Notice2023-05964
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Punta Gorda Lighthouse Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, CA
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
March 23, 2023
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 construction activities associated with Phase 2 of the Punta Gorda Lighthouse (PGL) Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, CA. 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, 1 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 88 Issue 56 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17525-17538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05964]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XC796]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Punta Gorda Lighthouse
Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, CA
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
construction activities associated with Phase 2 of the Punta Gorda
Lighthouse (PGL) Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, CA. 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, 1 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 April
24, 2023.
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#347d60641a725851595d5a53745a5b55551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d39a8783fd95bfb6bebabdb493bdbcb2b2fdb4bca5">[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) 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: Kate Fleming, 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 IHA 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
[[Page 17526]]
or making a final decision on the IHA request.
Summary of Request
On October 26, 2022, NMFS received a request from the BLM for an
IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Phase 2 of the Punta Gorda
Lighthouse Stabilization Project in Humboldt County, California.
Following NMFS' review of the application, BLM submitted a revised
version on January 27, 2023 and again on February 8, 2023. The
application was deemed adequate and complete on February 9, 2023. BLM's
request is for take of northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii),
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and Steller sea lion
(Eumatopias jubata) by Level B harassment only. Neither BLM nor NMFS
expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and,
therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to BLM for related work (87 FR 34659,
June 7, 2022). BLM complied with all the requirements (e.g.,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) of the previous IHA and
information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the
Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
and Estimated Take sections.
This proposed IHA would cover the final year of work of a larger
project for which BLM obtained a prior IHA. The larger 2-year project
involves construction activities to restore all remaining buildings of
the Punta Gorda Lighthouse Site.
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. The U.S.
Coast Guard decommissioned the lighthouse in 1951. The BLM assumed
management of the site following the PGL's decommission. 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 repaired and stabilized the lighthouse building itself
during the summer of 2022. Construction activities are proposed to
repair and stabilize the remaining structure at the site, which is an
oil house. Human presence, noise from construction work, and noise from
and/or presence of supply transport vehicles may result in behavioral
disturbance primarily of harbor seals and northern elephant seals, and
potentially California sea lions and Steller sea lions. The project
will take no more than 122 construction days between June and September
2023.
Dates and Duration
Stabilization and repair of the PGL oil house will occur between
June 1 and October 1, 2023. Work crews are expected to work 8 to 10
hours per day, Monday through Friday with intermittent weekend work
necessary to meet work schedule objectives, for a total of up to 122
days. The proposed IHA would be valid from June 1, 2023 to October 1,
2023.
Specific Geographic Region
The PGL is located approximately 10 kilometers (km) southwest of
Petrolia, California and 18 km south of Cape Mendocino, within the King
Range National Conservation Area. The PGL is a remote site situated
along the Lost Coast Trail, which extends 40 km (24.8 mi) from the
mouth of the Mattole River to Shelter Cove, California and is the
longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in California. Vehicle access
to the PGL site will originate at the trailhead at the Mattole
Campground, and requires traveling across sandy beach that can be
limited by high tides. Supplies and demolition material may also be
transported to and from the site from the air via helicopter. The oil
house sits upon a small hill above a sandy moderately sloped fine-sand
beach that is separated by a narrow marine terrace. Pinnipeds are most
often found on the beach itself but elephant seals occasionally use the
marine terrace as well. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23MR23.001
[[Page 17527]]
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
Phase 2 of the PGL stabilization project is comprised of repairs to
the oil house; the foundation and walls of the oil house are cracked
and separated and the lead-based paint has deteriorated.
The BLM proposed to conduct repair work in stages. As part of the
initiation phase, the portion of the marine terrace north of the PGL
would be designated and fenced for 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 in to the work
zone.
The first stage of correcting deficiencies of the oil house would
consist of lead paint remediation and demolition of failing concrete
and rebar. The remaining structure will be treated to prevent further
corrosion. The roof of the oil house will be completely demolished
along with the northwestern corner of the oil house foundation.
Numerous other small concrete repairs will occur simultaneously. Gas
powered construction saws, jack hammers, heavy equipment (e.g. backhoe/
excavator) and hand tools will be used to complete the demolition.
Following demolition, concrete forms will be erected, new concrete will
be poured, and the new structure will be painted with a sealing
elastomeric paint (or similar product) to prevent further corrosion.
The site will be accessed by ground vehicles at the Mattole
Campground trailhead to the north. The route requires traveling across
sand and can be limited by high tides. Supplies will be transported by
ground using all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), side-by-side terrain vehicles
(UTVs), and heavy equipment. Helicopters may also 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 (15-30 m) above ground for a short duration (up to five minutes)
while the sling load is disconnected. Additionally, ground vehicles or
helicopter lifts may be used to transport demolition debris to waste
facilities if not buried on site.
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 activity, 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 proposed
to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species or stocks 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 (including from
the draft 2022 SARs) and are available 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>.
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.................... Eumatopias jubata...... Eastern U.S............ -, -, N 43,201 (N/A, 43,201, 2,592 112
2017).
California sea lion................. Zalophus californica... U.S.................... -, -, N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 >321
2014).
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Northern elephant seal.............. Mirounga angustirostris California Breeding.... -, -, N 187,386............... 5,122 13.7
(N/A, 85,369, 2013)...
Pacific Harbor seal................. Phoca vitulina California............. -, -, N 30,968 (N/A 27,348, 1,641 43
richardii. 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.
[[Page 17528]]
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, which takes about a year.
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 been observed traveling in the coastal
waters and hauled out on offshore rocks near the access route. They are
infrequently observed in waters near the proposed project area; During
the first year of construction, California sea lions were observed on
the offshore rocks and on the beach near the project area on several
occasions (BLM 2022).
Steller Sea Lion
The project site could be visited by the eastern distinct
population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lion; the eastern DPS 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. Steller sea lion are most typically found in coastal
waters on the continental shelf, but they also occur and sometimes
forage in much deeper continental slope and pelagic waters. Haulout and
rookery sites consist of beaches (gravel, rocky, or sand), ledges, and
rocky reefs. They usually return to their natal rookery sites to breed.
Steller sea lions have been observed in the water near PGL and
hauled out in offshore rocks near Sea Lion Gulch, which is a haulout
site approximately 2.5 km to the south of the project site. A single
Steller sea lion was observed on one occasion at PGL during the first
year of construction (BLM 2022). Though uncommon, it is reasonably
likely that a Steller sea lion could occur at the PGL or along the
access route.
Northern Elephant Seal
Northern elephant seals are found 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. While on land, they prefer sandy beaches.
They typically breed and give birth in the Channel Islands off
California or Baja California in Mexico, primarily on offshore islands
from December to March. 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 four 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 one to four 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 haulout period in October, and at that time some
individuals undergo partial molt (Le Boeuf and Laws, 1994).
Northern elephant seals colonized the beach below the PGL in 2013
and 2014, and the colony has grown rapidly since then. They haul out on
the beach between the intertidal zone and the narrow marine terrace,
and occasionally make their way onto the marine terrace or even the
Lost Coast Trail. 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 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
Harbor seals are one of the most common marine mammals along the
U.S. West and East Coasts. One the west, coast they are found from
Bering Sea to Baja California. They have long been considered non-
migratory, typically staying within 15-31 miles of their natal area,
though tracking data show they sometimes travel much further distances
to exploit seasonally available food or give birth to pups.
Harbor seals mate at sea, and females give birth during the spring
and summer. Pupping season varies with latitude. Pups are nursed for 4-
6 weeks 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, and the Mattole River Spit, approximately 6 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 from the oil house. Up to 190 harbor seals have
been observed at the PGL (Goley et al., 2021). Harbor seals have
haulout site fidelity (Herder, 1986, Yochem et al., 1987, Dietz et al.,
2012, Waring et al., 2016) and the seals present at the PGL haulout are
likely to be present across multiple days. Although harbor seals
commonly use the beach near the PGL for resting throughout the year,
only small numbers of 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 provides a discussion of the ways in which 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 whether those
impacts are reasonably expected
[[Page 17529]]
to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
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
cause Level B harassment of marine mammals hauled-out at the PGL and
along the proposed access routes. Disturbance could result in 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. NMFS assumes that pinnipeds that move greater than
two body lengths or longer, or if already moving, engage in 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Level 1 is not
considered take.
During the first year of construction, Level B harassment to
pinnipeds was far less than authorized. Early on, vehicle approaches to
PGL disturbed harbor seals, but they quickly appeared to become
habituated to the presence of vehicles (BLM 2022). The loudest
activities (e.g., driving fence posts, jack hammering, and hammering/
grinding on metal), caused the greatest level of disturbance primarily
to harbor seals. However, disturbance events were more prevalent during
the start of the day as seals seemingly began to habituate to the
construction activities as the day progressed. Overall Level B
harassment observed was a small fraction of the estimated take
authorized (BLM 2022) and while harbor seals were observed both moving
and flushing (Levels 2 and 3; Table 2) in response to construction
activities, no flushing behavior was observed of elephant seals.
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, as was
observed during first year construction activities (BLM 2022).
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).
In 2004, Johnson and Acevedo-Gutierrez (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 138 and 371 m, respectively. The
authors note that the seals were unaffected by passing powerboats, even
those approaching as close as 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 (Johnson
and Acevedo-Gutierrez, 2007). Although no boats would be used in the
PGL stabilization project, we expect that hauled-out pinnipeds exposed
to the BLM's
[[Page 17530]]
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 re: 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
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; Southall et al., 2007, NOAA 2009).
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
expected to exceed the behavioral disturbance thresholds.
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). Although helicopter flights were proposed in support of year 1
construction activities at PGL, no helicopter flights were implemented.
In 2008, NMFS issued an IHA to the USFWS for the take 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).
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 at this site and others has not
recorded stampeding
[[Page 17531]]
events (e.g., BLM 2022, 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
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 including first year
construction at this site, 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 oil house, 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 (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, BLM 2022).
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) on site during the first year of
construction recorded daily counts as well. Counts of northern elephant
seals, harbor seals, California sea lion, and Steller sea lion at the
PGL during the effective dates of the proposed IHA (June 1 through
October 1) are presented below.
Table 3--Pinniped Census Counts at Punta Gorda Lighthouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Number of Number of California sea Steller sea
Date elephant seals harbor seals lions observed lions observed
observed observed * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 8.......................................... 101 51 - -
June 15......................................... 74 107 - -
June 23......................................... 34 81 - -
[[Page 17532]]
July 7.......................................... 40 116 - -
July 14......................................... 50 180 - -
July 21......................................... 54 123 - -
August 3........................................ 39 105 - -
August 21....................................... 44 80 - -
August 31....................................... 62 22 - -
September 15.................................... 162 22 - -
September 27.................................... 244 28 - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4.......................................... 177 - - -
June 11......................................... 83 - - -
June 14......................................... 80 55 - -
June 24......................................... 37 - - -
June 27......................................... 38 77 - -
July 4.......................................... 36 - - -
July 12......................................... 39 90 - -
July 16......................................... 38 - - -
July 24......................................... 36 123 - -
July 30......................................... 38 - - -
August 6........................................ 32 - - -
August 9........................................ 28 73 - -
August 13....................................... 28 - - -
August 20....................................... 27 - - -
August 27....................................... 33 - - -
August 30....................................... 48 36 - -
September 5..................................... 60 38 - -
September 19.................................... 133 51 - -
September 27.................................... 177 53 - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 10......................................... 199 - - -
June 29......................................... 59 109 - -
July 10......................................... 48 128 - -
July 26......................................... 34 104 - -
August 7........................................ 30 103 - -
August 22....................................... 42 68 - -
September 2..................................... 106 - - -
September 16.................................... 135 - - -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 Counts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22......................................... 39 42 0 0
June 23......................................... 53 50 0 0
June 24......................................... 34 117 0 0
June 25......................................... 50 110 0 0
June 27......................................... 38 150 0 0
June 28......................................... 61 126 0 0
June 29......................................... 54 132 0 0
June 30......................................... 56 169 0 0
July 1.......................................... 52 137 0 0
July 5.......................................... 48 156 0 0
July 6.......................................... 51 142 0 0
July 7.......................................... 34 - 0 0
July 8.......................................... 33 121 0 0
July 9.......................................... 56 141 0 0
July 11......................................... 28 106 0 0
July 12......................................... 37 139 0 1
July 13......................................... 38 156 0 0
July 14......................................... 34 190 0 0
July 15......................................... 37 134 0 0
July 16......................................... 30 136 0 0
July 18......................................... 29 114 0 0
July 19......................................... 30 108 0 0
July 20......................................... 25 122 0 0
July 21......................................... 27 99 0 0
July 22......................................... 32 109 0 0
July 23......................................... 31 109 0 0
[[Page 17533]]
July 25......................................... 29 115 0 0
July 26......................................... 33 93 0 0
July 27......................................... 30 58 0 0
July 28......................................... 29 91 0 0
July 29......................................... 33 73 0 0
August 1........................................ 31 82 0 0
August 2........................................ 28 76 0 0
August 4........................................ 32 77 0 0
August 5........................................ 28 105 2 0
August 6........................................ 29 72 0 0
August 8........................................ 26 71 0 0
August 9........................................ 27 55 10 0
August 10....................................... 28 48 7 0
August 11....................................... 32 41 0 0
August 12....................................... 38 56 0 0
August 15....................................... 34 46 0 0
August 16....................................... 40 56 3 0
August 17....................................... 42 61 0 0
August 18....................................... 44 50 0 0
August 19....................................... 42 64 0 0
August 20....................................... 39 56 0 0
August 22....................................... 40 57 7 0
August 23....................................... 48 58 6 0
August 24....................................... 48 60 0 0
August 25....................................... 54 59 0 0
August 26....................................... 51 48 0 0
August 27....................................... 54 38 0 0
August 29....................................... 65 37 0 0
August 30....................................... 57 51 1 0
August 31....................................... 46 49 0 0
September 1..................................... 60 41 0 0
Daily Average................................... 52.4 87.4 0.6 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dashes (-) refer to instance where researchers did not record occurrence information.
Between 2019 and 2022, census counts of elephant seals and harbor
seals were collected at PGL during the effective dates of the proposed
IHA (June 1-October 1). Across all 4 years, the average daily count was
52.4 elephant seals (Goley et al., 2021, BLM 2022). A large proportion
of the elephant seals present at PGL are uniquely tagged and dye
stamped to identify individuals and the same individuals were
identified at the PGL haulout on multiple days. Across all four years,
the daily average of harbor seals was 87.4. The harbor seals present at
the PGL are not tagged or otherwise clearly identifiable, but since
harbor seals typically show hauling site fidelity (Herder 1986, Yochem
et al., 1987, Dietz et al., 2012, Waring et al., 2016), 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.
During the first year of construction (June-October 2022), PSOs
recorded the number of California and Steller sea lions present in the
PGL area. The daily average count of California sea lions was 0.6 and
the daily average count of Steller sea lions was 0.02.
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 pinnipeds 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 all years of available census data (52.4
elephant seals, 87.4 harbor seals, 0.6 California sea lions, and 0.02
Steller sea lions) by the maximum days of work at the PGL (122 days),
for an estimated total take events of 6,393 for northern elephant
seals, 10,663 for harbor seals, 73 for California sea lions, and 2 for
Steller sea lions) taken by Level B harassment. This estimation assumes
that all animals present would exhibit behavioral responses that are
considered take (Levels 2 and Level 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. In
the case of Steller sea lion, 2 takes may not adequately account for
all instances of possible take that could occur should multiple
individuals enter the project area over the course of construction, or
one individual enter the project area on multiple occasions. As such
the take estimate for this species has been increased to 30 as
requested by the applicant.
[[Page 17534]]
Table 4--Proposed Take by Level B Harassment by Species and Percentage of Each Stock Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Proposed
Species Stock take by Level Stock Percent of
B harassment abundance stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern elephant seal................ California breeding..... 6,393 187,386 3.4
Pacific harbor seal................... California.............. 10,663 30,968 34.4
California sea lion................... U.S..................... 73 257,606 0.03
Steller sea lion...................... Eastern U.S............. 30 77,149 0.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The proposed take represents the estimated number of instances of take, which does not equate to the number
of individuals that may be taken.
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 stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on
operations.
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) occur when the elephant seal
presence 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 are expected to be
present during the work season.
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.
While accessing and departing the project site, trained 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 of marine mammals. If animals remain in the access
path with no possible route to go around and maintain 20 m separation,
a PSO may walk toward the 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.
At least one PSO will arrive onsite 10 minutes ahead of contractors
each day to obtain counts in two separate locations viewing both
haulouts before work commences.
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.
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 activity; or (4) biological or
behavioral
[[Page 17535]]
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 should 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 of 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 mammal
observed in the area when 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> Estimated numbers (by species) of marine mammals observed
during the activities;
<bullet> Location of marine mammals observed during construction
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> Note the presence of any offshore predators (date, time,
number, and species).
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 NMFS
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. The marine mammal report would include an overall
description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal
sightings and behavioral response to construction activities, and
associated PSO data sheets.
In addition to submitting raw sightings data, the report must
include:
<bullet> Dates, and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal
monitoring;
<bullet> Construction activities occurring during each daily
observation period such as supply transport via ground and/or
helicopter, fence installation, trail maintenance, and demolition etc.;
<bullet> PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
<bullet> Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), and any relevant weather conditions including fog, sun
glare, and estimated observable distance.
Prior to the commencement of activities, on each subsequent hour
during construction, and before finishing construction each day, PSOs
would record and report the following marine mammal observations:
<bullet> Name of the PSO who completed the observations and PSO
location and activity at the time of recording;
<bullet> Time of observation;
<bullet> The number (by species) of marine mammals observed during
the activities, by age and sex, if possible, and distances to
construction activities. Data may be reported according to groups in
cases where animals are concentrated together;
<bullet> The behavioral response of marine mammals (by species,
age, and sex as possible) to construction activities based on the 3
point scale (Table 2), including distances to construction activities
and descriptions of construction activities occurring at the time of
observance. When pinnipeds are concentrated in groups, closest distance
of the group to construction activities may be reported;
<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.
Separately, the same information should be recorded and reported
each time Level 2 or Level 3 harassment of marine mammals is observed.
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#3060621e7964601e7d5f5e59445f42595e576255405f424443705e5f51511e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3262601c7b66621c7f5d5c5b465d405b5c556057425d404641725c5d53531c555d44">[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 a specific 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;
[[Page 17536]]
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition of
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 4, 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 Phase 2 of 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 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 construction. In fact, the daily average of harbor
seal pups present at PGL during 2022 construction (June 22-September 1)
was just 1.7. 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 including phase 1 construction at this site, 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. In fact, during
the first year of construction at PGL elephant seals were not observed
flushing at any point during construction and were only observed moving
on 11 occasions. Harbor seals were observed flushing 255 times and
moving 322 times, which represents a small fraction (6%) of the Level B
harassment authorized for the project (BLM 2022).
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
[[Page 17537]]
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 previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
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.
With the exception of Pacific harbor seals, the amount of take NMFS
proposes to authorize is well below one-third of any stock's best
population estimate (see Table 4), which NMFS considers to be small
relative to stock abundance. In fact, the annual take by Level B
harassment is less than 1% of stock abundance for both otariid species
that may be encountered in the project area (i.e., California sea lion
and Steller sea lion), and less than 4 percent of the northern elephant
seal stock's best population estimate. While the estimated take of
Pacific harbor seal equates to over 33% of the Pacific harbor seal
stock, these takes represent instances of take, not necessarily the
number of individual seals that may be taken. As such, in all cases,
including Pacific harbor seal, these take estimates are considered
conservative because NMFS assumes all takes are of different individual
animals which is likely not the case. Researchers from HSU have used
tags and dye stamps to identify individual elephant seals and have
verified the same individuals are hauling out at PGL. While harbor
seals are not marked or otherwise clearly identifiable, HSU researchers
hypothesize that the harbor seal colony at PGL is made up of the same
individuals that move between Punta Gorda and other nearby haulouts.
This is based on the fact that this species typically shows hauling
site fidelity (Herder 1986, Yochem et al., 1987, Dietz et al., 2012,
Waring et al., 2016). Therefore, many individuals that may be taken by
Level B harassment are likely to be the same across consecutive days,
despite PSOs counting them as separate takes throughout the duration of
the project.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals 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 Phase 2 of the PGL Stabilization
Project repair in Humboldt County, California between June 1 and
October 1, 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities">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. 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, 1 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:
[[Page 17538]]
<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: March 16, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-05964 Filed 3-22-23; 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 March 23, 2023.
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.