 .................................................................. 105 September 5 ........................................................... 38 

August 21 ................................................................ 80 September 19 ......................................................... 51 

August 31 ................................................................ 22 September 27 ......................................................... 53 

September 15 ......................................................... 22 ................................................................................. ..............................

September 27 ......................................................... 28 ................................................................................. ..............................

The average daily count of harbor 

seals at the PGL was 83.2 in 2019 and 

66.2 in 2020. Across both years, the 

average daily count was 75.55 harbor 

seals (Goley et al., 2021). The harbor 

seals present at the PGL are not tagged 

or otherwise clearly identifiable, but 

since harbor seals typically show high 

philopatry (Waring et al., 2016; Wood et 

al., 2011), researchers from HSU 

hypothesize that the harbor seal colony 

at the PGL is made up of the same 

individuals that move between Punta 

Gorda and other nearby haulouts. 

Take Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is synthesized to 

produce a quantitative estimate of the 

take that is reasonably likely to occur 

and proposed for authorization. 

To estimate the total number of 

northern elephant seals and harbor seals 

that may be present at the PGL and 

subject to behavioral disturbance from 

the PGL stabilization project, the BLM 

multiplied the daily count of each 

species averaged across the two years of 

census data (69.1 elephant seals and 

75.55 harbor seals) by the maximum 

days of work at the PGL (122 days), for 

a total estimate of 8,431 northern 

elephant seals and 9,218 harbor seals 

taken by Level B harassment. This 

estimation assumes that all animals 

present would exhibit behavioral 

responses that are considered take 

(Levels 2 and 3 as described in Table 2). 

As described above, many of the seals 

present at the PGL are suspected or 

confirmed to be present across multiple 

days. Therefore, the above estimated 

take numbers are considered to 

represent instances of take, not 

necessarily the number of individual 

seals that may be taken. 

California sea lions and Steller sea 

lions have not been observed hauled-out 

at the PGL, but have been observed in 

the water near the PGL and at nearby 

haulouts along the Lost Coast Trail. The 

BLM assumes that no more than 5 

individual California sea lions and 

Steller sea lions may haul-out at the 

PGL or along the access route and be 

taken by Level B harassment. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED TAKE BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT BY SPECIES AND PERCENTAGE OF EACH STOCK AFFECTED

Species Stock 

Proposed take 

by Level B 

harassment 

Stock 

abundance 

Percent of 

stock 

Northern elephant seal ................................... California breeding ......................................... a 8,431 187,386 4.5 

Pacific harbor seal .......................................... California ........................................................ a 9,218 30,968 29.8 

California sea lion ........................................... U.S ................................................................. 5 257,606 <0.01 

Steller sea lion ................................................ Eastern U.S .................................................... 5 43,201 0.01 

aThe proposed take represents the estimated number of exposures, which does not necessarily equate to the number of individuals that may 

be exposed. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the 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 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, NMFS considers 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
24526 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. 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; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

The following mitigation measures are 

proposed: 

The work season has been planned to 

reduce the level of impact on elephant 

and harbor seals. The effective dates of 

the proposed IHA (June 1, 2022 through 

October 1, 2022) occurs when the 

elephant seal population is at its lowest 

and any harbor seal pups that may be 

on site would be old enough to be selfsufficient if the colony temporarily 

flushes into the water. No elephant seal 

pups would be present during the work 

season. 

Whenever possible, the BLM would 

utilize the access route that begins at the 

Windy Point Trailhead, rather than the 

route that begins at the Mattole 

Campground, as that route requires a 

longer stretch of driving on the beach or 

marine terrace (approximately 5 km (3.1 

mi)) where harbor seals are more likely 

to be hauled-out. The preferred route 

from the Windy Point Trailhead 

requires only 1.25 km (0.78 mi) of 

driving on the beach and marine terrace. 

Utilizing the access route with the 

shortest amount of driving on the beach 

and marine terrace is expected to reduce 

the number of marine mammals that 

may be encountered and disturbed 

along the access route and minimize the 

impact of the vehicles on marine 

mammal habitat. 

To the extent possible, the BLM 

would limit the daily number of vehicle 

trips between the project area and the 

contractor’s offshore camp where 

additional tools and supplies would be 

stored in trailers or other storage 

containers. Additionally, the BLM 

would utilize helicopters to deliver 

construction equipment to the PGL 

work site to reduce the number of 

vehicle trips that would be necessary to 

conduct the proposed activities. 

While accessing the project site, 

trained protected species observers 

(PSOs) would monitor ahead of the 

vehicle(s) path, using binoculars if 

necessary, to detect any marine 

mammals prior to approach to 

determine if mitigation (e.g., change of 

course, slow down) is required. Vehicles 

would not approach within 20 m (65.6 

ft) of marine mammals. If animals 

remain in the access path with no 

possible route to go around and 

maintain 20 m (65.6 ft) separation, 

personnel may exit the vehicle(s) to 

walk toward animals and intentionally 

flush them into the water to allow the 

vehicle(s) to proceed. To the extent 

possible, if multiple vehicles are 

traveling to the site, they should travel 

in a convoy such that animals are not 

potentially harassed more than once 

while the vehicles pass. 

A fence would be erected to keep 

elephant seals from entering the 

construction area to limit disturbance 

and prevent accidental injury from 

vehicles and construction debris. 

All helicopters associated with the 

project would slowly approach the work 

site and allow all marine mammals 

present to flush into the water before 

setting any hauled materials down on 

the ground. 

The BLM must cease or delay visits to 

the project site if a species for which the 

number of takes that have been 

authorized for a species are met, or if a 

species for which takes were not 

authorized, is observed (e.g., northern 

fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) or 

Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus 

townsendi)). 

The BLM must monitor for offshore 

predators and must not approach 

hauled-out pinnipeds if great white 

sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) or 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) are 

observed. If the BLM and/or its 

designees see pinniped predators in the 

area, they must not disturb the 

pinnipeds until the area is free of 

predators. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of 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)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for 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 while conducting the activities. 

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); and, 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Visual Monitoring 

At least one NMFS-approved PSO 

would travel to and from the 

construction site ahead of the work crew 

each day and serve as a lead monitor to 

record incidental take. PSOs would 

consist of BLM wildlife biologists, 

biological technicians, and interns, as 

well as King Range National 

Conservation Area staff. At least one 

PSO would monitor the beach 

surrounding the PGL during all 

construction activities. 

PSOs must be approved by NMFS 

prior to beginning any activity subject to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24527 

the proposed IHA. PSOs must have the 

following 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 construction activities were 

conducted; dates, times, and reason for 

implementation of mitigation (or why 

mitigation was not implemented when 

required); and marine mammal 

behavior; and 

• 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. 

PSOs must record the following 

information for each day of work: 

• Date, time, and access route of each 

visit to the work site; 

• Information on the weather, 

including tidal state and estimated 

horizontal visibility; 

• Composition of marine mammals 

observed, such as species, sex, and life 

history stage (e.g., adult, sub-adult, 

pup); 

• The numbers (by species) of marine 

mammals observed during the activities; 

• Estimated number of marine 

mammals (by species) that may have 

been harassed during the activities; 

• Marine mammal disturbances 

according to a three-point scale of 

intensity (see Table 2); 

• Behavioral responses or 

modifications of behaviors that may be 

attributed to the specific activities, a 

description of the specific activities 

occurring during that time (e.g., 

pedestrian, vehicle, or helicopter 

approach), and any mitigation action 

taken; and 

• If applicable, note the presence of 

any offshore predators (date, time, 

number, and species) and any 

mitigation action taken. 

Reporting 

The BLM would report all 

observations of marked or tag-bearing 

pinnipeds or carcasses and unusual 

behaviors, distributions, or numbers of 

pinnipeds to the NMFS West Coast 

Regional Office. 

A draft marine mammal monitoring 

report would be submitted to MFS 

within 90 days after the completion of 

each work season, or 60 days prior to 

the requested issuance date of any 

future IHAs for projects at the same 

location, whichever comes first. A final 

report must be prepared and submitted 

within 30 days following resolution of 

any comments on the draft report from 

NMFS. If no comments are received 

from NMFS on the draft report, the draft 

report will be considered the final 

report. 

In addition to raw sightings data, the 

report must include: 

• A summary of the dates, times, site 

access route, and weather during all 

construction activities; 

• The numbers (by species) of marine 

mammals observed during the activities, 

by age and sex, if possible; 

• The estimated number of marine 

mammals (by species) that may have 

been harassed during the activities 

based on the three-point disturbance 

scale (Table 2); 

• Any behavioral responses or 

modifications of behaviors that may be 

attributed to the specific activities (e.g., 

flushing into the water, becoming alert 

and moving, rafting); and 

• A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures of 

the IHA and full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

In the event that the BLM or any other 

personnel involved in the activities 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, the BLM would report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) 

(PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov) 

and to the West Coast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. If the death or injury were 

clearly caused by the specified activity, 

the BLM would 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 

IHA. The BLM would 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 impacts or responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

impacts or responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, foraging 

impacts affecting energetics), 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’ 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 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). 

To avoid repetition, the discussion of 

our analysis applies to all the species 

listed in Table 5, given that the 

anticipated effects of this activity on 

these different marine mammal stocks 

are expected to be similar. There is little 

information about the nature or severity 

of the impacts, or the size, status, or 

structure of any of these species or 

stocks that would lead to a different 

analysis for this activity. Activities 

associated with the PGL stabilization 

project, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
24528 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 

takes could occur if individual marine 

mammals are present nearby when 

activity is happening. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of the 

PGL stabilization project and none are 

proposed to be authorized. The risk of 

marine mammal injury, serious injury, 

or mortality associated with the 

proposed construction project increases 

somewhat if disturbances occur during 

pupping season. These situations 

present increased potential for mothers 

and dependent pups to become 

separated and, if separated pairs do not 

quickly reunite, the risk of mortality to 

pups (e.g., through starvation) may 

increase. Separately, adult male 

elephant seals may trample elephant 

seal pups if disturbed, which could 

potentially result in the injury, serious 

injury, or mortality of the pups. 

However, the proposed activities would 

occur outside of the elephant seal 

pupping season, therefore no elephant 

seal pups are expected to be present. 

Although the timing of the proposed 

activities would partially overlap with 

harbor seal pupping season, the PGL is 

not a harbor seal rookery and few pups 

are anticipated to be encountered during 

the proposed surveys. Harbor seals are 

very precocious with only a short period 

of time in which separation of a mother 

from a pup could occur. The proposed 

activities would occur late enough in 

the pupping season that any harbor seal 

pups present would likely be old 

enough to keep up with their mother in 

unlikely event of a stampede or other 

flushing event. The proposed mitigation 

measures (i.e., minimum separation 

distance, slow approaches, and 

minimizing vehicle trips to the PGL) 

generally preclude the possibility of 

behaviors, such as stampeding, that 

could result in extended separation of 

mothers and dependent pups or 

trampling of pups. 

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, including flushing 

into the water. Most likely, individuals 

will simply move away from the 

acoustic or visual stimulus and be 

temporarily displaced from the areas. 

Monitoring reports from similar 

activities (e.g., Point Blue Conservation 

Science, 2020; University of California 

Santa Cruz Partnership for 

Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal 

Oceans, 2021) have 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 or result in 

permanent abandonment of the haulout 

site. 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. 

Of the marine mammal species 

anticipated to occur in the proposed 

activity areas, none are listed under the 

ESA and there are no known areas of 

biological importance in the project 

area. Taking into account the planned 

mitigation measures, effects to marine 

mammals are generally expected to be 

restricted to short-term changes in 

behavior or temporary displacement 

from haulout sites. The Lost Coast area 

has abundant haulout areas for 

pinnipeds to temporarily relocate, and 

marine mammals are expected to return 

to the area shortly after activities cease. 

No adverse effects to prey species are 

anticipated as no work would occur inwater, and habitat impacts are limited 

and highly localized, consisting of 

construction work at the existing 

lighthouse station and the transit of 

vehicles and equipment along the access 

route. 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 mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the BLM’s 

PGL stabilization project will not 

adversely affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival and, therefore, 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks. 

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 any of 

the species or stocks through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality, or 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized; 

• Few pups are expected to be 

disturbed, and would not be abandoned 

or otherwise harmed by other seals 

flushing from the area; 

• Effects of the activities would be 

limited to short-term, localized 

behavioral changes; 

• Nominal impacts to pinniped 

habitat are anticipated; 

• No biologically important areas 

have been identified in the project area; 

• There is abundant suitable habitat 

nearby for marine mammals to 

temporarily relocate; and 

• Mitigation measures are anticipated 

to be effective in minimizing the 

number and severity of takes by Level 

B harassment, which are expected to be 

of short duration. 

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) and (D) 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 authorizes 

is below one third of the estimated stock 

abundance of all species (in fact, take of 

individuals is less than 5 percent of the 

abundance of all of the affected stocks 

except Pacific harbor seals, see Table 5). 

This is likely a conservative estimate 

because it assumes all takes are of 

different individual animals which is 

likely not the case. Using tags and dye 

stamps, researchers from HSU have 

identified individual northern elephant 

seals across several days of monitoring 

at the PGL. Although harbor seals 

observed at the PGL are not typically 

tagged or marked, HSU researchers 

suggest that the harbor seals seen 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Notices 24529 

hauled-out at the PGL are the same 

individuals that move between Punta 

Gorda and other nearby haulouts. 

Therefore, many individuals that may 

be taken by Level B harassment 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 prop20osed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals would 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. 

Endangered Species Act 

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 

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 

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. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the BLM for conducting the 

PGL stabilization project in Humboldt 

County, California between June 1 and 

October 1, 2022, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. A draft of the 

proposed IHA can be found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this notice of proposed 

IHA for the proposed PGL stabilization 

project. We also request comment on the 

potential renewal of this proposed IHA 

as described in the paragraph below. 

Please include with your comments any 

supporting data or literature citations to 

help inform decisions on the request for 

this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA 

following notice to the public providing 

an additional 15 days for public 

comments when (1) up to another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice is planned or (2) the activities as 

described in the Description of 

Proposed Activities section of this 

notice would not be completed by the 

time the IHA expires and a renewal 

would allow for completion of the 

activities beyond that described in the 

Dates and Duration section of this 

notice, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to the needed 

renewal IHA effective date (recognizing 

that the renewal IHA expiration date 

cannot extend beyond one year from 

expiration of the initial IHA). 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted under the requested 

renewal IHA are identical to the 

activities analyzed under the initial 

IHA, are a subset of the activities, or 

include changes so minor (e.g., 

reduction in pile size) that the changes 

do not affect the previous analyses, 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements, or take estimates (with 

the exception of reducing the type or 

amount of take). 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will remain the same and appropriate, 

and the findings in the initial IHA 

remain valid. 

Dated: April 21, 2022. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08873 Filed 4–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; Greater Atlantic Region 

Logbook Family of Forms 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, on or after the date of publication 

of this notice. We invite the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on proposed, and continuing 

information collections, which helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. Public 

comments were previously requested 

via the Federal Register on February 16, 

2022, during a 60-day comment period. 

This notice allows for an additional 30 

days for public comments. 

Agency: National Oceanic & 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

Title: Greater Atlantic Region Logbook 

Family of Forms. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0212. 

Form Number(s): 80–30, 80–140. 

Type of Request: Regular (extension of 

a currently approved collection). 

Number of Respondents: 2,036. 

Average Hours per Response: Fishing 

Vessel Trip reports, 5 minutes; Shellfish 

Log, 12.5 minutes; Spawning Blocks, 

DAS, EFP, Herring, RSA, and Tilefish, 3 

minutes each. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,141. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

revision and extension of a current 

information collection. This information 

collection, 0648–0212, is sponsored by 

the Data Processing & Quality Branch, 

which falls under the Analysis & 

Program Support Division located at the 

Greater Atlantic Regional Office. Under 

the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1