3308 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before March 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

internet at pracomments@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Sherry Lippiatt, NOAA 

Marine Debris Program, (510)-410–2602, 

Sherry.Lippiatt@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

This data collection project will be 

coordinated by the NOAA Marine 

Debris Program, and involve 

recreational and commercial vessels 

(respondents), shipboard observers 

(respondents), NGOs (respondents) as 

well as numerous experts on marine 

debris observations at sea. The 

Shipboard Observation Form for 

Floating Marine Debris was created 

based on methods used in studies of 

floating marine debris by established 

researchers, previous shipboard 

observational studies conducted at sea 

by NOAA, and the experience and input 

of recreational sailors. The goal of this 

form is to be able to calculate the 

density of marine debris within an area 

of a known size. Additionally, this form 

will help collect data on potential 

marine debris resulting from future 

severe marine debris generating events 

in order to better model movement of 

the debris as well as prepare (as needed) 

for debris arrival. This form may 

additionally be used to collect data on 

floating marine debris in any water 

body. 

II. Method of Collection 

Respondents have a choice of either 

electronic or paper forms. Methods of 

submittal include email of electronic 

forms, and mail and facsimile 

transmission of paper forms. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0644. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; not-for profit institutions; 

business or other for-profit 

organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting 

costs. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: January 19, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01315 Filed 1–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Cooperative Charting Programs. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0022. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Regular (revision 

and extension of a currently approved 

information collection). 

Number of Respondents: 110. 

Average Hours per Response: 2 hours, 

30 minutes. 

Burden Hours: 440. 

Needs and Uses: The U.S. Power 

Squadrons and the U.S. Coast Guard 

Auxiliary members report observations 

of changes that require additions, 

corrections or revisions to 

NauticalCharts. The information 

provided is used by NOAA, National 

Ocean Service, Office ofCoast Survey to 

maintain and prepare chart additions 

that are used Nationwide bycommercial 

and recreational navigators. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: January 19, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01313 Filed 1–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF869 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal 

Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon 

and California Coasts 

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 Partnership for Interdisciplinary 

Study of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) at the 

University of California Santa Cruz 

(UCSC) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to rocky intertidal 

monitoring surveys at locations in 

Oregon and California. Pursuant to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS 

will consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested MMPA 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 3309 

authorizations and agency responses 

will be summarized in the final notice 

of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than February 23, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

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 online at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.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: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (CE B4) 

(incidental harassment authorizations 

with no anticipated serious injury or 

mortality) of the Companion Manual for 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the issuance of the proposed IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. We will 

review all comments submitted in 

response to this notice prior to 

concluding our NEPA process or making 

a final decision on the IHA request. 

Summary of Request 

On September 26, 2017, NMFS 

received a request from PISCO for an 

IHA to take marine mammals incidental 

to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys 

along the Oregon and California coasts. 

PISCO’s request is for take of California 

sea lions (Zalophus californianus), 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), 

and northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris). Take is anticipated to 

result from the specified activity by 

Level B harassment only. Neither PISCO 

nor NMFS expect mortality to result 

from this activity and, therefore, an IHA 

is appropriate. 

This proposed IHA would cover one 

year of a larger project for which PISCO 

obtained prior IHAs. This multiyear 

annual survey involves surveying rocky 

intertidal zones in a number of locations 

in Oregon and California. NMFS has 

previously issued five IHAs for this 

ongoing survey project (77 FR 72327, 

December 5, 2012; 78 FR 79403, 

December 30, 2013; 79 FR 73048, 

December 9, 2014; 81 FR 7319, February 

2, 2016; 82 FR 12568, March 6, 2017). 

PISCO complied with all the 

requirements (e.g., mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting) of the 

previous IHAs and information 

regarding the most recent monitoring 

results may be found in the Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting section. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

PISCO proposes to continue rocky 

intertidal monitoring work that has been 

ongoing for 20 years. PISCO focuses on 

understanding the nearshore ecosystems 

of the U.S. west coast through a number 

of interdisciplinary collaborations. The 

program integrates long-term monitoring 

of ecological and oceanographic 

processes at dozens of sites with 

experimental work in the lab and field. 

Research is conducted throughout the 

year along the California and Oregon 

coasts and will continue indefinitely. 

Researchers accessing and conducting 

research activities on the sites may 

occasionally cause behavioral 

disturbance (or Level B harassment) of 

three pinniped species. PISCO expects 

that the disturbance to pinnipeds from 

the research activities will be minimal 

and will be limited to Level B 

harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

PISCO’s research is conducted 

throughout the year. Most sites are 

sampled one to two times per year over 

a 1-day period (4–6 hours per site) 

during a negative low tide series. Due to 

the large number of research sites, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
3310 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

scheduling constraints, the necessity for 

negative low tides and favorable 

weather/ocean conditions, exact survey 

dates are variable and difficult to 

predict. Some sampling may occur in all 

months of the calendar year. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Sampling sites occur along the 

California and Oregon coasts. 

Community Structure Monitoring sites 

range from Ecola State Park near 

Cannon Beach, Oregon to Government 

Point located northwest of Santa 

Barbara, California. Biodiversity Survey 

sites extend from Ecola State Park south 

to Cabrillo National Monument in San 

Diego County, California. Exact 

locations of sampling sites can be found 

in Tables 1 and 2 of PISCO’s 

application. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Community Structure Monitoring 

involves the use of permanent photoplot 

quadrats, which target specific algal and 

invertebrate assemblages (e.g. mussels, 

rockweeds, barnacles). Each photoplot 

is photographed and scored for percent 

cover. The Community Structure 

Monitoring approach is based largely on 

surveys that quantify the percent cover 

and distribution of algae and 

invertebrates that constitute these 

communities. This approach allows 

researchers to quantify both the patterns 

of abundance of targeted species, as well 

as characterize changes in the 

communities in which they reside. Such 

information provides managers with 

insight into the causes and 

consequences of changes in species 

abundance. There are a total of 48 

Community Structure sites, each of 

which will be visited in 2018 under the 

proposed IHA and surveyed over a 1- 

day period during a low tide series one 

to two times a year. 

Biodiversity Surveys are part of a 

long-term monitoring project and are 

conducted every 3–5 years across 142 

established sites. Nineteen Biodiversity 

Survey sites will be visited in 2018. 

These Biodiversity Surveys involve 

point contact identification along 

permanent transects, mobile 

invertebrate quadrat counts, sea star 

band counts, and tidal height 

topographic measurements. Five of the 

Biodiversity Survey sites are also 

Community Structure sites, leaving 14 

sites that are only Biodiversity Survey 

sites. As such, a total of 62 unique sites 

would be visited under the proposed 

IHA. 

The intertidal zones where PISCO 

conducts intertidal monitoring are also 

areas where pinnipeds can be found 

hauled out on the shore at or adjacent 

to some research sites. Pinnipeds have 

been recorded at 17 out of the 62 survey 

sites. Accessing portions of the 

intertidal habitat at these locations may 

cause incidental Level B (behavioral) 

harassment of pinnipeds through some 

unavoidable approaches if pinnipeds 

are hauled out directly in the study 

plots or while biologists walk from one 

location to another. No motorized 

equipment is involved in conducting 

these surveys. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence at survey sites 

in California and Oregon and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. Managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. 2016 Pacific Marine 

Mammal SARs (Carretta et al., 2016). 

Information on Steller sea lions came 

from the Alaska Marine Mammal SARs 

(Muto et al., 2016) All values presented 

in Table 1 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et 

al., 2016; Muto et al., 2016) (available 

online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

draft.htm). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREAS

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion ......... Zalophus californianus .. U.S. ............................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 

2011).

9,200 389 

Steller sea lion .............. Eumetopias jubatus ...... Eastern U.S. ................. -; N 41,638 (n/a; 41,638; 

2015).

2,498 108 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 3311 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREAS—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal .................... Phoca vitulina richardii .. California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 30,968 (0.157; 27,348; 

2012 [CA])/.

24,732 (n/a; n/a [OR/ 

WA] 4.

1,641 43 

Northern elephant seal .. Mirounga angustirostris California ....................... -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 

2010).

4,882 8.8 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum 

estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable [explain if this is the case]. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or 

range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4The most recent abundance estimate is >8 years old, there is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. 

Note—Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 1. As described 

below, all four species temporally and 

spatially co-occur with the activity to 

the degree that take is reasonably likely 

to occur, and we have proposed 

authorizing it. However, the temporal 

and/or spatial occurrence of Steller sea 

lions is such that take is not expected 

to occur, and they are not discussed 

further beyond the explanation 

provided here. Past monitoring reports 

have not typically reported Steller sea 

lion observations. The last reported 

observation of Steller sea lions occurred 

in 2009 when five Steller sea lions were 

seen at the Cape Arago, OR site. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals range widely 

throughout the eastern Pacific for most 

of the year to forage. They return to 

haul-out locations along the west coast 

of the continental United States 

including the Channel Islands, the 

central California coast, and islands off 

Baja California to breed and molt. 

Breeding occurs from December through 

early spring, with males returning to 

haul-out locations earlier than females 

to establish dominance hierarchies. 

Molting occurs from late April to 

August, with juveniles and adult 

females returning earlier than adult 

males (Reeves et al., 2002). Due to very 

little movement between colonies in 

Mexico and those in California, the 

California population is considered to 

be a separate stock (Carretta et al., 2010). 

This species was hunted by 

indigenous peoples for several thousand 

years and by commercial sealers in the 

1800s. By the late 1800s, the species 

was thought to be extinct, although 

several were seen on Guadalupe Island 

in the 1880s and a few dozen to several 

hundred survived off of Mexico (Stewart 

et al., 1994). The population began 

increasing in the early 1900s and 

progressively colonized southern and 

central California through the 1980s 

(Reeves et al., 2002). 

According to the 2015 Pacific Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment, the 

minimum population size of the 

California stock is 81,368 individuals 

and the estimated population size is 

179,000 (Carretta et al., 2016, Lowry et 

al., 2014). This species has grown at 3.8 

percent annually since 1988 (Lowry et 

al., 2014). Northern elephant seals are 

not listed under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) and are not a strategic species 

nor considered depleted under the 

MMPA. 

California Sea Lions 

California sea lions are distributed 

along the west coast of North America 

from British Columbia to Baja California 

and throughout the Gulf of California. 

Breeding occurs on offshore islands 

along the west coast of Baja California 

and the Gulf of California as well as on 

the California Channel Islands. There 

are three recognized California sea lion 

stocks (U.S. stock, Western Baja stock, 

and the Gulf of California stock) with 

the U.S. stock ranging from the U.S./ 

Mexico border into Canada. Although 

there is some movement between stocks, 

U.S. rookeries are considered to be 

isolated from rookeries off of Baja 

California (Barlow et al., 1995). 

California sea lions were hunted for 

several thousand years by indigenous 

peoples and early hunters. In the early 

1900s, sea lions were killed in an effort 

to reduce competition with commercial 

fisheries. They were also hunted 

commercially from the 1920–1940s. 

Following the passage of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 

1972, as well as limits on killing and 

harassment in Mexico, the population 

has rapidly increased (Reeves et al., 

2002). Declines in pup production did 

occur during the 1983–84, 1992–93, 

1997–98, and 2003 El Nin ̃ o events, but 

production returned to pre-El Nin ̃ o 

levels within 2–5 years (Carretta et al., 

2016). In 2013, NOAA declared an 

Unusual Mortality Event (UME) due to 

the elevated number of sea lion pup 

strandings in southern California. The 

cause of this event is thought to be 

nutritional stress related to declines in 

prey availability. This UME has 

continued through 2016 (NMFS 2016). 

According to the 2015 Pacific Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment, California 

sea lions have a minimum population 

size of 153,337 individuals and the 

population is estimated to number 

296,750 (Carretta et al., 2016). This 

species is not listed under the ESA and 

is not a strategic species nor considered 

depleted under the MMPA. 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

Pacific harbor seals are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA, nor are they categorized as 

depleted under the MMPA. The most 

recent census of the California stock of 

harbor seals occurred in 2012 during 

which 20,109 hauled-out harbor seals 

were counted. A 1999 census of the 

Oregon/Washington harbor seal stock 

found 16,165 individuals, of which 

5,735 were in Oregon (Carretta et al., 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
3312 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

2016). The population is estimated to 

number 30,968 individuals in California 

and 24,732 individuals in Oregon/ 

Washington (Carretta et al., 2016). At 

several sites, harbor seals are often 

observed and have the potential to be 

disturbed by researchers accessing or 

sampling the site. The largest number of 

harbor seals occurs at Hopkins in 

Monterey, CA where often 20–30 adults 

and occasionally 10–15 pups are 

hauled-out on a small beach adjacent to 

the site. 

The animals inhabit near-shore 

coastal and estuarine areas from Baja 

California, Mexico, to the Pribilof 

Islands in Alaska. Pacific harbor seals 

are divided into two subspecies: P. v. 

stejnegeri in the western North Pacific, 

near Japan, and P. v. richardii in the 

northeast Pacific Ocean. The latter 

subspecies, recognized as three separate 

stocks, inhabits the west coast of the 

continental United States, including the 

outer coastal waters of Oregon and 

Washington states, Washington state 

inland waters and Alaska coastal and 

inland waters. 

In California, over 500 harbor seal 

haulout sites are widely distributed 

along the mainland and offshore 

islands, and include rocky shores, 

beaches and intertidal sandbars (Lowry 

et al., 2005). Harbor seals mate at sea, 

and females give birth during the spring 

and summer, although, the pupping 

season varies with latitude. Pups are 

nursed for an average of 24 days and are 

ready to swim minutes after being born. 

Harbor seal pupping takes place at many 

locations, and rookery size varies from 

a few pups to many hundreds of pups. 

Pupping generally occurs between 

March and June, and molting occurs 

between May and July. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

The appearance of researchers may 

have the potential to cause Level B 

behavioral harassment of any pinnipeds 

hauled out at sampling sites. Although 

marine mammals are never deliberately 

approached by survey personnel, 

approach may be unavoidable if 

pinnipeds are hauled out in the 

immediate vicinity of the permanent 

study plots. Disturbance may result in 

reactions ranging from an animal simply 

becoming alert to the presence of 

researchers (e.g., turning the head, 

assuming a more upright posture) to 

flushing from the haul-out site into the 

water. NMFS does not consider the 

lesser reactions to constitute behavioral 

harassment, or Level B harassment 

takes, but rather assumes that pinnipeds 

that flee some distance or change the 

speed or direction of their movement in 

response to the presence of researchers 

are behaviorally harassed, and thus 

subject to Level B taking. Animals that 

respond to the presence of researchers 

by becoming alert, but do not move or 

change the nature of locomotion as 

described, are not considered to have 

been subject to behavioral harassment. 

Numerous studies have shown that 

human activity can flush harbor seals 

off haulout sites (Allen et al., 1985; 

Calambokidis et al., 1991; Suryan and 

Harvey, 1999). The Hawaiian monk seal 

(Neomonachus schauinslandi) has been 

shown to avoid beaches that have been 

disturbed often by humans (Kenyon 

1972). Moreover, in one case human 

disturbance appeared to cause Steller 

sea lions to desert a breeding area at 

Northeast Point on St. Paul Island, 

Alaska (Kenyon 1962). 

There are three ways in which 

disturbance, as described previously, 

could result in more than Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. All 

three are most likely to be consequences 

of stampeding, a potentially dangerous 

occurrence in which large numbers of 

animals succumb to mass panic and 

rush away from a stimulus. The three 

situations are (1) falling when entering 

the water at high-relief locations; (2) 

extended separation of mothers and 

pups; and (3) crushing of elephant seal 

pups by large males during a stampede. 

Note, however, that PISCO researchers 

have only recorded one instance of 

stampeding which occurred in 2013. 

Because hauled-out animals may 

move towards the water when 

disturbed, there is the risk of injury if 

animals stampede towards shorelines 

with precipitous relief (e.g., cliffs). 

Shoreline habitats near the survey areas 

tend to consist of steeply sloping rocks 

with unimpeded and non-obstructive 

access to the water. Disturbed, hauledout animals in these situations are likely 

to move toward the water slowly 

without risk of unexpectedly falling off 

cliffs or encountering barriers or hazards 

or that would otherwise prevent them 

from leaving the area. Therefore, 

research activity poses no risk that 

disturbed animals may fall and be 

injured or killed as a result of 

disturbance at high-relief locations. 

Few pups are anticipated to be 

encountered during the proposed 

monitoring surveys. A small number of 

harbor seal, northern elephant seal and 

California sea lion pups, however, have 

been observed during past years. 

Though elephant seal pups are 

occasionally present when researchers 

visit survey sites, risk of pup mortalities 

is very low because elephant seals are 

far less reactive to researcher presence 

than the other two species. Harbor seals 

are very precocious with only a short 

period of time in which separation of a 

mother from a pup could occur. Pups 

are also typically found on sand 

beaches, while study sites are located in 

the rocky intertidal zone, meaning that 

there is typically a buffer between 

researchers and pups. Finally, the 

caution used by researchers in 

approaching sites generally precludes 

the possibility of behavior, such as 

stampeding, that could result in 

extended separation of mothers and 

dependent pups or trampling of pups. 

The only habitat modification 

associated with the proposed activity is 

the placement of permanent bolts and 

other temporary sampling equipment in 

the intertidal zone. Once a particular 

study has ended, the respective 

sampling equipment is removed. No 

trash or field gear is left at a site. 

Sampling activities are also not 

expected to result in any long-term 

modifications of haulout use or 

abandonment of haulouts since these 

sites are only visited 1–2 times per year, 

which minimizes repeated disturbances. 

During periods of low tide (e.g., when 

tides are 0.6 m (2 ft) or less and low 

enough for pinnipeds to haul-out), we 

would expect the pinnipeds to return to 

the haulout site within 60 minutes of 

the disturbance (Allen et al., 1985). The 

effects to pinnipeds appear at the most 

to displace the animals temporarily 

from their haul out sites, and we do not 

expect that the pinnipeds would 

permanently abandon a haul-out site 

during the conduct of rocky intertidal 

surveys. Additionally, impacts to prey 

species from survey activities are not 

anticipated. Thus, the proposed activity 

is not expected to have any habitatrelated effects that could cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 3313 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of whether the number of 

takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to researchers. Based on 

the nature of the activity, Level A 

harassment is neither anticipated nor 

proposed to be authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

Take estimates are based on historical 

marine mammal observations at each 

site from previous PISCO survey 

activities. Marine mammal observations 

are done as part of PISCO site 

observations, which include notes on 

physical and biological conditions at the 

site. The maximum number of marine 

mammals, by species, seen at any given 

time throughout the sampling day is 

recorded at the conclusion of sampling. 

A marine mammal is counted if it is 

seen on access ways to the site, at the 

site, or immediately up-coast or downcoast of the site. Marine mammals in the 

water immediately offshore are also 

recorded. Any other relevant 

information, including the location of a 

marine mammal relevant to the site, any 

unusual behavior, and the presence of 

pups is also noted. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

The observations described above 

formed the basis from which researchers 

with extensive knowledge and 

experience at each site estimated the 

actual number of marine mammals that 

may be subject to take. Take estimates 

for each species for which take would 

be authorized were based on the 

following equation: 

Take estimate per survey site = (number of 

expected animals per site * number of 

survey days per survey site). 

For take estimates, PISCO looked at 

sites that have consistently had a marine 

mammal presence and used the 

maximum number of marine mammals 

previously observed at these sites that 

could be subject to take (e.g. pinnipeds 

on the site, nearby, or along access ways 

and not including any pinnipeds in the 

water or on offshore rocks). At many 

sites, the number of marine mammals is 

quite variable and PISCO may observe 

fewer than the number used for take 

estimates. There are also limited 

occasions where PISCO observes 

pinnipeds at sites where they had not 

previously seen any. 

Individual species’ totals for each 

survey site were summed to arrive at a 

total estimated take number. Numbers 

are rounded up to the nearest value of 

5 (e.g., a maximum of 7 observed 

animals would be rounded up to 10). 

Section 6 in PISCO’s application 

outlines the number of visits per year 

for each sampling site and the potential 

number of pinnipeds anticipated to be 

encountered at each site. Tables 2, 3, 4 

in PISCO’s application outlines the 

number of potential takes per site. 

Harbor seals are expected to occur at 

15 locations with expected taken 

numbers ranging from 5 to 25 animals 

per visit (Table 2 in PISCO’s 

application). These locations will be 

subject to 21 site visits under the 

proposed IHA. It is anticipated that 

there will be 190 takes of adult harbor 

seals and 13 takes of weaned pups. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 

the take of up to 203 harbor seals. 

California sea lions are expected to be 

present at five sites with eight 

scheduled visits as shown in Table 3 in 

the application. Eighty-five adult and 

five pups are expected to be taken. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 

the take of 90 California sea lions. 

Northern elephant seals are only 

expected to occur at one site this year, 

Piedras Blancs, which will experience 

two separate visits (See Table 4 in 

application). Up to 10 adult and 40 

weaned pup takes are anticipated. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize 

the take of up to 50 northern elephant 

seals. 

NMFS proposes to authorize the take, 

by Level B harassment only, of 203 

harbor seals, 90 California sea lions, and 

50 northern elephant seals. These 

numbers are considered to be maximum 

take estimates; therefore, actual take 

may be less if animals decide to haul 

out at a different location for the day or 

animals are out foraging at the time of 

the survey activities. 

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 (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

PISCO will implement several 

mitigation measures to reduce potential 

take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) 

harassment. Measures are listed below. 

• Researchers will observe a site from 

a distance, using binoculars if 

necessary, to detect any marine 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
3314 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

mammals prior to approach to 

determine if mitigation is required (i.e., 

site surveys will not be conducted if 

Steller sea lions are present; if other 

pinnipeds are present, researchers will 

approach with caution, walking slowly, 

quietly, and close to the ground to avoid 

surprising any hauled-out individuals 

and to reduce flushing/stampeding of 

individuals). 

• Researchers will avoid pinnipeds 

along access ways to sites by locating 

and taking a different access way. 

Researchers will keep a safe distance 

from and not approach any marine 

mammal while conducting research, 

unless it is absolutely necessary to flush 

a marine mammal in order to continue 

conducting research (i.e. if a site cannot 

be accessed or sampled due to the 

presence of pinnipeds). 

• Researchers will avoid making loud 

noises (i.e., using hushed voices) and 

keep bodies low to the ground in the 

visual presence of pinnipeds. 

• Researches will monitor the 

offshore area for predators (such as 

killer whales and white sharks) and 

avoid flushing of pinnipeds when 

predators are observed in nearshore 

waters. Note that PISCO has never 

observed an offshore predator while 

researchers were present at any of the 

survey sites. 

• Intentional flushing will not occur 

if dependent pups are present to avoid 

mother/pup separation and trampling of 

pups. Staff shall reschedule work at 

sites where pups are present, unless 

other means of accomplishing the work 

can be done without causing 

disturbance to mothers and dependent 

pups. 

• To avoid take of Steller sea lions, 

any site where they are present will not 

be approached and will be sampled at 

a later date. Note that observation of sea 

lions at survey sites is extremely rare. 

• Researchers will promptly vacate 

sites at the conclusion of sampling. 

The primary method of mitigating the 

risk of disturbance to pinnipeds, which 

will be in use at all times, is the 

selection of judicious routes of approach 

to study sites, avoiding close contact 

with pinnipeds hauled out on shore, 

and the use of extreme caution upon 

approach. Each visit to a given study 

site will last for approximately 4–6 

hours, after which the site is vacated 

and can be re-occupied by any marine 

mammals that may have been disturbed 

by the presence of researchers. Also, by 

arriving before low tide, worker 

presence will tend to encourage 

pinnipeds to move to other areas for the 

day before they haul out and settle onto 

rocks at low tide. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

PISCO will contribute to the 

knowledge of pinnipeds in California 

and Oregon by noting observations of: 

(1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or 

distributions of pinnipeds, such that 

any potential follow-up research can be 

conducted by the appropriate personnel; 

(2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, 

allowing transmittal of the information 

to appropriate agencies and personnel; 

and (3) rare or unusual species of 

marine mammals for agency follow-up. 

Proposed monitoring requirements in 

relation to PISCO’s rocky intertidal 

monitoring will include observations 

made by the applicant. Information 

recorded will include species counts 

(with numbers of pups/juveniles when 

possible) of animals present before 

approaching, numbers of observed 

disturbances, and descriptions of the 

disturbance behaviors during the 

monitoring surveys, including location, 

date, and time of the event. For 

consistency, any reactions by pinnipeds 

to researchers will be recorded 

according to a three-point scale shown 

in Table 2. Note that only observations 

of disturbance Levels 2 and 3 should be 

recorded as takes. 

TABLE 2—LEVELS OF PINNIPED BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE

Level Type of response Definition 

1 ....................... Alert .......................................................... Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to a sitting position, or brief movement of less than twice the animal’s body length. 

2 ....................... Movement ................................................ Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals 

at least twice the animal’s body length to longer retreats over the beach, or if already moving a change of direction of greater than 90 degrees. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 3315 

TABLE 2—LEVELS OF PINNIPED BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE—Continued 

Level Type of response Definition 

3 ....................... Flush ........................................................ All retreats (flushes) to the water. 

In addition, observations regarding 

the number and species of any marine 

mammals observed, either in the water 

or hauled-out, at or adjacent to a site, 

are recorded as part of field observations 

during research activities. Information 

regarding physical and biological 

conditions pertaining to a site, as well 

as the date and time that research was 

conducted are also noted. This 

information will be incorporated into a 

monitoring report for NMFS. 

If at any time the specified activity 

clearly causes the take of a marine 

mammal in a manner prohibited by this 

IHA, such as an injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality, PISCO 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: 

(1) Time and date of the incident; 

(2) Description of the incident; 

(3) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(4) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(5) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(6) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(7) 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 PISCO to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. PISCO may not resume the 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

In the event that an injured or dead 

marine mammal is discovered and it is 

determined 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), 

PISCO 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 the paragraph 

above IHA. Activities may continue 

while NMFS reviews the circumstances 

of the incident. NMFS will work with 

PISCO to determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

In the event that an injured or dead 

marine mammal is discovered and it is 

determined 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), 

PISCO 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. PISCO shall provide 

photographs, video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

A draft final report must be submitted 

to NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

within 60 days after the conclusion of 

the 2018 field season or 60 days prior 

to the start of the next field season if a 

new IHA will be requested. The report 

will include a summary of the 

information gathered pursuant to the 

monitoring requirements set forth in the 

IHA. A final report must be submitted 

to the Director of the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources and to the NMFS 

West Coast Regional Administrator 

within 30 days after receiving comments 

from NMFS on the draft final report. If 

no comments are received from NMFS, 

the draft final report will be considered 

the final report. 

Monitoring Results From Previously 

Authorized Activities 

PISCO complied with the mitigation 

and monitoring that were required 

under the IHA issued in February 2016. 

In compliance with the IHA, PISCO 

submitted a report detailing the 

activities and marine mammal 

monitoring they conducted. The IHA 

required PISCO to conduct counts of 

pinnipeds present at study sites prior to 

approaching the sites and to record 

species counts and any observed 

reactions to the presence of the 

researchers. 

From December 3, 2016, through 

February 2, 2017 researchers conducted 

rocky intertidal sampling at numerous 

sites in California and Oregon (see Table 

12 in PISCO’s 2016 monitoring report). 

Tables 7, 8, and 9 in PISCO’s monitoring 

report outline marine mammal 

observations and reactions. During this 

period there were 96 takes of harbor 

seals, 1 take of California sea lions, and 

22 takes of northern elephant seals. 

NMFS had authorized the take of 203 

harbor seals, 720 California sea lions, 

and 40 Northern Elephant seals under 

that IHA. PISCO also submitted a 

preliminary monitoring report 

associated with the existing IHA for the 

period covering February 21, 2017 

through November 30, 2017. PISCO 

recorded 63 takes of harbor seals and 3 

takes of California sea lions. There were 

no takes of northern elephant seals. 

NMFS had authorized the take of 233 

harbor seals, 90 California sea lions, and 

60 northern elephant seals under the 

existing IHA. 

Based on the results from the 

monitoring report, we conclude that 

these results support our original 

findings that the mitigation measures set 

forth in the 2016 and 2017 IHAs effected 

the least practicable impact on the 

species or stocks. There were no 

stampede events during these years and 

most disturbances were Level 1 and 2 

from the disturbance scale (Table 2) 

meaning the animal did not fully flush 

but observed or moved slightly in 

response to researchers. Those that did 

fully flush to the water did so slowly. 

Most of these animals tended to observe 

researchers from the water and then rehaulout farther up-coast or down-coast 

of the site within approximately 30 

minutes of the disturbance. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
3316 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

PISCO’s rocky intertidal monitoring 

surveys and none are proposed to be 

authorized. The risk of marine mammal 

injury, serious injury, or mortality 

associated with rocky intertidal 

monitoring increases somewhat if 

disturbances occur during breeding 

season. These situations present 

increased potential for mothers and 

dependent pups to become separated 

and, if separated pairs do not quickly 

reunite, the risk of mortality to pups 

(e.g., through starvation) may increase. 

Separately, adult male elephant seals 

may trample elephant seal pups if 

disturbed, which could potentially 

result in the injury, serious injury, or 

mortality of the pups. Few pups are 

anticipated to be encountered during 

the proposed surveys. As shown in 

previous monitoring reports, however, 

limited numbers of harbor seal, northern 

elephant seal, and California sea lion 

pups have been observed at several sites 

during past years. Harbor seals are very 

precocious with only a short period of 

time in which separation of a mother 

from a pup could occur. Although 

elephant seal pups are occasionally 

present when researchers visit survey 

sites, risk of pup mortalities is very low 

because elephant seals are far less 

reactive to researcher presence 

compared to the other two species. 

Further, elephant seal pups are typically 

found on sand beaches, while study 

sites are located in the rocky intertidal 

zone, meaning that there is typically a 

buffer between researchers and pups. 

The caution used by researchers in 

approaching sites generally precludes 

the possibility of behavior, such as 

stampeding, that could result in 

extended separation of mothers and 

dependent pups or trampling of pups. 

Finally, no research would occur where 

separation of mother and her nursing 

pup or crushing of pups can become a 

concern. 

Typically, even those reactions 

constituting Level B harassment would 

result at most in temporary, short-term 

behavioral disturbance. In any given 

study season, researchers will visit 

select sites one to two times per year for 

4–6 hours per visit. Therefore, 

disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from 

the presence of researchers lasts only for 

short periods. These short periods of 

disturbance lasting less than a day are 

separated by months or years. 

Community structure sites are visited at 

most twice per year and the visits occur 

in different seasons. Biodiversity 

surveys take place at a given location 

once every 3–5 years. 

Of the marine mammal species 

anticipated to occur in the proposed 

activity areas, none are listed under the 

ESA. Taking into account the planned 

mitigation measures, effects to marine 

mammals are generally expected to be 

restricted to short-term changes in 

behavior or temporary abandonment of 

haulout sites, pinnipeds are not 

expected to permanently abandon any 

area that is surveyed by researchers, as 

is evidenced by continued presence of 

pinnipeds at the sites during annual 

monitoring counts. No adverse effects to 

prey species are anticipated and habitat 

impacts are limited and highly 

localized, consisting of the placement of 

permanent bolts in the intertidal zone. 

Based on the analysis contained herein 

of the likely effects of the specified 

activity on marine mammals and their 

habitat, and taking into consideration 

the implementation of the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from PISCO’s rocky 

intertidal monitoring program will not 

adversely affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival and, therefore, 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected species or stocks. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No pinniped mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• Only a small number of pups are 

expected to be disturbed; 

• Effects of the survey activities 

would be limited to short-term, 

localized behavioral changes; 

• Nominal impacts to pinniped 

habitat; and 

• Effectiveness of proposed 

mitigation measures. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

TABLE 3—POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES, TOTAL PROPOSED LEVEL B TAKE, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

THAT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SPECIES DURING THE PROPOSED ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING PROGRAM

Species Abundance * 

Total 

proposed 

level B take 

Percentage 

of stock or 

population 

Harbor seal .................................................................................................................................. 30,968 1

24,732 2

203 <0.65¥0.82 

California sea lion ........................................................................................................................ 296,750 90 <0.01 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 3317 

TABLE 3—POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES, TOTAL PROPOSED LEVEL B TAKE, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

THAT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SPECIES DURING THE PROPOSED ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING PROGRAM—Continued 

Species Abundance * 

Total 

proposed 

level B take 

Percentage 

of stock or 

population 

Northern elephant seal ................................................................................................................ 179,000 50 <0.01 

* Abundance estimates are taken from the 2016 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2016). 1 California stock abundance estimate. 

2Oregon/Washington stock abundance estimate from 1999-Most recent surveys. 

Table 3 presents the abundance of 

each species or stock, the proposed take 

estimates, and the percentage of the 

affected populations or stocks that may 

be taken by Level B harassment. The 

numbers of animals authorized to be 

taken would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations (0.65¥0.82 percent for 

harbor seals, and <0.01 percent for 

California sea lions and northern 

elephant seals). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 

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) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

No incidental take of ESA-listed 

species is proposed for authorization or 

expected to result from this activity. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

formal consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not required for this action. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to PISCO for conducting the 

described research activities related to 

rocky intertidal monitoring surveys 

along the Oregon and Washington coasts 

provided the previously described 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. This 

section contains a draft of the IHA itself. 

The wording contained in this section is 

proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 

issued). 

1. This IHA is valid from February 21, 

2018 through February 20, 2019. 

2. This IHA is valid only for specified 

activities associated with rocky 

intertidal monitoring surveys at specific 

sites along the California and Oregon 

coasts. 

3. General Conditions 

a. A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of personnel operating under 

the authority of this authorization. 

b. The incidental taking of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the following species along 

the Oregon and California coasts: 

i. 203 harbor seal (Phoca vitulina 

richardii); 

ii. 90 California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus); 

iii. 50 northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris); and 

c. The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in condition 

3(b) of the IHA or any taking of any 

other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

4. Mitigation Measures: The holder of 

this IHA is required to implement the 

following mitigation measures: 

a. Researchers shall observe a site 

from a distance, using binoculars if 

necessary, to detect any marine 

mammals prior to approach to 

determine if mitigation is required. 

b. Researchers shall approach a site 

with caution (slowly and quietly), keep 

bodies low to the ground and avoid 

pinnipeds along access ways to sites, by 

locating and taking a different access 

way if possible. 

c. Researchers shall keep a safe 

distance from and not approach any 

marine mammal while conducting 

research, unless it is absolutely 

necessary to flush a marine mammal in 

order to continue conducting research 

(i.e. if a site cannot be accessed or 

sampled due to the presence of 

pinnipeds). 

d. Researchers shall monitor the 

offshore area for predators (such as 

killer whales and white sharks) and 

avoid flushing of pinnipeds when 

predators are observed in nearshore 

waters. 

e. Intentional flushing shall be 

avoided if pups are present. Staff shall 

reschedule work at sites where pups are 

present, unless other means of 

accomplishing the work can be done 

without causing disturbance to mothers 

and dependent pups. 

f. Any site where Steller sea lions are 

present shall not be approached and 

shall be sampled at a later date. 

g. Personnel shall vacate the study 

area as soon as sampling of the site is 

completed. 

5. Monitoring: The holder of this IHA 

is required to conduct monitoring of 

marine mammals present at study sites 

prior to approaching the sites. 

a. Information to be recorded shall 

include the following: 

i. Species counts (with numbers of 

pups/juveniles); 

ii. Descriptions of the disturbance 

behaviors during the monitoring 

surveys, including location, date, and 

time of the event; 

iii. Information regarding physical 

and biological conditions pertaining to 

a site; and 

iv. Numbers of disturbances, by 

species and age, according to a threepoint scale of intensity as described in 

Table 2. Observations of disturbance 

Levels 2 and 3 are recorded as takes. 

6. Reporting: The holder of this IHA 

is required to: 

a. Report observations of unusual 

behaviors, numbers, or distributions of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
3318 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 2018 / Notices 

pinnipeds, or of tag-bearing carcasses, to 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC). 

b. Submit a draft monitoring report to 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

within 60 days after the conclusion of 

the 2018 field season or 60 days prior 

to the start of the next field season if a 

new IHA shall be requested. A final 

report shall be prepared and submitted 

within 30 days following resolution of 

any comments on the draft report from 

NMFS. This report must contain the 

informational elements described above, 

at minimum. 

c. Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

i. In the event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner prohibited 

by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or 

mortality, PISCO 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: 

(1) Time and date of the incident; 

(2) Description of the incident; 

(3) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(4) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(5) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(6) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(7) 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 shall work with PISCO to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. PISCO may not resume the 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

ii. In the event that an injured or dead 

marine mammal is discovered and it is 

determined 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), 

PISCO 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(c)(i) of this 

IHA. Activities may continue while 

NMFS reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS shall work with PISCO 

to determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

iii. In the event that an injured or 

dead marine mammal is discovered and 

it is determined 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), 

PISCO 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. PISCO shall provide 

photographs, video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to NMFS. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. 

7. This IHA may be modified, 

suspended or withdrawn if the holder 

fails to abide by the conditions 

prescribed herein or if NMFS 

determines the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact on 

the species or stock of affected marine 

mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for the proposed rocky intertidal 

monitoring program. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on the request 

for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-year renewal IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned, or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and renewal would allow 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA. 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements. 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Dated: January 17, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–01214 Filed 1–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF611 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Waterfront 

Improvement Projects at Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to U.S. 

Department of the Navy (Navy) to 

incidentally harass, by Level A and 

Level B harassment, marine mammals 

during construction activities associated 

with waterfront improvement projects at 

the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (the 

Shipyard) in Kittery, Maine. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from January 8, 2018, through January 7, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/construction.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES