[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12472-12490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD110


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to 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 a request from the Sonoma County Water 
Agency (SCWA) for authorization 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 incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to SCWA 
to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during 
the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 4, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to 
[email protected].
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or 
Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted to the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All 
personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily 
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit 
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected 
information.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

    An electronic copy of SCWA's application and supporting documents, 
as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be 
obtained by visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, 
please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA; 2010) and 
associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in accordance with 
NEPA and the regulations published by the Council on Environmental 
Quality. These documents are posted at the aforementioned Internet 
address. Information in SCWA's application, NMFS' EA (2010), and this 
notice collectively provide the environmental information related to 
proposed issuance of this IHA for public review and comment. We will 
review all comments submitted in response to this notice as we complete 
the NEPA process, including a decision of whether to reaffirm the 
existing FONSI, prior to a final decision on the incidental take 
authorization request.

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 by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small numbers of marine

[[Page 12473]]

mammals, providing that certain findings are made and the necessary 
prescriptions are established.
    The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be 
allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) 
finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the 
specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species 
or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking 
must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an 
authorization.
    The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), 
by harassment, serious injury, death or a combination thereof, requires 
that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of 
Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established 
in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be 
consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under 
the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may 
authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not 
more than 1 year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained 
within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either 
specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and 
opportunity for public comment.
    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.'' Except with respect to certain activities 
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' 
as: ``. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; 
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.'' The former is termed Level A harassment and 
the latter is termed Level B harassment.

Summary of Request

    On January 17, 2014, we received an adequate and complete request 
from SCWA for authorization of the taking of marine mammals incidental 
to Russian River estuary management activities in Sonoma County, 
California. SCWA proposes to manage the naturally-formed barrier beach 
at the mouth of the Russian River in order to minimize potential for 
flooding adjacent to the estuary and to enhance habitat for juvenile 
salmonids, as well as to conduct biological and physical monitoring of 
the barrier beach and 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''). 
Artificial breaching and monitoring activities may occur at any time 
during the one-year period of validity of the proposed IHA.
    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, and monitoring in the estuary 
requires the use of small boats. As a result, pinnipeds hauled out on 
the beach or at peripheral haul-outs in the estuary may exhibit 
behavioral responses that indicate incidental take by Level B 
harassment under the MMPA. Species known from the haul-out at the mouth 
of the Russian River or from peripheral haul-outs, and therefore 
anticipated to be taken incidental to the specified activity, include 
the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), California sea lion 
(Zalophus californianus californianus), and northern elephant seal 
(Mirounga angustirostris).
    This would be the fifth such IHA, if issued. SCWA was first issued 
an IHA, valid for a period of one year, effective on April 1, 2010 (75 
FR 17382), and was subsequently issued one-year IHAs for incidental 
take associated with the same activities, effective on April 21, 2011 
(76 FR 23306), April 21, 2012 (77 FR 24471), and April 21, 2013 (78 FR 
23746).

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The proposed action involves management of the estuary to prevent 
flooding while preventing adverse modification to critical habitat for 
ESA-listed salmonids. Requirements related to the ESA are described in 
further detail below. 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. Aside from the 
additional elements of a jetty study, described below, and minor 
additions to SCWA's biological and physical estuary monitoring 
measures, the specified activity remains the same as that described in 
the 2011 document.

Dates and Duration

    The specified activity may occur at any time during the one-year 
timeframe (April 21, 2014, through April 20, 2015) of the proposed IHA, 
although construction and maintenance of a lagoon outlet channel would 
occur only during the lagoon management period. In addition, there are 
certain restrictions placed on SCWA during the harbor seal pupping 
season. These, as well as periodicity and frequency of the specified 
activities, are described in further detail below.

Specific Geographic Region

    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).

Detailed Description of 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,

[[Page 12474]]

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. The latter 
activity, physical and biological monitoring, will remain the same as 
in past years but with the addition of a new monitoring activity. For 
2014, acoustic telemetry of tagged steelhead will be added to the 
fisheries monitoring activities. As is the case for other monitoring 
activities in the estuary, this activity will involve at least two crew 
members in a small motorized boat travelling throughout the estuary. 
Therefore, as for other such activities in the estuary, the potential 
exists for disturbance of pinnipeds hauled-out at peripheral haul-outs. 
Please see the previously referenced Federal Register notice (76 FR 
14924; March 18, 2011) for detailed discussion of lagoon outlet channel 
management, artificial breaching, and other physical and biological 
monitoring activities.
    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 a historical, dilapidated jetty present at Goat Rock 
State Beach (e.g., complete removal, partial removal).
    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 the 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 2013 (and considered 
under the previous IHA) but did not occur, and is now planned for 2014.
    The jetty, which is embedded in the barrier beach, may 
significantly affect some of the physical processes which 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 study 
would involve delineation of two study transects perpendicular to the 
beach barrier (see Figure 5 of SCWA's application) and installation of 
six monitoring wells to study water seepage rates. Additionally, 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. For a detailed description of the jetty study, 
please see our notice of proposed authorization prior to the 2013 IHA 
(78 FR 14985; March 8, 2013).

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) and fine-scale local 
abundance data for harbor seals have been recorded extensively since 
1972. California sea lions and northern elephant seals have also been 
observed infrequently in the project area. In addition to the primary 
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.
    This section briefly summarizes the range, population status, 
threats and human-caused mortality, and range-wide as well as local 
abundance of these species. We have reviewed SCWA's detailed species 
descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and 
completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of SCWA's 
application instead of reprinting the information here. The following 
information is summarized largely from NMFS Stock Assessment Reports, 
which may be accessed at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

[[Page 12475]]

Harbor Seals

    Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline 
areas of the northern hemisphere from temperate to polar regions. The 
eastern North Pacific subspecies is found from Baja California north to 
the Aleutian Islands and into the Bering Sea. Multiple lines of 
evidence support the existence of geographic structure among harbor 
seal populations from California to Alaska (Carretta et al., 2012). 
However, because stock boundaries are difficult to meaningfully draw 
from a biological perspective, three separate harbor seal stocks are 
recognized for management purposes along the west coast of the 
continental U.S.: (1) Inland waters of Washington, (2) outer coast of 
Oregon and Washington, and (3) California (Carretta et al., 2012). 
Multiple stocks are recognized in Alaska. Placement of a stock boundary 
at the California-Oregon border is not based on biology but is 
considered a political and jurisdictional convenience (Carretta et al., 
2012). In addition, harbor seals may occur in Mexican waters, but these 
animals are not considered part of the California stock. Only the 
California stock is expected to be found in the project area.
    California harbor seals are not protected under the ESA or listed 
as depleted under the MMPA, and are not considered a strategic stock 
under the MMPA because annual human-caused mortality (31) is 
significantly less than the calculated potential biological removal 
(PBR; 1,600). The population appears to be stabilizing at what may be 
its carrying capacity and the fishery mortality is declining.
    The best abundance estimate of the California stock of harbor seals 
is 30,196 (CV = 0.157) and the minimum population size of this stock is 
26,667 individuals (Carretta et al., 2012). The entire population 
cannot be counted because some individuals are always away from haul-
out sites. In addition, complete pup counts are not possible as for 
other species of pinniped because pups are precocious and enter the 
water almost immediately after birth. Therefore, the best abundance 
estimate is estimated by counting the number of seals ashore during the 
peak haul-out period (May to July) and by multiplying this count by a 
correction factor equal to the inverse of the estimated fraction of 
seals on land (Carretta et al., 2012). The current abundance estimate, 
as well as the minimum population size, is based off of haul-out counts 
from 2009.
    Counts of harbor seals in California increased from 1981 to 2004, 
with a calculated annual net productivity rate of 9.2 percent for the 
period 1983-1994 (Carretta et al., 2012). However, maximum net 
productivity rates cannot be estimated because measurements were not 
made when the stock size was very small, and the default maximum net 
productivity rate for pinnipeds (12 percent per year) is considered 
appropriate for harbor seals (Carretta et al., 2012).
    Prior to state and federal protection and especially during the 
nineteenth century, harbor seals along the west coast of North America 
were greatly reduced by commercial hunting, with only a few hundred 
individuals surviving in a few isolated areas along the California 
coast (Carretta et al., 2012). However, in the last half of this 
century, the population has increased dramatically. Data from 2004-09 
indicate that 18 (CV = 0.73) California harbor seals are killed 
annually in commercial fisheries. In addition, California stranding 
database records for 2005-09 show an annual average of 12 such events, 
which is likely an underestimate because most carcasses are not 
recovered. Two Unusual Mortality Events (UME) of harbor seals in 
California occurred in 1997 and 2000 with the causes considered to be 
infectious disease (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 
accessed January 30, 2014). All west coast harbor seals that have been 
tested for morbilliviruses were found to be seronegative, indicating 
that this disease is not endemic in the population and that this 
population is extremely susceptible to an epidemic of this disease 
(Ham-Lamm[eacute] et al., 1999).
    Harbor seal pupping 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 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 2009-13.

                        Table 1--Average Daily Number of Seals Observed at Russian River Mouth for Each Month, 1993-2005; 2009-13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    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       --       --       --       --

[[Page 12476]]

 
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
2013........................................       51      108      158      112      162      139      411      175       77       58       34       94
Mean, 2011-13...............................       95       88      145      135      151      151      243      137       67       61       94       64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from 1993-2005 adapted from Mortenson and Twohy (1994) and E. Twohy (unpublished data). Data from 2009-13 collected by SCWA.
Months represented by dash 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 and McIver (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 
2009-13, 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                        Jan      Feb      Mar      Apr      May      Jun      Jul      Aug      Sep      Oct      Nov      Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996-2000...................................       --       --       --      173      103      100       75       17        5       22       11       --
2009-13.....................................       32      134      224       80       53      102      104       --       17       25       53       34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2014). 
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 the Gulf of California north to the 
Gulf of Alaska, with breeding areas located in the Gulf of California, 
western Baja California, and southern California. Five genetically 
distinct geographic populations have been identified: (1) Pacific 
Temperate, (2) Pacific Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of California, 
(4) Central Gulf of California and (5) Northern Gulf of California 
(Schramm et al., 2009). Rookeries for the Pacific Temperate population 
are found within U.S. waters and just south of the U.S.-Mexico border, 
and animals belonging to this population may be found form the Gulf of 
Alaska to Mexican waters off Baja California. Animals belonging to 
other populations (e.g., Pacific Subtropical) may range into U.S. 
waters during non-breeding periods. For management purposes, a stock of 
California sea lions comprising those animals at rookeries within the 
U.S. is defined (i.e., the U.S. stock of California sea lions) 
(Carretta et al., 2012). Pup production at the Coronado Islands rookery 
in Mexican waters is considered an insignificant contribution to the 
overall size of the Pacific Temperate population (Lowry and Maravilla-
Chavez, 2005).
    California sea lions are not protected under the ESA or listed as 
depleted under the MMPA. Total annual human-caused mortality (at least 
431) is substantially less than the PBR (estimated at 9,200 per year); 
therefore, California sea lions are not considered a strategic stock 
under the MMPA. There are indications that the California sea lion may 
have reached or is approaching carrying capacity, although more data 
are needed to confirm that leveling in growth persists (Carretta et 
al., 2012).
    The best abundance estimate of the U.S. stock of California sea 
lions is 296,750 and the minimum population size of this stock is 
153,337 individuals (Carretta et al., 2012). The entire population 
cannot be counted because all age and sex classes are never ashore at 
the same time; therefore, the best abundance estimate is determined 
from the number of births and the proportion of pups in the population, 
with censuses conducted in July after all pups have been born. 
Specifically, the pup count for rookeries in southern California from 
2008 was adjusted for pre-census mortality and then multiplied by the 
inverse of the fraction of newborn pups in the population (Carretta et 
al., 2012). The minimum population size was determined from counts of 
all age and sex classes that were ashore at all the major rookeries and 
haul-out sites in southern and central California during the 2007 
breeding season, including all California sea lions counted during the 
July 2007 census at the Channel Islands in southern California and at 
haul-out sites located between Point Conception and Point Reyes, 
California (Carretta et al., 2012). An additional unknown number

[[Page 12477]]

of California sea lions are at sea or hauled out at locations that were 
not censused and are not accounted for in the minimum population size.
    Trends in pup counts from 1975 through 2008 have been assessed for 
four rookeries in southern California and for haul-outs in central and 
northern California. During this time period counts of pups increased 
at an annual rate of 5.4 percent, excluding six El Nino years when pup 
production declined dramatically before quickly rebounding (Carretta et 
al., 2012). The maximum population growth rate was 9.2 percent when pup 
counts from the El Ni[ntilde]o years were removed. However, the 
apparent growth rate from the population trajectory underestimates the 
intrinsic growth rate because it does not consider human-caused 
mortality occurring during the time series; the default maximum net 
productivity rate for pinnipeds (12 percent per year) is considered 
appropriate for California sea lions (Carretta et al., 2012).
    Historic exploitation of California sea lions include harvest for 
food by Native Americans in pre-historic times and for oil and hides in 
the mid-1800s, as well as exploitation for a variety of reasons more 
recently (Carretta et al., 2012). There are few historical records to 
document the effects of such exploitation on sea lion abundance (Lowry 
et al., 1992). Data from 2003-09 indicate that a minimum of 337 (CV = 
0.56) California sea lions are killed annually in commercial fisheries. 
In addition, a summary of stranding database records for 2005-09 shows 
an annual average of 65 such events, which is likely a gross 
underestimate because most carcasses are not recovered. California sea 
lions may also be removed because of predation on endangered salmonids 
(17 per year, 2008-10) or incidentally captured during scientific 
research (3 per year, 2005-09) (Carretta et al., 2012). Sea lion 
mortality has also been linked to the algal-produced neurotoxin domoic 
acid (Scholin et al., 2000). There is currently a UME declaration in 
effect for California sea lions. Future mortality may be expected to 
occur, due to the sporadic occurrence of such harmful algal blooms. 
Beginning in January 2013, elevated strandings of California sea lion 
pups have been observed in Southern California, with live sea lion 
strandings nearly three times higher than the historical average. The 
causes of this UME are under investigation (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/californiasealions2013.htm; accessed January 29, 2014).
    Solitary California sea lions have occasionally been observed at or 
in the vicinity of the Russian River estuary (MSC, 1999, 2000), in all 
months of the year except June. 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, January 
2012, and December 2013. Other individuals were observed in the surf at 
the mouth of the river or swimming inside the estuary. 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. The occurrence of individual California sea 
lions in the action area may occur year-round, but is infrequent and 
sporadic.

Northern Elephant Seals

    Northern elephant seals gather at breeding areas, located primarily 
on offshore islands of Baja California and California, from 
approximately December to March before dispersing for feeding. Males 
feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, while 
females feed at sea south of 45[deg] N (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le 
Boeuf et al., 1993). Adults then return to land between March and 
August to molt, with males returning later than females, before 
dispersing again to their respective feeding areas between molting and 
the winter breeding season. 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.
    Northern elephant seals are not protected under the ESA or listed 
as depleted under the MMPA. Total annual human-caused mortality (at 
least 10.4) is substantially less than the PBR (estimated at 4,382 per 
year); therefore, northern elephant seals are not considered a 
strategic stock under the MMPA. Modeling of pup counts indicates that 
the population has reached its Maximum Net Productivity Level, but has 
not yet reached carrying capacity (Carretta et al., 2007).
    The best abundance estimate of the California breeding population 
of northern elephant seals is 124,000 and the minimum population size 
of this stock is 74,913 individuals (Carretta et al., 2007). The entire 
population cannot be counted because all age and sex classes are never 
ashore at the same time; therefore, the best abundance estimate is 
determined by counting the number of pups produced and multiplying by 
the inverse of the expected ratio of pups to total animals (McCann, 
1985). Specifically, the estimated number of pups born in California in 
2005 (35,549) was used to extrapolate via a multiplier of 3.5 suggested 
by Boveng (1988) and Barlow et al. (1993) for a rapidly growing 
population. The minimum population size was estimated by doubling the 
observed pup count (to account for the pups and their mothers) and 
adding 3,815 males and juveniles counted at the Channel Islands and 
central California sites in 2005 (Carretta et al., 2007). An additional 
unknown number of northern elephant seals are at sea or hauled out at 
locations that were not censused and are not accounted for in the 
minimum population size.
    Trends in pup counts from 1958 through 2005 show that northern 
elephant seal colonies are continuing to grow in California, but appear 
to be stable or slowly decreasing in Mexico (Stewart et al., 1994; 
Carretta et al., 2007). Although growth rates as high as 16 percent per 
year have been documented for elephant seal rookeries in the U.S. from 
1959 to 1981 (Cooper and Stewart, 1983), much of this growth was 
supported by immigration from Mexico. The highest growth rate measured 
for the whole U.S./Mexico population was 8.3 percent between 1965 and 
1977. A generalized logistic growth model indicates that the maximum 
population growth rate is 11.7 percent (Carretta et al., 2007).
    Data from 2000-05 indicate that a minimum of 8.8 (CV = 0.4) 
northern elephant seals are killed annually in commercial fisheries, 
including hook-and-line, gillnet, and trawl fisheries. In addition, 
drift gillnet fisheries exist along the entire Pacific coast of Baja 
California and may take animals from this population, although few 
quantitative data and no species-specific information are available 
(Carretta et al., 2007). A summary of stranding database records for 
2000-04 shows an annual average of 1.6 non-fishery related mortalities, 
which is likely a gross underestimate because most carcasses are not 
recovered.
    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

[[Page 12478]]

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 and, most recently, a sub-adult seal 
was observed in August 2013. The occurrence of individual northern 
elephant seals in the action area has generally been infrequent and 
sporadic 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 disturb pinnipeds present on the beach 
or at peripheral haul-outs in the estuary. 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. During 2013, SCWA 
observed that harbor seals are less likely to flush from the beach when 
the primary aggregation of seals is north of the breaching activity 
(please refer to Figure 2 of SCWA's application), meaning that 
personnel and equipment are not required to pass the seals. Four 
artificial breaching events were implemented in 2013, with two of these 
events occurring north of the primary aggregation and two to the south 
(at approximately 800 and 150 ft distance) (SCWA, 2014). In both of the 
former cases, all seals present eventually flushed to the water, but 
when breaching activity remained to the south of the haul-out, only 11 
and 53 percent of seals, respectively, were flushed.
    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 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 may be 
inferred based on 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.
    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.
    In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe 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 (Figure 4; SCWA, 2014), 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

[[Page 12479]]

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, likely increases 
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 has remained consistent in recent 
years and 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. Thus, any impacts to marine 
mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term 
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

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 proposes to continue mitigation measures specific 
to pupping season (March 15-June 30), as implemented in the previous 
IHAs:
     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 NMFS 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 (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 SCWA's proposed mitigation measures and 
considered their effectiveness in past implementation to preliminarily 
determine whether they are likely to

[[Page 12480]]

effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal 
species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 
measures included 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; and (3) 
the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
     Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine 
mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this 
goal).
     A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals 
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may 
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment 
only).
     A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine 
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental 
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 
behavioral harassment only).
     A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli 
expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
     Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine 
mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage 
or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat 
during a biologically important time.
     For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase 
in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of SCWA's proposed measures and on SCWA's 
record of management at the mouth of the Russian River including 
information from monitoring of SCWA's implementation of the mitigation 
measures as prescribed under the previous IHAs, we have preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for 
incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of 
accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result 
in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or 
impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be 
present in the proposed action area.
    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both 
within defined zones of effect (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are 
likely to be exposed to stimuli that we associate with specific adverse 
effects, such as behavioral harassment or hearing threshold shifts;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli expected to result in incidental take and how anticipated 
adverse effects on individuals may impact the population, stock, or 
species (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival) through any of the following methods:
     Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level, 
distance from source);
     Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict pertinent information, e.g., received level, 
distance from source);
     Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or 
areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; or
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.
    SCWA submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found on the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The plan, which has been 
successfully implemented by SCWA under previous IHAs, may be modified 
or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the 
public during the public comment period. 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:
    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?

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    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

[[Page 12481]]

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 
3). 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 3--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 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 or photo-identified, 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.
    Estuary Management Event Monitoring, Artificial Breaching Events--
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, NMFS 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

[[Page 12482]]

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' West Coast Regional 
Office and Office of Protected Resources 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 includes the 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 West Coast 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 monitoring results, 
and discussion of problems noted and proposed remedial measures.

Summary of Previous Monitoring

    SCWA complied with the mitigation and monitoring required under all 
previous authorizations. In accordance with the 2013 IHA, SCWA 
submitted a Report of Activities and Monitoring Results, covering the 
period of January 1 through December 31, 2013. Previous monitoring 
reports (available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm) provided additional analysis of monitoring results from 
2009-12. A barrier beach was formed eleven times during 2013, but SCWA 
was required to implement artificial breaching for only five of these 
closure events (note that the fifth such event occurred on January 2, 
2014, following bar closure on December 24, 2013, and is not discussed 
in SCWA's current 2013 monitoring report). The Russian River outlet was 
closed to the ocean for a total of 104 days in 2013, including extended 
closures totaling 56 days during the lagoon management period. However, 
these closures all culminated in natural breaches and no outlet channel 
management events were required. 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 (SCWA, 2013). In 2011, no water level management activities 
occurred (SCWA, 2012). In 2010, one lagoon management event and two 
artificial breaching events occurred (SCWA, 2011). Pinniped monitoring 
occurred no more than 3 days before, the day of, and the day after each 
water level management activity. 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.

Baseline Monitoring

    Baseline monitoring was performed to gather additional information 
about the population of harbor seals utilizing the Jenner haul-out 
including population trends, patterns in seasonal abundance and the 
influence of barrier beach condition on harbor seal abundance. The 
effect of tide cycle and time of day on the abundance of seals at the 
Jenner haul-out was explored in detail in a previous report (SCWA, 
2012); data collected in 2013 did not change the interpretation of 
these findings. Baseline monitoring at the mouth of the Russian River 
was conducted concurrently with monitoring of the peripheral haul-outs, 
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 22 baseline surveys were conducted in 2013. Figure 3 of SCWA's 
2013 report shows the mean number of harbor seals during twice-monthly 
baseline monitoring events from 2009-13.
    Peak seal abundance, as determined by the single greatest count of 
harbor seals at the Jenner haul-out, was on July 11 (476 seals), and 
overall mean seal abundance at Jenner was greatest in July (mean = 411 
 7.6 s.e.). This is greater than any previously reported 
monthly averages by more than 100 seals (Figure 3 of SCWA's report). 
However, this peak in abundance during the summer molting period is 
typical of past years' observations. Also similar to previous years, 
seal abundance declined in the fall.
    No distressed or abandoned pups were reported in 2013. Pup 
production at the Jenner haul-out was 28.8 percent of total seals as 
calculated from the peak pup count recorded on April 26 and the

[[Page 12483]]

number of adult harbor seals present at the same time. This level of 
production is more typical of past years as compared to 2012, where 
13.8 percent of seals were pups at the time of the peak pup count. The 
average of pups observed (when pups were present) during April and May 
have been similar between years, ranging from 12.9-15.4 for 2011-13. 
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

    Eight pre-breaching, four each breaching and post-breaching, and 
two pre-lagoon outlet surveys were conducted in 2013. As mentioned 
previously and evidenced by this survey activity, only four artificial 
breaching events and no outlet channel events actually occurred 
(natural breaches occurred prior to water level management activity in 
other cases). Artificial breaching events occurred on February 21, 
October 15, November 7, and December 5. No injuries or mortalities were 
observed during 2013, and harbor seal reactions ranged from merely 
alerting to crew presence to flushing from the beach. No California sea 
lions or northern elephant seals were observed during water level 
management activities or during biological and physical monitoring of 
the beach and estuary.
    Total observed incidences of marine mammal take, by Level B 
harassment only, from water level management activity and biological 
and physical monitoring, was 1,351 harbor seals (detailed in Table 4). 
No California sea lions or northern elephant seals were observed during 
water level management activities or during biological and physical 
monitoring of the beach and estuary. 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 2014.

 Table 4--Observed Incidental Harassment (Level B Harassment Only) of Harbor Seals During Russian River Estuary
                                           Management Activities, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Observed take
                 Date                            Event type          -------------------------------------------
                                                                             Age class \a\            Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 21...............................  Artificial breaching.........  Adult.....................              22
May 15...............................  Water quality sampling.......  Adult.....................               1
May 30...............................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult, pup................          80 + 2
Jun 13...............................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................             156
Jul 16...............................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................             295
Aug 8................................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................             107
Sep 5................................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................              40
Oct 15...............................  Artificial breaching.........  Adult.....................              45
Nov 7................................  Artificial breaching.........  Adult.....................              64
Nov 12...............................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................             325
Nov 13...............................  Water quality sampling.......  Adult.....................              10
Dec 4................................  Pre-breaching survey.........  Adult.....................              25
Dec 5................................  Artificial breaching.........  Adult.....................              61
Dec 12...............................  Beach topographic survey.....  Adult.....................             118
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  .............................  ..........................           1,351
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Pups are counted separately through June, after which all seals are counted as adults as it becomes more
  difficult to accurately age individuals.

    It should be noted that one of the primary reasons for the increase 
in observed incidences of incidental take in 2013 (1,351) compared with 
prior years (208 in 2012, 42 in 2011, 290 in 2010) was a change in 
protocol for the beach topographic surveys (although realized level of 
activity would be expected to remain a primary determinant in future 
years). Due to the frequent and prolonged river mouth closures in 
2013--including closures of 25 days in June/July and 21 days in 
September/October--there was an increased need to gather complete 
information about the topography and sand elevation of the beach to 
best inform water level management activities. This necessitated the 
survey crew to access the entire beach, including any area where seals 
were hauled out. Therefore, beginning on May 30, 2013, the methods for 
conducting the monthly topographic surveys of the barrier beach were 
changed. Previously, monitors at a distance would inform survey crews 
via radio if harbor seals became alert to their presence. Survey crews 
would then retreat or avoid certain areas as necessary to avoid 
behavioral harassment of the seals. According to the revised protocol, 
and provided that no neonates or nursing pups were on the haul-out, the 
survey crew would continue their approach. The survey crews would 
proceed in a manner that allowed for the seals to gradually vacate the 
beach before the survey proceeded, thereby reducing the intensity of 
behavioral reactions as much as possible, but the numbers of incidences 
of behavioral harassment nevertheless increased. SCWA expects that this 
revised protocol would remain in place for the coming year.
    SCWA continued to investigate the relative disturbance caused by 
their activities versus that caused by other sources (see Figure 6 of 
SCWA's monitoring report as well as SCWA,

[[Page 12484]]

2013). The data recorded during 2013 do not differ from the findings 
reported in SCWA (2013). Harbor seals are most frequently disturbed by 
people on foot, with an increase in frequency of people present during 
bar-closed conditions (see Figure 5 of SCWA's monitoring report). 
Kayakers are the next most frequent source of disturbance overall, also 
with an increase during bar-closed conditions. 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 less 
frequently, but these incidents often disturb over half of the seals 
hauled out.

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, as 
described previously, the questions listed below are also of specific 
interest. The limited data available thus far precludes drawing 
definitive conclusions regarding the key questions in SCWA's monitoring 
plan, but we discuss preliminary conclusions and available evidence 
below.
    1. Under what conditions do pinnipeds haul out at the Russian River 
estuary mouth at Jenner?
    A summary of baseline pinniped monitoring provided in SCWA (2012) 
concluded that time of year, tidal state, and time of day all 
influenced harbor seal abundance at the Jenner haul-out. Baseline data 
collected from 2009-13 indicate 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), as would be expected on the 
basis of harbor seal biological and physiological requirements (Herder, 
1986; Allen et al., 1989; Stewart and Yochem, 1994; Hanan, 1996; 
Gemmer, 2002). Although multiple factors likely influence harbor seal 
presence at the haul-out, SCWA believes that barrier beach condition 
(i.e., open or closed) may be significant. Daily average abundance of 
seals was lower during bar-closed conditions compared to bar-open 
conditions. This effect is likely due to a combination of factors, 
including increased human disturbance, reduced access to the ocean from 
the estuary side of the barrier beach, and the increased disturbance 
from wave action when seals utilize the ocean side of the barrier 
beach. 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 effect 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.
    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?
    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 was similar to 
responses observed during past artificial 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. As noted previously, when breaching activities were 
conducted south of the haul-out location seals often remained on the 
beach during all or some of the breaching activity. This indicates that 
seals are less disturbed by activities when equipment and crew do not 
pass directly past their haul-out.
    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?
    The duration of closures in recent years has not generally been 
dissimilar from the duration of closures that have been previously 
observed at the estuary, and lagoon outlet channel implementation has 
occurred only once, meaning that there has been a lack of opportunity 
to study harbor seal response to extended lagoon conditions. A barrier 
beach has formed during the lagoon management period twelve times since 
SCWA began implementing the lagoon outlet channel adaptive management 
plan, with an average duration of nine days. However, the additional 
sustained river outlet closures observed in 2013 during the lagoon 
management period (maximum 25 days) provide some information regarding 
the abundance of seals during the formation of a summer lagoon. While 
seal abundance was lower overall during bar-closed conditions, there 
was also a record high in seal abundance recorded (both daily and 
monthly). These observations may indicate that, while seal abundance 
exhibits a short-term decline following bar closure, the number of 
seals utilizing the Jenner haul-out overall during such conditions is 
not affected. Coupling seal abundance data with human abundance data 
and disturbance observations leads SCWA to conclude that the increased 
frequency of disturbances during bar-closed conditions is the 
underlying cause for the short-term decline in seal abundance. Short-
term fluctuations in abundance aside, it appears that the general 
trends of increased abundance during summer and decreased abundance 
during fall, which coincide with the annual molt and likely foraging 
dispersal, respectively, are not affected.
    4. Are seals at the Jenner haul-out displaced to nearby river and 
coastal haul-outs when the mouth remains closed in the summer?
    Initial comparisons of peripheral (river and coastal) haul-out 
count data to the Jenner haul-out counts have been inconclusive (see 
Table 4 and Figure 7 of SCWA's monitoring report), and further 
information from estuary management activities is needed. Given the 
inconclusive nature of data recorded thus far, it would be useful to be 
able to track the movements of individual seals. Therefore, SCWA has 
begun a pilot photo-identification study as a means to observe 
individual seals over time. SCWA has determined that

[[Page 12485]]

current observation locations allow capture of the detailed images of 
seals necessary to identify individuals based on spot patterns, and 
will continue this pilot over the coming year by evaluating photographs 
for matches.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 
section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: ``. . . any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; 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.'' The former is termed Level A harassment and the latter is 
termed Level B harassment.
    SCWA has requested, and NMFS proposes, 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 July average 
for 2009-13--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. Data collected specifically during bar-closed conditions 
may be used for estimating take associated with artificial breaching 
(Table 2). The number of estimated artificial breaching events is also 
informed by experience, and is equal to the annual average number of 
bar closures recorded for a given month from 1996-2013.
    Previously, for monthly topographic surveys on the barrier beach, 
SCWA estimated that only 10 percent of seals hauled out would be likely 
to be disturbed by this activity, which involves two people walking 
along the barrier beach with a survey rod. During those surveys a 
pinniped monitor was positioned at the Highway 1 overlook and would 
notify the surveyors via radio when any seals on the haul-out begin to 
alert to their presence. This enabled the surveyors to retreat slowly 
away from the haul-out, typically resulting in no disturbance. However, 
protocol for this monitoring activity has been changed (i.e., surveyors 
will continue cautiously rather than retreat when seals alert--this is 
necessary to collect required data) and the resulting incidences of 
take are now estimated as 100 percent of the seals expected to be 
encountered. The exception to this change is during the pupping season, 
when surveyors would continue to avoid seals to reduce harassment of 
pups and/or mothers with neonates. For the months of March-May, the 
assumption that only 10 percent of seals present would be harassed is 
retained. 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 2011-13 (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.

[[Page 12486]]



    Table 5--Estimated Number of Harbor Seal Takes Resulting From Russian River Estuary Management Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of animals expected to occur                                        Potential total number of individual
                 \a\                          Number of events b c                animals that may be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation: 104.\d\               Implementation: 3.                    Implementation: 312.
Maintenance and Monitoring:           Maintenance:                          Maintenance: 1,038.
May: 53.                              May: 1.                               ....................................
June: 102.                            June-Sept: 4/month.                   ....................................
July: 104.                            Oct: 1.                               ....................................
Aug: 17.                              Monitoring:                           Monitoring: 505.
Sept: 17.                             June-Sept: 2/month.                   ....................................
Oct: 25.                              Oct: 1.                               ....................................
                                      ....................................   Total: 1,855.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Artificial Breaching
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct: 25.                              Oct: 2.                               Oct: 50.
Nov: 53.                              Nov: 2.                               Nov: 106.
Dec: 34.                              Dec: 2.                               Dec: 68.
Jan: 32.                              Jan: 1.                               Jan: 32.
Feb: 134.                             Feb: 1.                               Feb: 134.
Mar: 224.                             Mar: 1.                               Mar: 224.
Apr: 80.                              Apr: 1.                               Apr: 80.
May: 53.                              May: 1.                               May: 53.
                                      11 events maximum.                     Total: 747.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan: 95.                              1 topographic survey/month; 100       Jan: 95 + 10.
Feb: 88.                               percent of animals present Jun-Feb;  Feb: 88 + 9.
Mar: 145.                              10 percent of animals present Mar-   Mar: 15.
Apr: 135.                              May.                                 Apr: 14.
May: 151.                             2 geophysical surveys/month, Sep-     May: 15.
Jun: 151.                              Dec; 1/month, Jul-Aug, Jan-Feb; 10   Jun: 151.
Jul: 243.                              percent of animals present.          Jul: 243 + 24.
Aug: 137.                                                                   Aug: 137 + 14.
Sep: 67.                                                                    Sep: 67 + 13.
Oct: 61.                                                                    Oct: 61 + 12.
Nov: 94.                                                                    Nov: 94 + 19.
Dec: 64.                                                                    Dec: 64 + 13.
                                      ....................................   Total: 1,044 + 114 = 1,158.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.\e\                                 121.                                  121.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total                             ....................................  3,881.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2011-13 data from Table 1.
\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. Number of events includes addition of
  acoustic telemetry surveys.


[[Page 12487]]


  Table 6--Estimated Number of California Sea Lion and Elephant Seal Takes Resulting From Russian River Estuary
                                              Management Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Potential total
                                                                Number of                           number of
                          Species                           animals expected  Number of events     individual
                                                               to occur a             a           animals that
                                                                                                  may be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Lagoon Outlet Channel Management (May 15 to October 15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per                       1                 6                 6
 event)...................................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per                    1                 6                 6
 event)...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Artificial Breaching
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per                       1                 8                 8
 month, Oct-May)..........................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per                    1                 8                 8
 month, Oct-May)..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Topographic and Geophysical Beach Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per month                 1                20                20
 year-round for topographical surveys; potential to
 encounter once per month Jul-Feb for geophysical surveys)
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per                    1                20                20
 month year-round for topographical surveys; potential to
 encounter once per month Jul-Feb for geophysical surveys)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Biological and Physical Habitat Monitoring in the Estuary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion (potential to encounter once per                       1                 8                 8
 month, Jul-Feb)..........................................
Northern elephant seal (potential to encounter once per                    1                 8                 8
 month, Jul-Feb)..........................................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    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.

Analyses and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact Analysis

    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.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the 
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of 
Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to 
base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of 
the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral 
harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses 
(e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as 
the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number 
of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    Although SCWA's estuary management activities may disturb 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. While these impacts can occur year-round, they occur 
sporadically and for limited duration (e.g., a maximum of 2 consecutive 
days for water level management events). Seals will likely become alert 
or, at most, flush into the water in reaction to the presence of crews 
and equipment on the beach. While disturbance may occur during a 
sensitive time (during the March 15-June 30 pupping season), mitigation 
measures have been specifically designed to further minimize harm 
during this period and eliminate the possibility of pup injury or 
mother-pup separation.
    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. 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 injury, serious injury, or mortality. Over the course of that 
time period, management events have generally been infrequent and of 
limited duration.
    No pinniped stocks for which incidental take authorization is 
proposed are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or

[[Page 12488]]

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.
    In summary, and based on extensive monitoring data, we believe 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 (Figure 4; SCWA, 2014), use of the 
haul-out despite decades of breaching events indicates that abandonment 
of the haul-out is unlikely. Based on the analysis contained herein of 
the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and 
their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the 
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that 
the total marine mammal take from SCWA's estuary management activities 
will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or 
stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

    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 3,881 harbor seals, 42 California sea lions, and 
42 northern elephant seals, representing 12.9, 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. Based on the 
analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or 
stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by 
these activities. Therefore, we have determined that a section 7 
consultation under the ESA is not required. 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 
SCWA's application for a renewed IHA for ongoing estuary management 
activities for 2014 and the 2013 monitoring report. Based on that 
review, we have determined that the proposed action follows closely the 
IHAs issued and implemented in 2010-13 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 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to 
issue an IHA to SCWA for conducting the described estuary management 
activities in Sonoma County, California, for one year from the date of 
issuance, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is 
provided next.
    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).
    The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), California, is hereby 
authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) to harass marine mammals incidental 
to conducting estuary management activities in the Russian River, 
Sonoma County, California.
    1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from 
April 21, 2014 through April 20, 2015.
    2. This IHA is valid only for activities associated with estuary 
management activities in the Russian River, Sonoma County, California, 
including:
    (a) Lagoon outlet channel management;
    (b) Artificial breaching of barrier beach;
    (c) Geophysical surveys and other work associated with a jetty 
study; and
    (d) Physical and biological monitoring of the beach and estuary as 
required.
3. General Conditions
    (a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of SCWA, its 
designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of 
this IHA.
    (b) SCWA is hereby authorized to incidentally take, by Level B 
harassment only, 3,881 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), 42 
California sea lions (Zalophus californianus californianus), and 42 
northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris).
    (c) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or 
death of any of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the 
Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is 
prohibited and may result in the

[[Page 12489]]

modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
    (d) If SCWA observes a pup that may be abandoned, it shall contact 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator immediately (562-980-3230; 
[email protected]) and also report the incident to NMFS Office 
of Protected Resources (301-427-8425; [email protected]) within 48 
hours. Observers shall not approach or move the pup.
4. Mitigation Measures
    In order to ensure the least practicable impact on the species 
listed in condition 3(b), the holder of this Authorization is required 
to implement the following mitigation measures:
    (a) SCWA crews shall 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.
    (b) SCWA staff shall avoid walking or driving equipment through the 
seal haul-out.
    (c) Crews on foot shall make an effort to be seen by seals from a 
distance, if possible, rather than appearing suddenly at the top of the 
sandbar, again preventing sudden flushes.
    (d) During breaching events, all monitoring shall be conducted from 
the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 adjacent to the haul-out in 
order to minimize potential for harassment.
    (e) A water level management event may not occur for more than two 
consecutive days unless flooding threats cannot be controlled.
    (f) Equipment shall be driven slowly on the beach and care will be 
taken to minimize the number of shut-downs and start-ups when the 
equipment is on the beach.
    (g) All work shall be completed as efficiently as possible, with 
the smallest amount of heavy equipment possible, to minimize 
disturbance of seals at the haul-out.
    (h) Boats operating near river haul-outs during monitoring shall be 
kept within posted speed limits and driven as far from the haul-outs as 
safely possible to minimize flushing seals.
    In addition, SCWA shall implement the following mitigation measures 
during pupping season (March 15-June 30):
    (i) SCWA shall maintain a one 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.
    (j) If a pup less than one week old is on the beach where heavy 
machinery will be used or on the path used to access the work location, 
the management action shall 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 shall consult with 
NMFS and CDFG to determine the appropriate course of action. SCWA shall 
coordinate with the locally established seal monitoring program 
(Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods) to determine if pups less than one 
week old are on the beach prior to a breaching event.
    (k) Physical and biological monitoring shall not be conducted if a 
pup less than one week old is present at the monitoring site or on a 
path to the site.
5. Monitoring
    The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct baseline 
monitoring and shall conduct additional monitoring as required during 
estuary management activities. Monitoring and reporting shall be 
conducted in accordance with the approved Pinniped Monitoring Plan.
    (a) Baseline monitoring shall be conducted twice-monthly for the 
term of the IHA. These censuses shall begin at dawn and continue for 
eight hours, weather permitting; the census days shall be chosen to 
ensure that monitoring encompasses a low and high tide each in the 
morning and afternoon. All seals hauled out on the beach shall be 
counted every 30 minutes from the overlook on the bluff along Highway 1 
adjacent to the haul-out using high-powered spotting scopes. Observers 
shall indicate where groups of seals are hauled out on the sandbar and 
provide a total count for each group. If possible, adults and pups 
shall be counted separately.
    (b) In addition, peripheral haul-outs shall be visited for 10-
minute counts twice during each baseline monitoring day.
    (c) During estuary management events, monitoring shall occur on all 
days that activity is occurring using the same protocols as described 
for baseline monitoring, with the difference that monitoring shall 
begin at least one hour prior to the crew and equipment accessing the 
beach work area and continue through the duration of the event, until 
at least one hour after the crew and equipment leave the beach. In 
addition, a one-day pre-event survey of the area shall be made within 
one to three days of the event and a one-day post-event survey shall be 
made after the event, weather permitting.
    (d) Monitoring of peripheral haul-outs shall occur concurrently 
with event monitoring, when possible.
    (e) For all monitoring, the following information shall be recorded 
in 30-minute intervals:
    i. Pinniped counts by species;
    ii. Behavior;
    iii. Time, source and duration of any disturbance, with takes 
incidental to SCWA actions recorded only for responses involving 
movement away from the disturbance or responses of greater intensity 
(e.g., not for alerts);
    iv. Estimated distances between source of disturbance and 
pinnipeds;
    v. Weather conditions (e.g., temperature, percent cloud cover, and 
wind speed); and
    vi. Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation.
    (a) All monitoring during pupping season shall include records of 
any neonate pup observations. SCWA shall coordinate with the Stewards' 
monitoring program to determine if pups less than one week old are on 
the beach prior to a water level management event.
6. Reporting
    The holder of this Authorization is required to:
    (a) Submit a report on all activities and marine mammal monitoring 
results to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast 
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 
permit otherwise. This report must contain the following information:
    i. The number of seals taken, by species and age class (if 
possible);
    ii. Behavior prior to and during water level management events;
    iii. Start and end time of activity;
    iv. Estimated distances between source and seals when disturbance 
occurs;
    v. Weather conditions (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.);
    vi. Haul-out reoccupation time of any seals based on post-activity 
monitoring;
    vii. Tide levels and estuary water surface elevation;
    viii. Seal census from bi-monthly and nearby haul-out monitoring; 
and
    ix. Specific conclusions that may be drawn from the data in 
relation to the four questions of interest in SCWA's Pinniped 
Monitoring Plan, if possible.
    (b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
    i. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take

[[Page 12490]]

of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an 
injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, SCWA shall 
immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following 
information:
    A. Time and date of the incident;
    B. Description of the incident;
    C. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    D. Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    E. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
    F. Fate of the animal(s); and
    G. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with SCWA to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. SCWA may not resume 
their activities until notified by NMFS.
    i. In the event that SCWA discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury 
or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less 
than a moderate state of decomposition), SCWA shall immediately report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West 
Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
    The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) 
of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the 
circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with SCWA to determine 
whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the 
activities are appropriate.
    ii. In the event that SCWA discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is 
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), SCWA shall report the incident to 
the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. SCWA 
shall provide photographs or video footage or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
    iii. Pursuant to sections 6(b)(ii-iii), SCWA may use discretion in 
determining what injuries (i.e., nature and severity) are appropriate 
for reporting. At minimum, SCWA must report those injuries considered 
to be serious (i.e., will likely result in death) or that are likely 
caused by human interaction (e.g., entanglement, gunshot). Also 
pursuant to sections 6(b)(ii-iii), SCWA may use discretion in 
determining the appropriate vantage point for obtaining photographs of 
injured/dead marine mammals.
    7. Validity of this Authorization is contingent upon compliance 
with all applicable statutes and permits, including NMFS' 2008 
Biological Opinion for water management in the Russian River watershed. 
This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the 
holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if the 
authorized taking is having a more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stock of affected marine mammals.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for SCWA's estuary 
management activities. Please include with your comments any supporting 
data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on 
SCWA's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04863 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P