Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Russian River Estuary Management Activities, 14985-14999 [2013-05361]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14985-14999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XC496


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Russian River Estuary Management Activities

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Sonoma County Water 
Agency (SCWA) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 
marine mammals incidental to Russian River estuary management 
activities. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 
is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to SCWA to take, 
by Level B Harassment only, several species of marine mammals during 
the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 8, 
2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Michael 
Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is ITP.Laws@noaa.gov. NMFS is not responsible for email 
comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments 
sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-
megabyte file size.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public 
record. 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.
    A copy of the application as well as a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Supplemental documents 
provided by SCWA may be found at the same web address, as can NMFS' 
Environmental Assessment (2010) and associated Finding of No 
Significant Impact, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by 
appointment only, at the aforementioned physical address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
published in the Federal Register to provide public notice and initiate 
a 30-day comment period.
    Authorization for incidental taking shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking, other means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its 
habitat, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS 
has defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``* * * an impact 
resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably 
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by Level B 
harassment as defined below. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day 
time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day 
public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the 
incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of 
the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization 
and publish notice in the Federal Register of issuance or denial within 
30 days. If authorized, an IHA may be effective for a maximum of one 
year from date of issuance.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines `harassment' as: ``any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].''

Summary of Request

    We received an application on January 17, 2013 from SCWA requesting 
issuance of an IHA for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of 
marine mammals incidental to activities conducted in management of the 
Russian River estuary in Sonoma County, California. This would be the 
fourth such IHA, if issued. SCWA was first issued an IHA, valid for a 
period of one year, on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 17382), and was 
subsequently issued IHAs for incidental take associated with the same 
activities on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 23306) and April 17, 2012 (77 FR 
24471). The proposed activities include management of a naturally-
formed barrier beach at the mouth of the river in order to minimize 
potential for flooding adjacent to the Russian River estuary and 
enhance habitat for juvenile salmonids, and biological and physical 
monitoring of the estuary. Flood control-related breaching of barrier 
beach at the mouth of the river may include artificial breaches, as 
well as construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel. The 
latter activity, an alternative management technique conducted to 
mitigate impacts of flood control on rearing habitat for Endangered 
Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonids, occurs only from May 15 through 
October 15 (hereafter, the ``lagoon management period''). Species known 
from the haul-out at the mouth of the Russian River or from peripheral 
haul-outs, and

[[Page 14986]]

considered in this document, include the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), 
California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and northern elephant 
seal (Mirounga angustirostris).
    Breaching of naturally-formed barrier beach at the mouth of the 
Russian River requires the use of heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer, 
excavator) and increased human presence. As a result, pinnipeds hauled 
out on the beach may exhibit behavioral responses that indicate 
incidental take by Level B harassment under the MMPA. Numbers of harbor 
seals, the species most commonly encountered at the haul-out, have been 
recorded extensively since 1972 at the haul-out near the mouth of the 
Russian River (the Jenner haul-out). Based on these monitoring data and 
SCWA's estimated number of management events, SCWA is requesting 
authorization to incidentally harass up to 3,130 harbor seals, 42 
California sea lions, and 42 northern elephant seals during the 1-year 
time span of the proposed IHA, from April 21, 2013 to April 20, 2014.

Description of the Specified Activity

    The estuary is located about 97 km (60 mi) northwest of San 
Francisco in Sonoma County, near Jenner, California (see Figure 1 of 
SCWA's application). The Russian River watershed encompasses 3,847 
km\2\ (1,485 mi\2\) in Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake Counties. The mouth 
of the Russian River is located at Goat Rock State Beach (see Figure 2 
of SCWA's application); the estuary extends from the mouth upstream 
approximately 10 to 11 km (6-7 mi) between Austin Creek and the 
community of Duncans Mills (Heckel and McIver, 1994). The proposed 
action involves management of the estuary to prevent flooding while 
preventing adverse modification to critical habitat for ESA-listed 
salmonids. During the lagoon management period, this involves 
construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel that would 
facilitate formation of a perched lagoon. A perched lagoon, which is an 
estuary closed to tidal influence in which water surface elevation is 
above mean high tide, would reduce flooding while maintaining 
beneficial conditions for juvenile salmonids. Additional breaches of 
barrier beach may be conducted for the sole purpose of reducing flood 
risk. SCWA's proposed activity was described in detail in our notice of 
proposed authorization prior to the 2011 IHA (76 FR 14924; March 18, 
2011); please see that document for a detailed description of SCWA's 
estuary management activities.
    Within the Russian River watershed, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps), SCWA and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood 
Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (District) operate 
and maintain federal facilities and conduct activities in addition to 
the estuary management, including flood control, water diversion and 
storage, instream flow releases, hydroelectric power generation, 
channel maintenance, and fish hatchery production. The Corps, SCWA, and 
the District conducted these activities for many years before salmonid 
species in the Russian River were protected under the ESA. Upon 
determination that these actions were likely to affect ESA-listed 
salmonids, as well as designated critical habitat for these species, 
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA was initiated. In 2008, 
NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) for Water Supply, Flood Control 
Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the Corps, SCWA, and 
the District in the Russian River watershed (NMFS, 2008). This BiOp 
found that the activities--including SCWA's estuary management 
activities--authorized by the Corps and undertaken by SCWA and the 
District, if continued in a manner similar to recent historic 
practices, were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-
listed salmonids and were likely to adversely modify critical habitat.
    If a project is found to jeopardize a species or adversely modify 
its critical habitat, NMFS must develop and recommend a non-
jeopardizing Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the proposed 
project, in coordination with the federal action agency and any 
applicant. A component of the RPA described in the 2008 BiOp requires 
SCWA to collaborate with NMFS and modify their estuary water level 
management in order to reduce marine influence (i.e., high salinity and 
tidal inflow) and promote a higher water surface elevation in the 
estuary in order to enhance the quality of rearing habitat for juvenile 
salmonids. A program of potential incremental steps prescribed to reach 
that goal includes adaptive management of the outlet channel. SCWA is 
also required to monitor the response of water quality, invertebrate 
production, and salmonids in and near the estuary to water surface 
elevation management in the estuary-lagoon system.
    The analysis contained in the BiOp found that maintenance of lagoon 
conditions was necessary only for the lagoon management period. See 
NMFS' BiOp (2008) for details of that analysis. As a result of that 
determination, there are three components to SCWA's estuary management 
activities: (1) Lagoon outlet channel management, during the lagoon 
management period only, required to accomplish the dual purposes of 
flood risk abatement and maintenance of juvenile salmonid habitat; (2) 
traditional artificial breaching, with the sole goal of flood risk 
abatement; and (3) physical and biological monitoring. Please see the 
previously referenced Federal Register notice (76 FR 14924; March 18, 
2011) for detailed discussion of these activities.

Jetty Study

    In addition to the previously described activities, SCWA proposes 
to conduct new monitoring work at the mouth of the Russian River during 
the period of this proposed IHA. This additional activity comprises a 
plan to study the effects of a historical, dilapidated jetty on the 
formation and maintenance of the Russian River estuary, as required 
under RPA 2 of the 2008 BiOp. Through several phases from 1929-1948, 
the jetty and associated seawall, roadway, and railroad were 
constructed, reinforced and then abandoned by various entities. The 
plan for study of the jetty is described in greater detail in SCWA's 
``Feasibility of Alternatives to the Goat Rock State Beach Jetty for 
Managing Lagoon Water Surface Elevations--A Study Plan'' (ESA PWA, 
2011). The jetty study was planned for 2012 (and considered under the 
previous IHA) but did not occur, and is now planned for 2013.
    NMFS' BiOp determined that salmonid estuarine habitat may be 
improved by managing the Russian River estuary as a perched, freshwater 
lagoon and, therefore, stipulates as a RPA to existing conditions that 
the estuary be managed to achieve such conditions between May 15th and 
October 15th. In recognition of the complexity and uncertainty inherent 
in attempting to manage conditions in a dynamic beach environment, the 
BiOp stipulates that the estuarine water surface elevation RPA be 
managed adaptively, meaning that it should be planned, implemented, and 
then iteratively refined based on experience gained from 
implementation. The first phase of adaptive management, which has been 
implemented since 2010, is limited to outlet channel management (ESA 
PWA, 2012). The second phase requires study of and consideration of 
alternatives to the jetty (e.g., complete removal, partial removal).
    The jetty, which is embedded in the barrier beach, may 
significantly affect some of the physical processes which

[[Page 14987]]

determine lagoon water surface elevations. The proposed study would 
analyze the effects of the jetty on beach permeability and sand storage 
and transport. These physical processes are affected by the jetty, and, 
in turn, may affect seasonal water surface elevations and flood risk. 
Evaluating and quantifying these linkages will inform the development 
and evaluation of management alternatives for the jetty.
    The goal of the proposed study is to evaluate the feasibility of 
modifying or removing the jetty to improve the likelihood of achieving 
the target lagoon water surface elevations. To accomplish this goal, 
the study objectives include: (1) Describe the extent and composition 
of the jetty; (2) understand the jetty's effects on the physical 
processes which partially determine lagoon water surface elevations, 
including beach permeability, sand storage, and sand transport; (3) 
evaluate the jetty's role in flood risk to property adjacent to the 
estuary; and (4) recommend an approach for developing and analyzing 
jetty alternatives, such as jetty removal, partial removal, jetty 
notching and other uses of the jetty which may help achieve target 
lagoon water surface elevations.
    The study would involve delineation of two study transects 
perpendicular to the beach barrier (see Figure 5 of SCWA's 
application). To study water seepage rates, six monitoring wells would 
be constructed on the barrier beach of the estuary (three per 
transect); these would be installed using a hollow stem auger drill rig 
and two inch diameter casings. Wells would be capped and buried below 
the sand surface to prevent vandalism and tourist interaction. The well 
locations were chosen to minimize potential for disturbance of 
pinnipeds using the Jenner haul-out (i.e., greater than 200 ft south of 
the actual haul-out location and on the opposite side of the jetty). No 
personnel or heavy equipment would need to approach or transit the 
haul-out, as is required for other estuary management activities. The 
noise generated from the drill is estimated to be 85-90 db re: 20 
[mu]Pa at a distance of 20 ft. Given a maximum estimated source level 
of 90 dB (at 20 ft) and the distance between planned location of the 
wells and the haul-out, received sound levels at the haul-out would be 
below the level at which NMFS considers harassment from airborne sound 
to be a possibility for harbor seals (90 dB re: 20 [mu]Pa). It is 
unlikely that harassment of pinnipeds would result from this activity; 
however, SCWA would implement standard mitigation measures as for other 
planned activities.
    In order to better understand the characteristics of the barrier 
beach substrate and the location and composition of buried portions of 
the jetty and associated structures, geophysical surveys would be 
conducted along the barrier beach. Seismic refraction and electrical 
resistivity profiling would be conducted simultaneously. Seismic 
refraction involves pounding an impact hammer on the surface of the 
beach, creating a sound wave that resonates through the sand bar. It is 
not believed that this activity would generate sound at levels 
sufficient to be detected by seals hauled out along the beach; in fact, 
it is likely that sound waves generated by ocean waves crashing on the 
beach will be a source of interference when trying to detect the sound 
waves generated by the impact hammer (i.e., hauled-out seals would not 
be able to distinguish between sound pressure waves felt as a result of 
surf as opposed to seismic refraction). Electric resistivity profiling 
involves placing probes down into the substrate and would not produce 
any physical or auditory disturbance to the pinnipeds on the beach. 
This profile would be completed by a staff of up to three personnel for 
a period of 2 consecutive days. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) profiles 
would also be completed near the jetty in perpendicular transects 30 to 
40 feet long. The profiles would be collected by two personnel 
travelling on foot and should only take 1 day to complete.
    Once the initial geophysical surveys have been completed, 
additional surface electromagnetic profiles will be collected along the 
barrier beach in order to explore how the jetty impacts beach seepage 
relative to the natural beach berm. Collecting these electromagnetic 
profiles will involve 2-3 personnel walking along the barrier beach 
using either a hand-held conductivity meter or a pull-along 
capacitively coupled Ohm-Mapper system cable with sensors. Neither of 
these instruments generates sound that could disturb pinnipeds on the 
beach.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Harbor seals are the most common species inhabiting the haul-out at 
the mouth of the Russian River (Jenner haul-out). California sea lions 
and northern elephant seals have also been observed infrequently in the 
project area. In addition to the Jenner haul-out, there are eight 
peripheral haul-outs nearby (see Figure 4 of SCWA's application). These 
include North Jenner and Odin Cove to the north; Pocked Rock, Kabemali, 
and Rock Point to the south; and Penny Logs, Patty's Rock, and 
Chalanchawi upstream within the estuary.

Harbor Seals

    Harbor seals in the eastern Pacific inhabit near-shore coastal and 
estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands 
in Alaska. In California, approximately 400-600 harbor seal haul-outs 
are widely distributed along the mainland and on offshore islands, 
including intertidal sandbars, rocky shores and beaches (Hanan, 1996).
    The harbor seal population in California is estimated at 
approximately 30,196 (CV=0.157) (Carretta et al., 2011). Counts of 
harbor seals in California showed a rapid increase from approximately 
1972 to 1990, though net production rates appeared to decline from 1982 
to 1994. The decrease in population growth rate has occurred at the 
same time as a decrease in human-caused mortality and may be an 
indication that the population is reaching its environmental carrying 
capacity.
    In general, harbor seals do not undertake long migrations, but do 
travel 300-500 km on occasion to find food or suitable breeding areas 
(Herder, 1986). Harbor seals are rarely found in pelagic waters and 
typically stay within the tidal and intertidal zones. On land, harbor 
seals haul out on rocky outcrops, mudflats, sandbars and sandy beaches 
with unrestricted access to water and with minimal human presence. 
Haul-out sites are important as resting sites for harbor seals, who 
feed opportunistically in shallow waters on fish, crustaceans, and 
cephalopods. Harbor seals are typically solitary while foraging, 
although small groups have been observed. They normally choose isolated 
sites for pupping, which normally occurs at the Russian River from 
March until late June, and sometimes into early July. The Jenner haul-
out is the largest in Sonoma County.
    A substantial amount of monitoring effort has been conducted at the 
Jenner haul-out and surrounding areas. Concerned local residents formed 
the Stewards' Seal Watch Public Education Program in 1985 to educate 
beach visitors and monitor seal populations. State Parks Volunteer 
Docents continue this effort towards safeguarding local harbor seal 
habitat. On weekends during the pupping and molting season 
(approximately March-August), volunteers conduct public outreach and 
record the numbers of visitors and seals on the beach, other marine 
mammals

[[Page 14988]]

observed, and the number of boats and kayaks present.
    Ongoing monthly seal counts at the Jenner haul-out were begun by J. 
Mortenson in January 1987, with additional nearby haul-outs added to 
the counts thereafter. In addition, local resident E. Twohy began daily 
observations of seals and people at the Jenner haul-out in November 
1989. These datasets note whether the mouth at the Jenner haul-out was 
opened or closed at each observation, as well as various other daily 
and annual patterns of haul-out usage (Mortenson and Twohy, 1994). 
Recently, SCWA began regular baseline monitoring of the haul-out as a 
component of its estuary management activity. Table 1 shows average 
daily numbers of seals observed at the mouth of the Russian River from 
1993-2005 and from 2009-12.

                        Table 1--Average Daily Number of Seals Observed at Russian River Mouth for Each Month, 1993-2005; 2009-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                              Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993....................................................     140     219     269     210     203     238     197      34       8      38      78     163
1994....................................................     138     221     243     213     208     212     246      98      26      31     101     162
1995....................................................     133     270     254     261     222     182     216      74      37      24      38     148
1996....................................................     144     175     261     247     157     104     142      65      17      29      76     139
1997....................................................     154     177     209     188     154     119     186      58      20      29      30     112
1998....................................................     119     151     192      93     170     213     232      53      33      21      93     147
1999....................................................     161     170     215     210     202     128     216      98      57      20      74     123
2000....................................................     151     185     240     180     158     245     256      63      46      50      86     127
2001....................................................     155     189     161     168     135     212     275      75      64      20     127     185
2002....................................................     117      12      20     154     134     213     215      89      43      26      73     126
2003....................................................      --       1      26     161     164     222     282     100      43      51     109     116
2004....................................................       2       5      39     180     202     318     307      35      40      47      68      61
2005....................................................       0       7      42     222     220     233     320     145      --      --      --      --
Mean, 1993-2005.........................................     118     137     167     191     179     203     238      76      36      32      79     134
2009....................................................      --      --      --      --      --      --     219     117      17      22      96      80
2010....................................................      66      84     129     136     109     136     267     111      59      25      89      26
2011....................................................     116      92     162     124     128     145     219      98      31      53      92      48
2012....................................................     108      74     115     169     164     166     156     128     100      71     137      51
Mean, 2010-12...........................................      97      83     135     143     134     149     214     112      63      50     106      42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from 1993-2005 adapted from Mortenson and Twohy, 1994 and E. Twohy unpublished data. Data from 2009-11 collected by SCWA.
Months represented by dashes indicate periods where data were missing or incomplete.

    The number of seals present at the Jenner haul-out generally 
declines during bar-closed conditions (Mortenson, 1996). SCWA's 
pinniped monitoring efforts from 1996 to 2000 focused on artificial 
breaching activities and their effects on the Jenner haul-out. Seal 
counts and disturbances were recorded from one to two days prior to 
breaching, the day of breaching, and the day after breaching (MSC, 
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). In each year, the trend 
observed was that harbor seal numbers generally declined during a beach 
closure and increased the day following an artificial breaching event. 
Heckel (1994) speculated that the loss of easy access to the haul-out 
and ready escape to the sea during bar-closed conditions may account 
for the lower numbers. Table 2 shows average daily seal counts recorded 
during SCWA monitoring of breaching events from 1996-2000 and 2009-12, 
representing bar-closed conditions, when seal numbers decline.

   Table 2--Average Number of Harbor Seals Observed at the Mouth of the Russian River During Breaching Events
                                     (i.e., Bar-Closed Conditions) by month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                  Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug     Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec     Jan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996-2000.......................     173     103     100      75      17       5      22      11      --      --
2009-12.........................      --      --     120     117      --      18      18      --       0      32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dashes represent months when no estuary management events occurred.

    Mortenson (1996) observed that pups were first seen at the Jenner 
haul-out in late March, with maximum counts in May. In this study, pups 
were not counted separately from other age classes at the haul-out 
after August due to the difficulty in discriminating pups from small 
yearlings. From 1989 to 1991, Hanson (1993) observed that pupping began 
at the Jenner haul-out in mid-April, with a maximum number of pups 
observed during the first two weeks of May. This corresponds with the 
peaks observed at Point Reyes, where the first viable pups are born in 
March and the peak is the last week of April to early May (SCWA, 2011). 
Based on this information, pupping season at the Jenner haul-out is 
conservatively defined here as March 15 to June 30.

California Sea Lions

    California sea lions range from southern Mexico to British 
Columbia, Canada. The entire U.S. population has been estimated at 
296,750, and grew at a rate of approximately 5.4 percent annually 
between 1975 and 2008 (Carretta et al., 2011). Sea lions can be found 
at sea from the surf zone out to nearshore and pelagic waters. On land, 
sea lions are found resting and breeding in groups of various sizes, 
and haul out on rocky surfaces and outcroppings and beaches, as well as 
on manmade structures such as jetties. Sea lions prefer haul-out sites 
and rookeries near abundant food supplies, with easy access to water, 
although they may occasionally travel up rivers and bays in search of 
food.
    California sea lions exhibit seasonal migration patterns organized 
around their breeding activity. Sea lions breed at large rookeries in 
the Channel Islands in southern California, and on both sides of the 
Baja California peninsula, typically from May to August. Females

[[Page 14989]]

tend to remain close to the rookeries throughout the year, while males 
migrate north after the breeding season in the late summer before 
migrating back south to the breeding grounds in the spring. No 
established rookeries are known north of Point Reyes, California, but 
large numbers of subadult and non-breeding or post-breeding male 
California sea lions are found throughout the Pacific Northwest. There 
is a mean seasonal pattern of peak numbers occurring in the northwest 
during fall, but local areas show high annual and seasonal variability. 
Sea lions feed on fish and cephalopods. Although solitary feeders, sea 
lions often hunt in groups, which can vary in size according to the 
abundance of prey.
    Solitary California sea lions have occasionally been observed at or 
in the vicinity of the haul-out (MSC, 1999, 2000). Individual sea lions 
were observed near the mouth of the Russian River in November and 
December of 2009; a single individual was observed hauled-out on one 
occasion in November 2009. Juvenile sea lions were observed during the 
summer of 2009 at the Patty's Rock haul-out, and some sea lions were 
observed during monitoring of peripheral haul-outs in October 2009. 
Male California sea lions are occasionally observed hauled out at or 
near the Russian River mouth in most years: Once in August 2009, 
January and December 2011, and January 2012. Other individuals were 
observed in the surf at the mouth of the river or swimming inside the 
estuary. Most recently, a solitary male sea lion was observed hauled 
out at the river mouth in January 2012 during breaching activities. The 
occurrence of individual California sea lions in the action area may 
occur year-round, but is infrequent and sporadic.

Northern Elephant Seals

    Populations of northern elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico are 
derived from a few tens or hundreds of individuals surviving in Mexico 
after being nearly hunted to extinction (Stewart et al., 1994). Given 
the recent derivation of most rookeries, no genetic differentiation 
would be expected. Although movement and genetic exchange continues 
between rookeries, most elephant seals return to their natal rookeries 
when they start breeding (Huber et al., 1991). The California breeding 
population is now demographically isolated from the Baja California 
population and is considered to be a separate stock. Based on the 
estimated 35,549 pups born in California in 2005, the California stock 
was estimated at approximately 124,000 (Carretta et al., 2007). Based 
on trends in pup counts, northern elephant seal colonies were 
continuing to grow in California through 2005 (Carretta et al., 2007).
    Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California and Baja 
California, Mexico, primarily on offshore islands from December to 
March (Stewart et al., 1994; Stewart and Huber, 1993). Gestation lasts 
around 11 months, and pups are born in early winter from December to 
January. Northern elephant seals are polygamous; males establish 
dominance over large groups of females during the breeding season. 
Males feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, 
and females feed further south (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et 
al., 1993). Adults return to land between March and August to molt, 
with males returning later than females. Adults return to their feeding 
areas again between their spring/summer molting and their winter 
breeding seasons.
    Censuses of pinnipeds at the mouth of the Russian River have been 
taken at least semi-monthly since 1987. Elephant seals were noted from 
1987-95, with one or two elephant seals typically counted during May 
censuses, and occasional records during the fall and winter (Mortenson 
and Follis, 1997). A single, tagged northern elephant seal sub-adult 
was present at the Jenner haul-out from 2002-07. This individual seal, 
which was observed harassing harbor seals also present at the haul-out, 
was generally present during molt and again from late December through 
March. A single juvenile elephant seal was observed at the Jenner haul-
out in June 2009. The occurrence of individual northern elephant seals 
in the action area has generally been infrequent and sporadic from 
December through March in the past 10 years.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    A significant body of monitoring data exists for pinnipeds at the 
mouth of the Russian River. In addition, pinnipeds have co-existed with 
regular estuary management activity for decades, as well as with 
regular human use activity at the beach, and are likely habituated to 
human presence and activity. Nevertheless, SCWA's estuary management 
activities have the potential to harass pinnipeds present on the beach. 
During breaching operations, past monitoring has revealed that some or 
all of the seals present typically move or flush from the beach in 
response to the presence of crew and equipment, though some may remain 
hauled-out. No stampeding of seals--a potentially dangerous occurrence 
in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away 
from a stimulus--has been documented since SCWA developed protocols to 
prevent such events in 1999. While it is likely impossible to conduct 
required estuary management activities without provoking some response 
in hauled-out animals, precautionary mitigation measures, described 
later in this document, ensure that animals are gradually apprised of 
human approach. Under these conditions, seals typically exhibit a 
continuum of responses, beginning with alert movements (e.g., raising 
the head), which may then escalate to movement away from the stimulus 
and possible flushing into the water. Flushed seals typically re-occupy 
the haul-out within minutes to hours of the stimulus. In addition, 
eight other haul-outs exist nearby that may accommodate flushed seals. 
In the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, it is possible that 
pinnipeds could be subject to injury, serious injury, or mortality, 
likely through stampeding or abandonment of pups.
    However, based on a significant body of site-specific data, harbor 
seals are unlikely to sustain any harassment that may be considered 
biologically significant. Individual animals would, at most, flush into 
the water in response to maintenance activities but may also simply 
become alert or move across the beach away from equipment and crews. 
California sea lions and northern elephant seals have been observed as 
less sensitive to stimulus than harbor seals during monitoring at 
numerous other sites. For example, monitoring of pinniped disturbance 
as a result of abalone research in the Channel Islands showed that 
while harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 percent, California sea 
lions flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for elephant seals 
declined to 0.1 percent (VanBlaricom, 2010). In the unlikely event that 
either of these species is present during management activities, they 
would be expected to display a minimal reaction to maintenance 
activities--less than that expected of harbor seals.
    Although the Jenner haul-out is not known as a primary pupping 
beach, pups have been observed during the pupping season; therefore, we 
have evaluated the potential for injury, serious injury, or mortality 
to pups. There is a lack of published data regarding pupping at the 
mouth of the Russian River, but SCWA monitors have observed pups on the 
beach. No births were observed during recent monitoring, but were 
inferred based on

[[Page 14990]]

signs indicating pupping (e.g., blood spots on the sand, birds 
consuming possible placental remains). Pup injury or mortality would be 
most likely to occur in the event of extended separation of a mother 
and pup, or trampling in a stampede. As discussed previously, no 
stampedes have been recorded since development of appropriate protocols 
in 1999. Any California sea lions or northern elephant seals present 
would be independent juveniles or adults; therefore, analysis of 
impacts on pups is not relevant for those species. Pups less than 1 
week old are characterized by being up to 15 kg, thin for their body 
length, or having an umbilicus or natal pelage.
    Similarly, the period of mother-pup bonding, critical time needed 
to ensure pup survival and maximize pup health, is not expected to be 
impacted by estuary management activities. Harbor seal pups are 
extremely precocious, swimming and diving immediately after birth and 
throughout the lactation period, unlike most other phocids which 
normally enter the sea only after weaning (Lawson and Renouf, 1985; 
Cottrell et al., 2002; Burns et al., 2005). Lawson and Renouf (1987) 
investigated harbor seal mother-pup bonding in response to natural and 
anthropogenic disturbance. In summary, they found that the most 
critical bonding time is within minutes after birth. As described 
previously, the peak of pupping season is typically concluded by mid-
May, when the lagoon management period begins. As such, it is expected 
that mother-pup bonding would likely be concluded as well. The number 
of management events during the months of March and April has been 
relatively low in the past, and the breaching activities occur in a 
single day over several hours. In addition, mitigation measures 
described later in this document further reduce the likelihood of any 
impacts to pups, whether through injury or mortality or interruption of 
mother-pup bonding.
    Based on extensive monitoring data, we have preliminarily 
determined that impacts to hauled-out pinnipeds during estuary 
management activities would be behavioral harassment of limited 
duration (i.e., less than one day) and limited intensity (i.e., 
temporary flushing at most). Stampeding, and therefore injury or 
mortality, is not expected--nor been documented--in the years since 
appropriate protocols were established (see ``Mitigation'' for more 
details). Further, the continued, and increasingly heavy, use of the 
haul-out despite decades of breaching events indicates that abandonment 
of the haul-out is unlikely.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The purposes of the estuary management activities are to improve 
summer rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids in the Russian River 
estuary and/or to minimize potential flood risk to properties adjacent 
to the estuary. These activities would result in temporary physical 
alteration of the Jenner haul-out, but are essential to conserving and 
recovering endangered salmonid species, as prescribed by the BiOp. 
These salmonids are themselves prey for pinnipeds. In addition, with 
barrier beach closure, seal usage of the beach haul-out declines, and 
the three nearby river haul-outs may not be available for usage due to 
rising water surface elevations. Breaching of the barrier beach, 
subsequent to the temporary habitat disturbance, would likely increase 
suitability and availability of habitat for pinnipeds. Biological and 
water quality monitoring would not physically alter pinniped habitat. 
Please see the previously referenced Federal Register notice (76 FR 
14924; March 18, 2011) for a more detailed discussion of anticipated 
effects on habitat.
    During SCWA's pinniped monitoring associated with artificial 
breaching activities from 1996 to 2000, the number of harbor seals 
hauled out declined when the barrier beach closed and then increased 
the day following an artificial breaching event (MSC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
and 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). This response to barrier beach closure 
followed by artificial breaching is anticipated to continue. However, 
it is possible that the number of pinnipeds using the haul-out could 
decline during the extended lagoon management period, when SCWA would 
seek to maintain a shallow outlet channel rather than the deeper 
channel associated with artificial breaching. Collection of baseline 
information during the lagoon management period is included in the 
monitoring requirements described later in this document. SCWA's 
previous monitoring, as well as Twohy's daily counts of seals at the 
sandbar (Table 1) indicate that the number of seals at the haul-out 
declines from August to October, so management of the lagoon outlet 
channel (and managing the sandbar as a summer lagoon) would have little 
effect on haul-out use during the latter portion of the lagoon 
management period. The early portion of the lagoon management period 
coincides with the pupping season. Past monitoring during this period, 
which represents some of the longest beach closures in the late spring 
and early summer months, shows that the number of pinnipeds at the 
haul-out tends to fluctuate, rather than showing the more 
straightforward declines and increases associated with closures and 
openings seen at other times of year (MSC, 1998). This may indicate 
that seal haul-out usage during the pupping season is less dependent on 
bar status. As such, the number of seals hauled out from May through 
July would be expected to fluctuate, but is unlikely to respond 
dramatically to the absence of artificial breaching events. Regardless, 
any impacts to habitat resulting from SCWA's management of the estuary 
during the lagoon management period are not in relation to natural 
conditions, but rather in relation to conditions resulting from SCWA's 
discontinued approach of artificial breaching during this period.
    In summary, there will be temporary physical alteration of the 
beach. However, natural opening and closure of the beach results in the 
same impacts to habitat; therefore, seals are likely adapted to this 
cycle. In addition, the increase in rearing habitat quality has the 
goal of increasing salmonid abundance, ultimately providing more food 
for seals present within the action area.

Summary of Previous Monitoring

    SCWA complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under all 
previous authorizations. In accordance with the 2012 IHA, SCWA 
submitted a Report of Activities and Monitoring Results, covering the 
period of January 1 through December 31, 2012. Previous monitoring 
reports provided additional analysis of monitoring results from 2009-
11. In January 2012, the barrier beach was artificially breached after 
two days of breaching activity. There were also several periods over 
the course of the year where the barrier beach closed or became 
naturally perched and then subsequently breached naturally. In 2011 no 
water level management activities occurred. In 2010 one lagoon 
management event and two artificial breaching events occurred. Pinniped 
monitoring occurred the day before, the day of, and the day after each 
water level management activity. In 2009 eleven artificial breaching 
events occurred. Pinniped monitoring occurred during each breaching 
event. In addition, SCWA conducted biological and physical monitoring 
as described previously. During the course of these activities, SCWA 
did not exceed the take levels authorized under the relevant IHAs.

[[Page 14991]]

Baseline Monitoring

    Baseline monitoring was performed to gather additional information 
regarding a possible relationship between tides, time of day, and the 
highest pinniped counts at the Jenner haul-out and to gain a better 
understanding about which specific conditions harbor seals may prefer 
for hauling out. The effect of tide cycle and time of day on the 
abundance of seals at the Jenner haul-out was explored in detail in the 
SCWA's previous report; data collected in 2012 did not change the 
interpretation of these findings. Baseline monitoring of the peripheral 
haul-outs was conducted concurrently with monitoring at the mouth of 
the Russian River, and was scheduled for 2 days out of each month with 
the intention of capturing a low and high tide each in the morning and 
afternoon. A total of 25 baseline surveys were conducted. No species of 
pinnipeds other than harbor seals were observed at the Jenner haul-out 
during the baseline monitoring. Figure 3 of SCWA's report shows the 
mean number of harbor seals during twice-monthly baseline monitoring 
events from 2009-12.
    Peak seal abundance occurred during the summer molting period with 
a similar peak in abundance during the spring pupping season. Peak seal 
abundance, as determined by the single greatest count of harbor seals 
at the Jenner haul-out, was on July 2 (335 seals) and on April 4 (326 
seals). In previous years the peak seal abundance occurred in July, 
however the April peak in seal abundance was only observed in the 
current year. Using the mean number of seals hauled out as a measure of 
average abundance, seal abundance at Jenner was greatest in April and 
remained at a similar level through July. In previous years average 
seal abundance was greatest in July. Similar to previous years, seal 
abundance did decline in the fall, however the 2012 average seal 
abundance was significantly higher in September and November compared 
to previous years. The same analysis concluded that the 2012 average 
seal abundance in March was lower than in previous years. No other 
statistical differences were found in the monthly seal abundance 
between 2012 and all previous years combined.
    No distressed or abandoned pups were reported by in 2012. Pup 
production at the Jenner haul-out was 13.8 percent of total seals as 
calculated from the peak pup count recorded on May 16 and the number of 
adult harbor seals present at the same time. Pup production was much 
lower compared to 2011 where 29.3% of seals were pups at the time of 
the peak pup count on May 4. However, the average of pups observed 
(when pups were present) during April and May were similar between 
years: 15.4 pups in 2012 and 14.9 pups in 2011. Comparison of count 
data between the Jenner and peripheral haul-outs did not show any 
obvious correlations (e.g., the number of seals occupying peripheral 
haul-outs compared to the Jenner haul-out did not necessarily increase 
or decrease as a result of disturbance caused by beach visitors). 
Please review SCWA's report for a more detailed discussion.

Water Level Management Activity Monitoring

    One breaching action occurred over two days in January 2012, 
including two pre-breaching, two breaching, and one post-breaching 
surveys. No injuries or mortalities were observed during 2012, and 
harbor seal reactions ranged from merely alerting to crew presence to 
flushing from the beach. One California sea lion was observed, but did 
not respond in a way that would indicate behavioral harassment had 
occurred.
    Total observed take of marine mammals, by harassment only, from 
water level management activity and biological and physical monitoring, 
was 208 harbor seals (detailed in Table 3). SCWA was authorized to 
take, by harassment only, 2,963 harbor seals, 37 California sea lions, 
and twenty northern elephant seals. While the observed take was 
significantly lower than the level authorized, it is possible that 
incidental take in future years could approach the level authorized. 
Actual take is dependent largely upon the number of water level 
management events that occur, which is unpredictable. Take of species 
other than harbor seals depends upon whether those species, which do 
not consistently utilize the Jenner haul-out, are present. The 
authorized take, though much higher than the actual take, was justified 
based on conservative estimated scenarios for animal presence and 
necessity of water level management. No significant departure from the 
method of estimation is used for the proposed IHA (see ``Estimated Take 
by Incidental Harassment'') for the same activities in 2013.

 Table 3--Observed Incidental Harassment (Level B Harassment Only) of Harbor Seals During Russian River Estuary
                                           Management Activities, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Observed take
                  Date                               Event type            -------------------------------------
                                                                                   Age class \a\         Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 8...................................  Pre-breaching survey............  Adult.....................         6
Jan 9...................................  Artificial breaching............  Adult.....................         3
Jan 11..................................  Artificial breaching............  Adult.....................        18
Feb 2...................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................        20
Mar 20..................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................        15
May 16..................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................         4
May 17..................................  Seine survey....................  Adult.....................         4
Jun 12..................................  Photographic survey of beach....  Adult.....................        50
Jun 13..................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................        17
Aug 8...................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................        58
Sep 12..................................  Beach topographic survey........  Adult.....................        12
Sep 19..................................  Water quality sampling..........  Adult.....................         1
                                                                                                       ---------
    Total...............................  ................................  ..........................       208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Pups are counted separately through June, after which all seals are counted as adults as it becomes more
  difficult to accurately age individuals.


[[Page 14992]]

    On the days listed above, approximately 33 percent of seals present 
were behaviorally harassed--a lower proportion than is typically 
observed for harbor seals (73 percent of seals were reported harassed 
by abalone researchers in the Channel Islands). Of those animals 
disturbed, approximately 59 percent flushed from the haul-out (as 
opposed to simply moving away from the stimulus), which is also low. In 
the same reporting by abalone researchers, 94 percent of harassed seals 
flushed the haul-out. While no conclusions can be drawn, it is possible 
that seals at the Jenner haul-out are more acclimated to the presence 
of humans.
    SCWA also investigated the relative disturbance caused by their 
activities versus that caused by other sources (see Figure 8 and Table 
4 of SCWA's monitoring report). Disturbance sources were separated into 
nine categories: SCWA, aircraft, bird, dog, people, kayak, other boat, 
vehicle, and unknown. SCWA activity associated with water level 
management events were excluded, as these do not represent typical 
conditions, but monthly monitoring surveys were included. Frequency of 
disturbance by source was also compared by barrier beach condition.
    Harbor seals were most frequently disturbed by people on foot (50 
percent of surveys), with a small increase in frequency of disturbances 
during bar-closed conditions. Kayakers were the next most frequent 
source of disturbance overall (23.1%) with an increase during bar-
closed conditions (31.6 percent). SCWA personnel represented the third 
most frequent source of disturbance at 14.9 percent. For any 
disturbance event it is often only a fraction of the total haul-out 
that responds. Some sources of disturbance, though rare, have a larger 
disturbing effect when they occur. For example, disturbances from dogs 
occur in less than 5 percent of the surveys, but these incidents 
disturbed over half of the seals hauled out. Although SCWA activities 
represented the third most frequent source of disturbance, on average 
less than one third of the haul-out was disturbed. Overall, seals are 
most often disturbed by people on foot (67.7 percent) and kayakers 
(15.4 percent).

Conclusions

    The following section provides a summary of information available 
in SCWA's Monitoring Report. The primary purpose of SCWA's Pinniped 
Monitoring Plan is to detect the response of pinnipeds to estuary 
management activities at the Russian River estuary. However, the 
following questions are also of specific interest:
    1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River 
estuary mouth at Jenner?
    2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out respond to activities 
associated with the construction and maintenance of the lagoon outlet 
channel and artificial breaching activities?
    3. Does the number of seals at the Jenner haul-out significantly 
differ from historic averages with formation of a summer lagoon in the 
Russian River estuary?
    4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out displaced to nearby river and 
coastal haul-outs when the mouth remains closed in the summer?
    The limited data available thus far precludes drawing conclusions 
regarding the key questions in SCWA's Monitoring Plan. However, 
baseline data collected from 2009-12 indicates that the highest numbers 
of pinnipeds are observed at the Jenner haul-out in July, during the 
molting season (see Figure 3 of SCWA's Monitoring Report) although this 
seasonal pattern was not as evident in 2012 as seals were equally 
abundant from April through July. The abundance of harbor seals during 
the fall of 2012 was greater than in previous years, especially during 
September and November. Although multiple factors likely influence 
harbor seal presence at the haul-out, SCWA believes that barrier beach 
condition may be significant. For 2009 and 2010 the barrier beach was 
closed during the month of September, and in 2011 there was a period 
when the channel was extremely narrow and potentially in naturally 
perched conditions. These closed or perched barrier beach conditions 
did not exist in September 2012 and may have contributed to depressed 
seal abundance in previous years. Decreased seal abundance during bar-
closed conditions may be a result of the lack of direct aquatic access 
from the estuary. Harbor seals prefer haul-outs with easy aquatic 
egress as they move more slowly and awkwardly on land, compared to 
other pinnipeds like California sea lions. This effect may also be 
related to the closer proximity of people to the Jenner haul-out during 
bar-closed conditions. In addition, when the barrier beach is open the 
river mouth channel provides a natural barrier between visitors 
accessing Goat Rock State Beach from the main parking area to the 
south. The increase in disturbances due to kayakers during bar-closed 
conditions may also be due to the lack of river outflow to the ocean, 
allowing for kayakers to paddle much closer to the seal haul-out.
    Overall, seals appear to utilize the Jenner haul-out throughout the 
tidal cycle. Seal abundance is significantly lower during the highest 
of tides when the haul-out is subject to an increase in wave overwash. 
Time of day had some affect on seal abundance at the Jenner haul-out, 
as abundance was greater in the afternoon hours compared to the morning 
hours. More analysis exploring the relationship of ambient temperature, 
incidence of disturbance, and season on time of day effects would help 
to explain why these variations in seal abundance occur. It is likely 
that a combination of multiple factors (e.g., season, tides, wave 
heights, level of beach disturbance) influence when the haul-out is 
most utilized.
    SCWA has, thus far, implemented the lagoon outlet channel only one 
time (July 8, 2010). The response of harbor seals at the Jenner haul-
out to the outlet channel implementation activities (Question 2 above) 
was similar to responses observed during artificial breaching events in 
2010 and 2012 and in previous years of monitoring the Jenner haul-out 
during breaching events (MSC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 
2001). The harbor seals typically alert to the sound of equipment on 
the beach and leave the haul-out as the crew and equipment approach. 
Individuals then haul out on the beach while equipment is operating, 
leaving the beach again when equipment and staff depart, and typically 
begin to return to the haul-out within 30 minutes of the work ending. 
Because the barrier beach reformed soon after outlet channel 
implementation and subsequently breached on its own following the 2010 
event, maintenance of the outlet channel was not necessary and 
monitoring of the continued response of pinnipeds at the Jenner haul-
out to maintenance of the outlet channel and management of the lagoon 
for the duration of the lagoon management period has not yet been 
possible.
    There is little information available to draw conclusions regarding 
Questions 3, as the duration of closure associated with the lagoon 
outlet channel implementation was not dissimilar from the duration of 
closures that have been previously observed at the estuary. A barrier 
beach has only formed during the lagoon management period eight times, 
with an average duration of seven days. However, it is possible to 
examine some of the short-term effects of bar-closed conditions on seal 
abundance. The overall decline in seal abundance during bar-closed 
conditions was not observed during June and July of 2012. This suggests 
that when seals are more

[[Page 14993]]

motivated to spend time on land, i.e., during their annual molt, 
barrier beach closures will not deter them from using the Jenner haul-
out. However, when seals are less motivated to spend time on land, they 
may be more sensitive to the formation of a barrier beach (as discussed 
in relation to increased numbers during Fall 2012). During bar-closed 
conditions, seals may be choosing alternate haul-outs or are simply not 
spending as much time on land. In order to draw conclusions one would 
need to be able to track individual seals.
    Similarly, the lack of extended lagoon conditions precludes any 
conclusions regarding Question 4. Initial comparisons of peripheral 
(river and coastal) haul-out count data to the Jenner haul-out counts 
suggest that further information from subsequent estuary management 
activities are needed. For example, during the single lagoon outlet 
implementation in 2010, low seal abundance was recorded at Jenner and 
high seal abundance was recorded at Odin Cove. On the day after the 
lagoon outlet implementation seal abundance rose at Jenner and 
decreased at Odin Cove. This pattern is consistent with the idea that 
seals disturbed from the Jenner haul-out would temporarily relocate to 
a nearby haul-out. However, these results are inconclusive, as SCWA is 
not able to track the movements of individual seals and it is possible 
that abundance at these sites is related to biologically seasonal 
events of pupping and molting rather than dispersal from the Jenner 
haul-out during disturbance.
    In order to better answer these questions, SCWA is considering a 
photo-identification study as a means to observe individual seals over 
time. The first step would be a pilot study to determine whether 
current observation locations allow capture of the detailed images of 
seals necessary to identify individuals based on spot patterns.

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 such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses.
    SCWA has proposed to continue the following mitigation measures, as 
implemented during the previous IHA, designed to minimize impact to 
affected species and stocks:
     SCWA crews would cautiously approach the haul-out ahead of 
heavy equipment to minimize the potential for sudden flushes, which may 
result in a stampede--a particular concern during pupping season.
     SCWA staff would avoid walking or driving equipment 
through the seal haul-out.
     Crews on foot would make an effort to be seen by seals 
from a distance, if possible, rather than appearing suddenly, again 
preventing sudden flushes.
     During breaching events, all monitoring would be conducted 
from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out 
in order to minimize potential for harassment.
     A water level management event may not occur for more than 
2 consecutive days unless flooding threats cannot be controlled.
    In addition, SCWA has proposed mitigation measures specific to 
pupping season (March 15-June 30), as implemented in the previous IHA:
     SCWA will maintain a 1 week no-work period between water 
level management events (unless flooding is an immediate threat) to 
allow for an adequate disturbance recovery period. During the no-work 
period, equipment must be removed from the beach.
     If a pup less than 1 week old is on the beach where heavy 
machinery would be used or on the path used to access the work 
location, the management action will be delayed until the pup has left 
the site or the latest day possible to prevent flooding while still 
maintaining suitable fish rearing habitat. In the event that a pup 
remains present on the beach in the presence of flood risk, SCWA would 
consult with us to determine the appropriate course of action. SCWA 
will coordinate with the locally established seal monitoring program 
(Stewards' Seal Watch) to determine if pups less than 1 week old are on 
the beach prior to a breaching event.
     Physical and biological monitoring will not be conducted 
if a pup less than 1 week old is present at the monitoring site or on a 
path to the site.
    For all activities, personnel on the beach would include up to two 
equipment operators, three safety team members on the beach (one on 
each side of the channel observing the equipment operators, and one at 
the barrier to warn beach visitors away from the activities), and one 
safety team member at the overlook on Highway 1 above the beach. 
Occasionally, there would be two or more additional people on the beach 
(SCWA staff or regulatory agency staff) on the beach to observe the 
activities. SCWA staff would be followed by the equipment, which would 
then be followed by an SCWA vehicle (typically a small pickup truck, 
the vehicle would be parked at the previously posted signs and barriers 
on the south side of the excavation location). Equipment would be 
driven slowly on the beach and care would be taken to minimize the 
number of shut downs and start-ups when the equipment is on the beach. 
All work would be completed as efficiently as possible, with the 
smallest amount of heavy equipment possible, to minimize disturbance of 
seals at the haul-out. Boats operating near river haul-outs during 
monitoring would be kept within posted speed limits and driven as far 
from the haul-outs as safely possible to minimize flushing seals.
    We have carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures as 
proposed and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to 
preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least 
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and 
stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures includes 
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) 
The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts 
to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific 
measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; (3) the practicability 
of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of 
personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.
    Injury, serious injury, or mortality to pinnipeds would likely 
result from startling animals inhabiting the haul-out into a stampede 
reaction, or from extended mother-pup separation as a result of such a 
stampede. Long-term impacts to pinniped usage of the haul-out could 
result from significantly increased presence of humans and equipment on 
the beach. To avoid these possibilities, we have worked with SCWA to 
develop the previously described mitigation measures. These are 
designed to reduce the possibility of startling pinnipeds, by gradually 
apprising them of the presence of humans and equipment on the beach, 
and to reduce the possibility of impacts to pups by eliminating or 
altering management activities on the beach when pups are present and 
by setting limits on the frequency and duration of events during 
pupping season. During the past 15 years of flood control management, 
implementation of similar mitigation measures has resulted in no known 
stampede events and no known

[[Page 14994]]

injury, serious injury, or mortality. Over the course of that time 
period, management events have generally been infrequent and of limited 
duration. Based upon the SCWA's record of management at the mouth of 
the Russian River, as well as information from monitoring SCWA's 
implementation of the improved mitigation measures as prescribed under 
the previous IHA, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed 
mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least 
practicable impacts on marine mammal species or stocks and their 
habitat.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA 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 indicate that requests for IHAs 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.
    The applicant has developed a Pinniped Monitoring Plan which 
describes the proposed monitoring efforts. This Monitoring Plan can be 
found on the NMFS Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The purpose of this monitoring plan, which is carried 
out collaboratively with the Stewards of the Coasts and Redwoods 
(Stewards) organization, is to detect the response of pinnipeds to 
estuary management activities at the Russian River estuary. SCWA has 
designed the plan both to satisfy the requirements of the IHA, and to 
address the following questions of interest (as described previously):
    1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River 
estuary mouth at Jenner?
    2. How do seals at the Jenner haul-out respond to activities 
associated with the construction and maintenance of the lagoon outlet 
channel and artificial breaching activities?
    3. Does the number of seals at the Jenner haul-out significantly 
differ from historic averages with formation of a summer (May 15 to 
October 15) lagoon in the Russian River estuary?
    4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out displaced to nearby river and 
coastal haul-outs when the mouth remains closed in the summer?
    In summary, past monitoring includes the following, which is 
proposed to continue should an IHA be issued:

Baseline Monitoring

    Seals at the Jenner haul-out are counted twice monthly for the term 
of the IHA. This baseline information will provide SCWA with details 
that may help to plan estuary management activities in the future to 
minimize pinniped interaction. This census begins at local dawn and 
continues for 8 hours. All seals hauled out on the beach are counted 
every 30 minutes from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 
adjacent to the haul-out using spotting scopes. Monitoring may conclude 
for the day if weather conditions affect visibility (e.g., heavy fog in 
the afternoon). Counts are scheduled for 2 days out of each month, with 
the intention of capturing a low and high tide each in the morning and 
afternoon. Depending on how the sandbar is formed, seals may haul out 
in multiple groups at the mouth. At each 30-minute count, the observer 
indicates where groups of seals are hauled out on the sandbar and 
provides a total count for each group. If possible, adults and pups are 
counted separately.
    In addition to the census data, disturbances of the haul-out are 
recorded. The method for recording disturbances follows those in 
Mortenson (1996). Disturbances would be recorded on a three-point scale 
that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance (Table 
4). The time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an 
estimated distance between the source and haul-out, are recorded. It 
should be noted that only responses falling into Mortenson's Levels 2 
and 3 will be considered as harassment under the MMPA, under the terms 
of this proposed IHA.

                                      Table 4--Seal Response to Disturbance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Level                     Type of  response                        Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  Alert..................  Seal head orientation in response to
                                                                 disturbance. This may include turning head
                                                                 towards the disturbance, craning head and neck
                                                                 while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped
                                                                 position, or changing from a lying to a sitting
                                                                 position.
2....................................  Movement...............  Movements away from the source of disturbance,
                                                                 ranging from short withdrawals over short
                                                                 distances to hurried retreats many meters in
                                                                 length.
3....................................  Flight.................  All retreats (flushes) to the water, another
                                                                 group of seals, or over the beach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Weather conditions are recorded at the beginning of each census. 
These include temperature, percent cloud cover, and wind speed 
(Beaufort scale). Tide levels and estuary water surface elevations are 
correlated to the monitoring start and end times.
    In an effort towards understanding possible relationships between 
use of the Jenner haul-out and nearby coastal and river haul-outs, 
several other haul-outs on the coast and in the Russian River estuary 
are monitored as well (see Figure 4 of SCWA's application). The 
peripheral haul-outs are visited for 10-minute counts twice during each 
baseline monitoring day. All pinnipeds hauled out were counted from the 
same vantage point(s) at each haul-out using a high-powered spotting 
scope or binoculars.

Estuary Management Event Monitoring

    Lagoon Outlet Channel--Should the mouth close during the lagoon 
management period, SCWA would construct a lagoon outlet channel as 
required by the BiOp. Activities associated with the initial 
construction of the outlet channel, as well as the maintenance of the 
channel that may be required, would be monitored for disturbances to 
the seals at the Jenner haul-out.
    A 1-day pre-event channel survey would be made within 1 to 3 days 
prior to constructing the outlet channel. The haul-out would be 
monitored on the day the outlet channel is constructed and daily for up 
to the maximum 2 days allowed for channel excavation activities. 
Monitoring would also occur on each day that the outlet channel is 
maintained using heavy equipment for the duration of the lagoon 
management period. Monitoring of outlet channel construction and 
maintenance would correspond with that described under the ``Baseline'' 
section previously, with the exception that management activity 
monitoring duration is defined by event

[[Page 14995]]

duration, rather than being set at 8 hours. On the day of the 
management event, pinniped monitoring begins at least 1 hour prior to 
the crew and equipment accessing the beach work area and continues 
through the duration of the event, until at least 1 hour after the crew 
and equipment leave the beach.
    In an attempt to understand whether seals from the Jenner haul-out 
are displaced to coastal and river haul-outs nearby when management 
events occur, other nearby haul-outs are monitored concurrently with 
monitoring of outlet channel construction and maintenance activities. 
This provides an opportunity to qualitatively assess whether these 
haul-outs are being used by seals displaced from the Jenner haul-out 
during lagoon outlet channel excavation and maintenance. This 
monitoring would not provide definitive results regarding displacement 
to nearby coastal and river haul-outs, as individual seals are not 
marked, but is useful in tracking general trends in haul-out use during 
lagoon outlet channel excavation and maintenance. As volunteers are 
required to monitor these peripheral haul-outs, haul-out locations may 
need to be prioritized if there are not enough volunteers available. In 
that case, priority would be assigned to the nearest haul-outs (North 
Jenner and Odin Cove), followed by the Russian River estuary haul-outs, 
and finally the more distant coastal haul-outs.
    Artificial Breaching Events--Pinniped responses to SCWA's 
artificial breaching activities were extensively monitored from 1996 to 
2000 (MSC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). In accordance 
with the Russian River BiOp, SCWA may artificially breach the barrier 
beach outside of the summer lagoon management period, and may conduct a 
maximum of two such breachings during the lagoon management period, 
when estuary water surface elevations rise above seven feet. In that 
case, we may be consulted regarding potential scheduling of an 
artificial breaching event to open the barrier beach and reduce 
flooding risk.
    Pinniped response to artificial breaching will be monitored at each 
such event during the term of the IHA. Methods would follow the census 
and disturbance monitoring protocols described in the ``Baseline'' 
section, which were also used for the 1996 to 2000 monitoring events 
(MSC, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; SCWA and MSC, 2001). The exception, as 
for lagoon management events, is that duration of monitoring is 
dependent upon duration of the event. On the day of the management 
event, pinniped monitoring begins at least 1 hour prior to the crew and 
equipment accessing the beach work area and continues through the 
duration of the event, until at least 1 hour after the crew and 
equipment leave the beach.
    For all counts, the following information would be recorded in 30-
minute intervals: (1) Pinniped counts, by species; (2) behavior; (3) 
time, source and duration of any disturbance; (4) estimated distances 
between source of disturbance and pinnipeds; (5) weather conditions 
(e.g., temperature, wind); and (5) tide levels and estuary water 
surface elevation.
    Monitoring During Pupping Season--The pupping season is defined as 
March 15 to June 30. Baseline, lagoon outlet channel, and artificial 
breaching monitoring during the pupping season will include records of 
neonate (pups less than 1 week old) observations. Characteristics of a 
neonate pup include: Body weight less than 15 kg; thin for their body 
length; an umbilicus or natal pelage present; wrinkled skin; and 
awkward or jerky movements on land. SCWA will coordinate with the Seal 
Watch monitoring program to determine if pups less than 1 week old are 
on the beach prior to a water level management event.
    If, during monitoring, observers sight any pup that might be 
abandoned, SCWA would contact the NMFS stranding response network 
immediately and also report the incident to NMFS' Southwest Regional 
Office and NMFS Headquarters within 48 hours. Observers will not 
approach or move the pup. Potential indications that a pup may be 
abandoned are no observed contact with adult seals, no movement of the 
pup, and the pup's attempts to nurse are rebuffed.
    Staffing--Monitoring is conducted by qualified individuals, which 
may include professional biologists employed by NMFS or SCWA or 
volunteers trained by the Stewards' Seal Watch program (Stewards). All 
volunteer monitors are required to attend classroom-style training and 
field site visits to the haul-outs. Training covers the MMPA and 
conditions of the IHA, SCWA's pinniped monitoring protocols, pinniped 
species identification, age class identification (including a specific 
discussion regarding neonates), recording of count and disturbance 
observations (including completion of datasheets), and use of 
equipment. Pinniped identification would include harbor seal, 
California sea lion, and northern elephant seal, as well as other 
pinniped species with potential to occur in the area. Generally, SCWA 
staff and volunteers collect baseline data on Jenner haul-out use 
during the twice-monthly monitoring events. A schedule for this 
monitoring would be established with Stewards once volunteers are 
available for the monitoring effort. SCWA staff monitors lagoon outlet 
channel excavation and maintenance activities and artificial breaching 
events at the Jenner haul-out, with assistance from Stewards volunteers 
as available. Stewards volunteers monitor the coastal and river haul-
out locations during lagoon outlet channel excavation and maintenance 
activities.
    Training on the MMPA, pinniped identification, and the conditions 
of the IHA is held for staff and contractors assigned to estuary 
management activities. The training includes equipment operators, 
safety crew members, and surveyors. In addition, prior to beginning 
each water surface elevation management event, the biologist monitoring 
the event participates in the onsite safety meeting to discuss the 
location(s) of pinnipeds at the Jenner haul-out that day and methods of 
avoiding and minimizing disturbances to the haul-out as outlined in the 
IHA.

Reporting

    SCWA is required to submit a report on all activities and marine 
mammal monitoring results to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
and the Southwest Regional Administrator, NMFS, 90 days prior to the 
expiration of the IHA if a renewal is sought, or within 90 days of the 
expiration of the IHA otherwise. This annual report will also be 
distributed to California State Parks and Stewards, and would be 
available to the public on SCWA's Web site. This report will contain 
the following information:
     The number of pinnipeds taken, by species and age class 
(if possible);
     Behavior prior to and during water level management 
events;
     Start and end time of activity;
     Estimated distances between source and pinnipeds when 
disturbance occurs;
     Weather conditions (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.);
     Haul-out reoccupation time of any pinnipeds based on post-
activity monitoring;
     Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation; and
     Pinniped census from bi-monthly and nearby haul-out 
monitoring.
    The annual report includes descriptions of monitoring methodology, 
tabulation of estuary management events, summary of

[[Page 14996]]

monitoring results, and discussion of problems noted and proposed 
remedial measures.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    SCWA is requesting, and we are proposing, authorization to take 
harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, by 
Level B harassment only, incidental to estuary management activities. 
These activities, involving increased human presence and the use of 
heavy equipment and support vehicles, are expected to harass pinnipeds 
present at the haul-out through disturbance only. In addition, 
monitoring activities prescribed in the BiOp may harass additional 
animals at the Jenner haul-out and at the three haul-outs located in 
the estuary (Penny Logs, Patty's Rock, and Chalanchawi). Estimates of 
the number of harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant 
seals that may be harassed by the proposed activities is based upon the 
number of potential events associated with Russian River estuary 
management activities and the average number of individuals of each 
species that are present during conditions appropriate to the activity. 
As described previously in this document, monitoring effort at the 
mouth of the Russian River has shown that the number of seals utilizing 
the haul-out declines during bar-closed conditions. Tables 5 and 6 
detail the total number of estimated takes.
    Events associated with lagoon outlet channel management would occur 
only during the lagoon management period, and are split into two 
categories: (1) Initial channel implementation, which would likely 
occur between May and September, and (2) maintenance and monitoring of 
the outlet channel, which would continue until October 15. In addition, 
it is possible that the initial outlet channel could close through 
natural processes, requiring additional channel implementation events. 
Based on past experience, SCWA estimates that a maximum of three outlet 
channel implementation events could be required. Outlet channel 
implementation events would only occur when the bar is closed; 
therefore, it is appropriate to use data from bar-closed monitoring 
events in estimating take (Table 2). Construction of the outlet channel 
is designed to produce a perched outflow, resulting in conditions that 
more closely resemble bar-closed than bar-open with regard to pinniped 
haul-out usage. As such, bar-closed data is appropriate for estimating 
take during all lagoon management period maintenance and monitoring 
activity. As dates of outlet channel implementation cannot be known in 
advance, the highest daily average of seals per month--the June average 
for 2009-12--is used in estimating take. For maintenance and monitoring 
activities associated with the lagoon outlet channel, which would occur 
on a weekly basis following implementation of the outlet channel, the 
average number of harbor seals for each month was used.
    Artificial breaching activities would also occur during bar-closed 
conditions; however, data collected specifically during bar-closed 
conditions exists only for April through January (Table 2). These data 
(excluding December, when a zero average was recorded for harbor seal 
presence during bar-closed conditions) may be used for estimating take 
associated with artificial breaching occurring during those months. For 
activity occurring in December, February, and March, monitoring data 
that are not specific to bar conditions may be used for estimating take 
(Table 1). Harbor seal numbers from 2010-12 SCWA baseline surveys were 
used to estimate take associated with artificial breaching in December, 
February, and March as this was the most recent information available 
for those months.
    For monthly topographic surveys on the barrier beach SCWA believes 
that only a small percentage (estimated at 10 percent) of seals hauled 
out are likely to be disturbed by this activity, which involves two 
people walking along the barrier beach with a survey rod. During these 
surveys a pinniped monitor is positioned at the Highway 1 overlook and 
is able to notify the surveyors via radio when any seals on the haul-
out begin to alert to their presence. At this time the surveyors 
retreat slowly away from the haul-out, typically resulting in no 
disturbance. The 10 percent is a conservative allowance for the 
occasions where a few seals may move or flush following their initial 
alert, despite the surveyors retreat. The number of seals expected to 
be encountered is based on the average monthly number of seals hauled 
out as recorded during baseline surveys conducted by SCWA in 2010-12 
(Table 1).
    For electromagnetic imaging profiles associated with the jetty 
study, the estimate of take was calculated similar to that of the 
topographic surveys described above. The field work for these profiles 
will be conducted in a similar manner to the topographic surveys with a 
monitor present. In addition, these imaging profiles will be conducted 
outside of the harbor seal pupping season, in an effort to reduce 
disturbance to nursing females and young pups. As noted previously, 
SCWA believes that, due to the nature of the activity and mitigation 
measures to be implemented, other components of the jetty study are 
unlikely to result in incidental take.
    For biological and physical habitat monitoring activities in the 
estuary, it was assumed that pinnipeds may be encountered once per 
event and flush from a river haul-out. The potential for harassment 
associated with these events is limited to the three haul-outs located 
in the estuary. In past experience, SCWA typically sees no more than a 
single harbor seal at these haul-outs, which consist of scattered logs 
and rocks that often submerge at high tide.

  Table 5--Estimated Number of Harbor Seal Takes Resulting From Russian
                   River Estuary Management Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of animals                          Potential total  number of
  expected to occur   Number of events b c  individual  animals that may
         \a\                                           be taken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation: 120   Implementation: 3     Implementation: 360.
 \d\
Maintenance and       Maintenance:          Maintenance: 1,213.
 Monitoring:
    May: 103          May: 1
    June: 120         June-Sept: 4/month
    July: 117         Oct: 1
                     ---------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14997]]

 
    Aug: 17           Monitoring:           Monitoring: 566.
    Sept: 18            June-Sept: 2/month
                                           -----------------------------
    Oct: 22           Oct: 1                Total: 2,139.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Artificial Breaching
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct: 22               Oct: 2                Oct: 44.
Nov: 11               Nov: 2                Nov: 22.
Dec: 42               Dec: 2                Dec: 84.
Jan: 32               Jan: 1                Jan: 32.
Feb: 83               Feb: 1                Feb: 83.
Mar: 135              Mar: 1                Mar: 135.
Apr: 173              Apr: 1                Apr: 173.
May: 103              May: 1                May: 103.
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                        11 events maximum     Total: 676.
-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
                Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan: 97               1 topographic survey/ Jan: 20.
Feb: 83                month                Feb: 16.
Mar: 135              ....................  Mar: 14.
Apr: 143              2 geophysical         Apr: 14.
May: 134               surveys/month, Sep-  May: 13.
Jun: 149               Dec; 1/month, Jul-   Jun: 15.
Jul: 214               Aug, Jan-Feb         Jul: 42.
Aug: 112              ....................  Aug: 22.
Sep: 63               ....................  Sep: 18.
Oct: 50               Surveys considered    Oct: 15.
Nov: 106               to have potential    Nov: 33.
Dec: 42                for take of 10       Dec: 12.
                       percent of animals
                       present
                      ....................
                      ....................
                      ....................
                      ....................
                      ....................
                                           -----------------------------
                                            Total: 234.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 \e\                 81                    81.
                                           -----------------------------
    Total             ....................  3,130.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For Lagoon Outlet Channel Management and Artificial Breaching,
  average daily number of animals corresponds with data from Table 2.
  For Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys, average daily number of
  animals corresponds with 2009-12 data from Table 1. Exceptions include
  the months of February and March, for which there are no data on bar-
  closed conditions, and December, when the few bar-closed surveys have
  resulted in a zero average. For this latter, the more conservative
  value was used.
\b\ For implementation of the lagoon outlet channel, an event is defined
  as a single, two-day episode. It is assumed that the same individual
  seals would be hauled out during a single event. For the remaining
  activities, an event is defined as a single day on which an activity
  occurs. Some events may include multiple activities.
\c\ Number of events for artificial breaching derived from historical
  data. The average number of events for each month was rounded up to
  the nearest whole number; estimated number of events for December was
  increased from one to two because multiple closures resulting from
  storm events have occurred in recent years during that month. These
  numbers likely represent an overestimate, as the average annual number
  of events is six.
\d\ Although implementation could occur at any time during the lagoon
  management period, the highest daily average per month from the lagoon
  management period was used.
\e\ Based on past experience, SCWA expects that no more than one seal
  may be present, and thus have the potential to be disturbed, at each
  of the three river haul-outs.


  Table 6--Estimated Number of California Sea Lion and Elephant Seal Takes Resulting From Russian River Estuary
                                              Management Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Number of                 Potential total
                                                                       animals                     number of
                              Species                                  expected    Number of       individual
                                                                       to occur    events \a\  animals  that may
                                                                         \a\                        be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event)........            1            6                  6

[[Page 14998]]

 
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event).....            1            6                  6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Artificial Breaching
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event, Sep-               1            8                  8
 Apr)..............................................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event, Dec-            1            8                  8
 Mar)..............................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event, Sep-               1           20                 20
 Apr)..............................................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event, Dec-            1           20                 20
 Mar)..............................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per event, Sep-               1            8                  8
 Apr)..............................................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per event, Dec-            1            8                  8
 Mar)..............................................................
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total:
        California sea lion........................................  ...........  ...........                 42
        Elephant seal..............................................  ...........  ...........                 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ SCWA expects that California sea lions and/or northern elephant seals could occur during any month of the
  year, but that any such occurrence would be infrequent and unlikely to occur more than once per month.

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analysis and Preliminary 
Determination

    NMFS has defined `negligible impact' in 50 CFR 216 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.'' In determining whether or not authorized incidental take 
will have a negligible impact on affected species stocks, we consider a 
number of criteria regarding the impact of the proposed action, 
including the number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment take that may occur. Although SCWA's estuary management 
activities may harass pinnipeds hauled out at the mouth of the Russian 
River, as well as those hauled out at several locations in the estuary 
during recurring monitoring activities, impacts are occurring to a 
small, localized group of animals. No injury, serious injury, or 
mortality is anticipated, nor is the proposed action likely to result 
in long-term impacts such as permanent abandonment of the haul-out. 
Seals will likely become alert or, at most, flush into the water in 
reaction to the presence of crews and equipment on the beach. However, 
breaching the sandbar has been shown to increase seal abundance on the 
beach, with seals quickly re-inhabiting the haul-out following 
cessation of activity. In addition, the implementation of the lagoon 
management plan may provide increased availability of prey species 
(salmonids). No impacts would be expected at the population or stock 
level.
    No pinniped stocks known from the action area are listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA or determined to be strategic or 
depleted under the MMPA. Recent data suggests that harbor seal 
populations have reached carrying capacity; populations of California 
sea lions and northern elephant seals in California are also considered 
healthy.
    The proposed number of animals taken for each species of pinnipeds 
can be considered small relative to the population size. There are an 
estimated 30,196 harbor seals in the California stock, 296,750 
California sea lions, and 124,000 northern elephant seals in the 
California breeding population. Based on extensive monitoring effort 
specific to the affected haul-out and historical data on the frequency 
of the specified activity, we are proposing to authorize take, by Level 
B harassment only, of 3,130 harbor seals, 42 California sea lions, and 
42 northern elephant seals, representing 10.4, 0.01, and 0.03 percent 
of the populations, respectively. However, this represents an 
overestimate of the number of individuals harassed over the duration of 
the proposed IHA, because these totals represent much smaller numbers 
of individuals that may be harassed multiple times.
    The proposed action would not be likely to cause injury, serious 
injury, or mortality to any harbor seal pup, nor would it impact 
mother-pup bonding. The peak of pupping season occurs during May, when 
few management activities are anticipated. However, any management 
activity that is required during pupping season will be delayed in the 
event that a pup less than 1 week old is present on the beach. As 
described previously in this document, harbor seal pups are precocious, 
and mother-pup bonding is likely to occur within minutes. Delay of 
events would further ensure that mother-pup bonding is not interfered 
with.
    Based on the foregoing analysis, behavioral disturbance to 
pinnipeds at the mouth of the Russian River would be of low intensity 
and limited duration. To ensure minimal disturbance, SCWA would 
implement the mitigation measures described previously, which we have 
preliminarily determined would serve as the means for effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on the relevant marine mammal stocks 
or populations and their habitat. We preliminarily find that SCWA's 
estuary management activities would result in the incidental take of 
small numbers of marine mammals, and that the requested number of takes 
would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species and 
stocks.

[[Page 14999]]

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are no ESA-listed marine mammals found in the action area; 
therefore, no consultation under the ESA is required for such species. 
As described elsewhere in this document, SCWA and the Corps consulted 
with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA regarding the potential effects of 
their operations and maintenance activities, including SCWA's estuary 
management program, on ESA-listed salmonids. As a result of this 
consultation, NMFS issued the Russian River Biological Opinion (NMFS, 
2008), including Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, which prescribes 
modifications to SCWA's estuary management activities. The effects of 
the proposed activities and authorized take would not cause additional 
effects for which section 7 consultation would be required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published 
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and 
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, we prepared an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and cumulative effects 
to the human environment resulting from issuance of the original IHA to 
SCWA for the specified activities and found that it would not result in 
any significant impacts to the human environment. We signed a Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on March 30, 2010. We have reviewed 
SWCA's application for a renewed IHA for ongoing estuary management 
activities for 2013 and the 2012 monitoring report. Based on that 
review, we have determined that the proposed action follows closely the 
IHAs issued and implemented in 2010-12 and does not present any 
substantial changes, or significant new circumstances or information 
relevant to environmental concerns which would require a supplement to 
the 2010 EA or preparation of a new NEPA document. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily determined that a new or supplemental EA or Environmental 
Impact Statement is unnecessary, and will, after review of public 
comments determine whether or not to reaffirm its FONSI. The 2010 EA is 
available for review at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to 
authorize the take of marine mammals incidental to SCWA's estuary 
management activities, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: March 4, 2013.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05361 Filed 3-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P