Notice2022-08873
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Punta Gorda Lighthouse Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 26, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24517-24529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a> 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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>. 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; <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general information about these
species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on
NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>).
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: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>. 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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities</a>.
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>Indexed from Federal Register on April 26, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.