[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24517-24529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08873]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da938e8af49cb5adb6bfa89ab4b5bbbbf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="145d40443a527b63787166547a7b75753a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address)

[[Page 24518]]

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/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. 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

[[Page 24519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AP22.076

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

[[Page 24520]]

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/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).

                                              Table 1--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               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,            2,592        112
                                                                                                             43,201, 2017).
    California Sea Lion.............  Zalophus californianus.  U.S....................  -, -, N             257,606 (N/A, 233,515,     14,011       >320
                                                                                                             2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Northern Elephant Seal..........  Mirounga angustirostris  California Breeding....  -, -, N             187,386 (N/A, 85,369,       5,122       13.7
                                                                                                             2013).
    Harbor Seal.....................  Phoca vitulina.........  California.............  -, -, N             30,968 (N/A, 27,348,        1,641         43
                                                                                                             2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered 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.
\3\ These 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 non-breeding season. In warm water (El Ni[ntilde]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,

[[Page 24521]]

which occurs east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144[deg] 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[deg] 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[deg] 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

[[Page 24522]]

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 pre-disturbance 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 
Acevedo-Gutierrez 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 ([micro]Pa), 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 [micro]Pa for under water, and the units for SPLs are dB 
re: 1 [micro]Pa. The commonly used reference pressure is 20 [micro]Pa 
for in air, and the units for SPLs are dB: 20 [micro]Pa.

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

[[Page 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 high-relief 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

[[Page 24524]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of seals                                   Number of seals
                    Date                          observed                   Date                   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of seals                                   Number of seals
                    Date                          observed                   Date                   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Proposed take
                Species                           Stock             by Level B         Stock        Percent of
                                                                    harassment       abundance         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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The 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

[[Page 24526]]

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 self-sufficient 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:
    <bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
    <bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
    <bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and,
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 24527]]

the proposed IHA. PSOs must have the following qualifications:
    <bullet> Ability to conduct field observations and collect data 
according to assigned protocols;
    <bullet> Experience or training in the field identification of 
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
    <bullet> Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Date, time, and access route of each visit to the work 
site;
    <bullet> Information on the weather, including tidal state and 
estimated horizontal visibility;
    <bullet> Composition of marine mammals observed, such as species, 
sex, and life history stage (e.g., adult, sub-adult, pup);
    <bullet> The numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during 
the activities;
    <bullet> Estimated number of marine mammals (by species) that may 
have been harassed during the activities;
    <bullet> Marine mammal disturbances according to a three-point 
scale of intensity (see Table 2);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> A summary of the dates, times, site access route, and 
weather during all construction activities;
    <bullet> The numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed during 
the activities, by age and sex, if possible;
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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) 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#663634482f3236482b09080f1209140f080134031609141215260809070748010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="560604781f0206781b39383f2239243f383104332639242225163839373778313920">[email protected]</span></a>) 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:
    <bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
    <bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
    <bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
    <bullet> Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
    <bullet> If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
    <bullet> 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., population-
level 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

[[Page 24528]]

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 in-water, 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:
    <bullet> No serious injury or mortality, or Level A harassment is 
anticipated or proposed to be authorized;
    <bullet> Few pups are expected to be disturbed, and would not be 
abandoned or otherwise harmed by other seals flushing from the area;
    <bullet> Effects of the activities would be limited to short-term, 
localized behavioral changes;
    <bullet> Nominal impacts to pinniped habitat are anticipated;
    <bullet> No biologically important areas have been identified in 
the project area;
    <bullet> There is abundant suitable habitat nearby for marine 
mammals to temporarily relocate; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 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/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.

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:
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>