[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3308-3318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01214]


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

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

[[Page 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 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments 
should be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59100d097709382c3530373c1937363838773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="064f5256285667736a6f6863466869676728616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Comments 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,

[[Page 3310]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Stock abundance (CV,
                                                                                   ESA/MMPA status;     Nmin, most recent                      Annual M/
            Common name                Scientific name             Stock         strategic (Y/N) \1\    abundance survey)          PBR           SI \3\
                                                                                                               \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California sea lion...............  Zalophus               U.S.................  -; N                 296,750 (n/a;         9,200                    389
                                     californianus.                                                    153,337; 2011).
Steller sea lion..................  Eumetopias jubatus...  Eastern U.S.........  -; N                 41,638 (n/a; 41,638;  2,498                    108
                                                                                                       2015).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3311]]

 
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.......................  Phoca vitulina         California/Oregon/    -; N                 30,968 (0.157;        1,641                     43
                                     richardii.             Washington.                                27,348; 2012 [CA])/.
                                                                                                      24,732 (n/a; n/a [OR/
                                                                                                       WA] \4\.
Northern elephant seal............  Mirounga               California..........  -; N                 179,000 (n/a;         4,882                    8.8
                                     angustirostris.                                                   81,368; 2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: 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].
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
  associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The 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 
Ni[ntilde]o events, but production returned to pre-El Ni[ntilde]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.,

[[Page 3312]]

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, hauled-
out 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 habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations.

[[Page 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 down-coast 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.
    <bullet> Researchers will observe a site from a distance, using 
binoculars if necessary, to detect any marine

[[Page 3314]]

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).
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> Researchers will avoid making loud noises (i.e., using 
hushed voices) and keep bodies low to the ground in the visual presence 
of pinnipeds.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
    <bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
    <bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
    <bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
    <bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
    <bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    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.

[[Page 3315]]

 
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 re-haulout 
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., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or

[[Page 3316]]

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:
    <bullet> No pinniped mortality is anticipated or authorized;
    <bullet> Only a small number of pups are expected to be disturbed;
    <bullet> Effects of the survey activities would be limited to 
short-term, localized behavioral changes;
    <bullet> Nominal impacts to pinniped habitat; and
    <bullet> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percentage of
                             Species                                Abundance *   Total proposed     stock or
                                                                                   level B take     population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal.....................................................      30,968 \1\             203      <0.65-0.82
                                                                      24,732 \2\
California sea lion.............................................         296,750              90           <0.01

[[Page 3317]]

 
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.
\2\ Oregon/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 
three-point 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

[[Page 3318]]

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:
    <bullet> A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days 
prior to expiration of the current IHA.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>