Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7319 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, 

Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, adopted the 

EA. After considering the EA, the 

information in the 2014 IHA 

application, and the Federal Register 

notice, as well as public comments, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of the 2015 Authorization was not likely 

to result in significant impacts on the 

human environment; adopted Eglin 

AFB’s EA under 40 CFR 1506.3; and 

issued a FONSI statement on issuance of 

an Authorization under section 

101(a)(5) of the MMPA. 

In accordance with NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6 

(Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 

1999), NMFS will again review the 

information contained in Eglin AFB’s 

EA and determine whether the EA 

accurately and completely describes the 

preferred action alternative and the 

potential impacts on marine mammals. 

Based on this review and analysis, 

NMFS has reaffirmed the 2015 FONSI 

statement on issuance of an annual 

authorization under section 101(a)(5) of 

the MMPA or supplement the EA if 

necessary. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to Eglin AFB 

for conducting Maritime WSEP 

activities, for a period of one year from 

the date of issuance, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: February 8, 2016. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02801 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XE282 

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; 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 we have issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Study 

of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) at the 

University of California (UC) Santa Cruz 

for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take three 

species of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to rocky 

intertidal monitoring surveys. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from February 3, 2016, through 

February 2, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

An electronic copy of PISCO’s 

application and supporting documents, 

as well as a list of the references cited 

in this document, may be obtained by 

visiting the Internet at: 

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

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), 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.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) 

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS’ review of an application 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. Except with respect to 

certain activities not pertinent here, the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as ‘‘any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

[Level B harassment].’’ 

Summary of Request 

On August 10, 2015 NMFS received 

an application from PISCO for the 

taking of marine mammals incidental to 

rocky intertidal monitoring surveys 

along the Oregon and California coasts. 

NMFS determined that the application 

was adequate and complete on October 

9, 2015. In December 2012, NMFS 

issued a 1-year IHA to PISCO to take 

marine mammals incidental to these 

same proposed activities (77 FR 72327, 

December 5, 2012). In December 2013, 

NMFS issued a second 1-year IHA to 

PISCO to take marine mammals 

incidental to these same proposed 

activities (78 FR 79403, December 30, 

2013). The 2013 IHA expired on 

December 16, 2014. A third IHA was 

issued to PISCO with an effective date 

of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 73048, 

December 9, 2014) to take animals for 

these identical activities and expires on 

December 16, 2015. The IHA announced 

in this notice is valid from February 3, 

2016 through February 2, 2017. 

The research group at UC Santa Cruz 

operates in collaboration with two largescale marine research programs: PISCO 

and the Multi-agency Rocky Intertidal 

Network (MARINe). The research group 

at UC Santa Cruz (PISCO) is responsible 

for many of the ongoing rocky intertidal 

monitoring programs along the Pacific 

coast. Monitoring occurs at rocky 

intertidal sites, often large bedrock 

benches, from the high intertidal to the 

water’s edge. Long-term monitoring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7320 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

projects include Community Structure 

Monitoring, Intertidal Biodiversity 

Surveys, Marine Protected Area 

Baseline Monitoring, Intertidal 

Recruitment Monitoring, and Ocean 

Acidification. Research is conducted 

throughout the year along the California 

and Oregon coasts and will continue 

indefinitely. Most sites are sampled one 

to two times per year over a 4–6 hour 

period during a negative low tide series. 

The following specific aspects of the 

proposed activities are likely to result in 

the take of marine mammals: Presence 

of survey personnel near pinniped 

haulout sites and unintentional 

approach of survey personnel towards 

hauled out pinnipeds. Take, by Level B 

harassment only, of individuals of 

California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus), harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina richardii) and northern 

elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) 

is anticipated to result from the 

specified activity. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

PISCO requested an IHA for work to 

continue a rocky intertidal monitoring 

project that has been ongoing for 20 

years. Research activities would include 

the presence of survey personnel near 

pinniped haulout sites as well as the 

unintentional approach of survey 

personnel towards hauled out 

pinnipeds. 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. 

Dates and Duration 

PISCO’s research is conducted 

throughout the year but will begin no 

sooner than February 3, 2016 and end 

on February 2, 2017. 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, 

scheduling constraints, and the 

necessity for negative low tides and 

favorable weather/ocean conditions, 

exact survey dates are variable and 

difficult to predict. Some sampling is 

anticipated to occur in all months. 

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 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Detailed Description of Activities 

We provided a description of the 

proposed action in our Federal Register 

notice announcing the proposed 

authorization (80 FR 76448; December 

9, 2015). Please refer to that document; 

we provide only summary information 

here. 

Researchers will utilize a Community 

Structure Monitoring approach which 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 47 Community 

Structure sites, each of which is 

surveyed over a 1-day period during a 

low tide series one to two times per 

year. 

Biodiversity surveys are also part of a 

long-term monitoring project and are 

conducted every 3–5 years across 140 

established sites. These surveys involve 

point contact identification along 

permanent transects, mobile 

invertebrate quadrat counts, sea star 

band counts, and tidal height 

topographic measurements. 

Additionally, California has established 

a network of Marine Protected Areas 

along the California coast which will 

require sampling at both new and 

established sites within and outside of 

marine protected areas. These sites were 

sampled using existing Community 

Structure and Biodiversity protocols for 

consistency. Resampling of these sites 

may take place as part of future marine 

protected area evaluation. 

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. Accessing 

portions of the intertidal habitat 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. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA was published in the Federal 

Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR 

76448). During the 30-day public 

comment period, the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission) submitted a 

letter on December 15, 2015. The letter 

is available on the Internet at 

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

incidental/research.htm. The 

Commission had no formal comments 

and concurred with NMFS’s 

preliminary finding that recommended 

that NMFS issue an IHA to PISCO, 

subject to the inclusion of the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

There are three marine mammal 

species known to occur in the vicinity 

of the project areas which may be 

subjected to Level B harassment. These 

are the California sea lion, harbor seal 

and northern elephant seal. Steller sea 

lions are also observed rarely but take 

for this animal is not requested. 

We have reviewed PISCO’s detailed 

species descriptions, including life 

history information, for accuracy and 

completeness and refer the reader to 

POA’s application as well as the 

proposed incidental harassment 

authorization published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 76448) instead of 

reprinting the information here. We 

have also provided information for the 

potentially affected stocks, including 

details of stock-wide status, trends, and 

threats, in our Federal Register. Please 

refer to NMFS’ Web site 

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

mammals) for generalized species 

accounts which provide information 

regarding the biology and behavior of 

the marine resources that occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

The Federal Register notice of 

proposed authorization (80 FR 76448) 

provides a general background on sound 

relevant to the specified activity as well 

as a detailed description of marine 

mammal hearing and of the potential 

effects of these construction activities 

on marine mammals, and is not 

repeated here. 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

We described potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat in detail in our 

Federal Register notice of proposed 

authorization. In summary, the project 

activities would not modify existing 

marine mammal habitat. Because of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7321 

short duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

may be affected, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations 

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. 

PISCO shall implement several 

mitigation measures to reduce potential 

take by Level B (behavioral disturbance) 

harassment. Measures include: (1) 

Conducting slow movements and 

staying close to the ground to prevent or 

minimize stampeding; (2) avoiding loud 

noises (i.e., using hushed voices); (3) 

avoiding pinnipeds along access ways to 

sites by locating and taking a different 

access way and vacating the area as 

soon as sampling of the site is 

completed; (4) monitoring the offshore 

area for predators (such as killer whales 

and white sharks) and avoid flushing of 

pinnipeds when predators are observed 

in nearshore waters; (5) using binoculars 

to detect pinnipeds before close 

approach to avoid being seen by 

animals; and (6) only approaching 

pinnipeds when are located in the 

sampling plots if there are no other 

means to accomplish the survey. 

The methodologies and actions noted 

in this section shall be utilized and 

included as mitigation measures in the 

IHA to ensure that impacts to marine 

mammals are mitigated to the lowest 

level practicable. 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. In no 

case will marine mammals be 

deliberately approached by survey 

personnel, unless they are located in 

sampling plots and there is no other 

method available and in all cases every 

possible measure will be taken to select 

a pathway of approach to study sites 

that minimizes the number of marine 

mammals potentially harassed. In 

general, researchers will stay inshore of 

pinnipeds whenever possible to allow 

maximum escape to the ocean. Each 

visit to a given study site will last for 

approximately 4–6 hours, after which 

the site is vacated and can be reoccupied by any marine mammals that 

may have been disturbed by the 

presence of researchers. 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. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

We have carefully evaluated PISCO’s 

mitigation measures and considered 

their effectiveness in past 

implementation to determine whether 

they are likely to effect the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: (1) The manner in which, and 

the degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals, (2) the proven or 

likely efficacy of the specific measure to 

minimize adverse impacts as planned; 

and (3) the practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1 

above). 

(3) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1 above). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1 above). 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

habitat during a biologically important 

time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of PISCO’s 

proposed measures, including 

information from monitoring of 

implementation of mitigation measures 

very similar to those described here 

under previous IHAs from other 

research projects, we have determined 

that the mitigation measures provide the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on marine mammal species or 

stocks and their habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking’’. The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) 

indicate that requests for incidental take 

authorizations must include the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species and of the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. 

PISCO can add 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) tagbearing 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. 

Monitoring requirements in relation 

to PISCO’s rocky intertidal monitoring 

will include observations made by 

project field biologists who will 

function as marine mammal observers 

(MMOs). Minimum qualifications for 

MMOs include an undergraduate degree 

in biology. 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. Disturbances will be 

recorded according to a three-point 

scale of intensity including: (1) Head 

orientation in response to disturbance, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7322 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

which may include turning head 

towards the disturbance, craning head 

and neck while holding the body rigid 

in a u-shaped position, or changing from 

a lying to a sitting position and/or slight 

movement of less than 1 m; ‘‘alert’’; (2) 

Movements in response to or away from 

disturbance, over short distances 

(typically two times its body length) and 

including dramatic changes in direction 

or speed of locomotion for animals 

already in motion; ‘‘movement’’; and (3) 

All flushes to the water as well as 

lengthier retreats (>3 m); ‘‘flight’’. 

However, only observations fitting the 

descriptions of # 2 and # 3 on the threepoint scale need to be recorded as 

authorized takes. Observations 

regarding the number and species of any 

marine mammals observed, either in the 

water or hauled out, at or adjacent to the 

site, will be recorded as part of field 

observations during research activities. 

Observations of unusual behaviors, 

numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds 

will be reported to NMFS so that any 

potential follow-up observations can be 

conducted by the appropriate personnel. 

In addition, observations of tag-bearing 

pinniped carcasses as well as any rare 

or unusual species of marine mammals 

will be reported to NMFS. Information 

regarding physical and biological 

conditions pertaining to a site, as well 

as the date and time that research was 

conducted will also be noted. 

If at any time injury, serious injury, or 

mortality of the species for which take 

is authorized should occur, or if take of 

any kind of any other marine mammal 

occurs, and such action may be a result 

of the research, PISCO will suspend 

research activities and contact NMFS 

immediately to determine how best to 

proceed to ensure that another injury or 

death does not occur and to ensure that 

the applicant remains in compliance 

with the MMPA. 

Summary of Previous Monitoring 

PISCO complied with the mitigation 

and monitoring required under the 

previous authorization (2014–2015). 

However, in compliance with that 

Authorization, PISCO submitted a 

report on activities covering the period 

of December 17, 2014 through 

September 30, 2015. PISCO was 

authorized to take 60 California sea 

lions, 183 Pacific harbor seals and 30 

Northern elephant seals and actual 

recorded takes were documented at 19, 

37 and 4 respectively. 

Reporting 

PISCO must submit a draft final report 

to NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

within 60 days after the conclusion of 

the 2016–2017 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 

to be the final report. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

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]. 

All anticipated takes would be by 

Level B harassment, involving 

temporary changes in behavior. The 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

expected to minimize the possibility of 

injurious or lethal takes such that take 

by injury, serious injury, or mortality is 

considered remote. Animals hauled out 

close to the actual survey sites may be 

disturbed by the presence of biologists 

and may alter their behavior or attempt 

to move away from the researchers. 

NMFS considers an animal to have 

been harassed if it moved greater than 

2 times its body length in response to 

the researcher’s presence or if the 

animal was already moving and 

changed direction and/or speed, or if 

the animal flushed into the water. 

Animals that became alert without such 

movements were not considered 

harassed. 

For the purpose of this IHA, only 

Oregon and California sites that are 

frequently sampled and have a marine 

mammal presence during sampling were 

included in generating take estimates. 

Sites where only Biodiversity Surveys 

are conducted did not provide enough 

data to confidently estimate takes since 

they are sampled infrequently (once 

every 3–5 years). A small number of 

harbor seal, northern elephant seal and 

California sea lion pup takes are 

anticipated as pups may be present at 

several sites during spring and summer 

sampling. 

Take estimates are based on marine 

mammal observations from each site. 

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. 

These observations 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. In 

most cases the number of takes is based 

on the maximum number of marine 

mammals that have been observed at a 

site throughout the history of the site 

(1–3 observation per year for 5–10 years 

or more). 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 3, 4, 5 in PISCO’s 

application outlines the number of 

potential takes per site (see ADDRESSES). 

Harbor seals are expected to occur at 

15 locations in numbers ranging from 30 

per visit (25 adults and 5 pups) at the 

Pebble Beach site to 5 per visit (all 

adults) at the Shelter Cove, Kibesillah 

Hill, Sea Ranch and Franklin Point sites 

(Table 3 in Application). These numbers 

are based on past observations at each 

site as well as input from researchers 

with extensive knowledge of individual 

sites. NMFS took the number of takes 

estimated at each site, based on past 

observations as well as input from 

researchers with extensive site 

knowledge, and multiplied by the 

number of site visits scheduled during 

the authorization period. Nine sites 

were scheduled for one visit while six 

sites were projected to have 2 sites. A 

total of 190 adults and 13 pups were 

anticipated for take and, therefore, 

NMFS has permitted the take of 203 

harbor seals. 

Due to the potentially significant 

effect of El Nin ̃ o on California sea lions 

NMFS will increase the number of 

California sea lion takes beyond what 

PISCO requested. Changes in sea surface 

temperature associated with El Nin ̃o can 

have significant impacts throughout the 

food web. Historically, El Nin ̃ o years 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 7323 

have resulted in high numbers of marine 

mammal strandings, likely due to 

changes in prey availability and 

increased physiologic stress on the 

animals. NOAA fisheries west coast 

region office has reported elevated 

strandings at locations in central and 

southern California. For a five-month 

period from January to May 2015, 

strandings were over ten times higher 

than the average stranding level for the 

same 5 month period during 2004–2012. 

PISCO plans to conduct 8 visits under 

this authorization at 5 different sites 

during the one-year authorization 

period (see Table 2 in Application). 

PISCO had requested 90 takes for these 

8 visits at five sites. However, given the 

increased numbers of California sea 

lions recorded earlier in 2015 during the 

current El Nin ̃ o event, NMFS authorized 

8 times that number for a total of 720 

authorized takes. While all of the five 

sites may not experience numbers that 

are ten times greater than is typical, as 

was reported from January through May 

2015, it is likely that observations will 

be significantly elevated. As such, 

NMFS has elected to increase the total 

number of takes originally anticipated 

by PISCO to 720 California sea lions. 

Northern elephant seals are only 

expected to occur at one site this year, 

Piedras Blancs, which will experience 

two separate visits. Up to twenty takes 

are expected during each visit for a total 

of 40 authorized takes. 

PISCO researchers report that they 

have very rarely observed Steller sea 

lions at any of their research sites and 

none have been seen the last several 

years. Given that the likelihood of 

taking Steller sea lions is extremely low, 

NMFS has not authorized take of Steller 

sea lions and PISCO has agreed to reschedule surveys if when Steller sea 

lions are present to avoid take of this 

species. 

NMFS has authorized the take, by 

Level B harassment only, of 720 

California sea lions, 203 harbor seals 

and 40 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. 

Analyses and Determinations 

Negligible Impact Analysis 

Negligible impact is ‘‘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 Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

feeding, migration, etc.), as well as the 

number and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

PISCO’s rocky intertidal monitoring, 

and none are 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 (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. The risk of either 

of these situations is greater in the event 

of a stampede. 

Very few pups are anticipated to be 

encountered during the monitoring 

surveys. However, a small number of 

harbor seal, northern elephant seal and 

California sea lion pups have been 

observed at several of the monitoring 

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. 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. Furthermore, 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. 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. 

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 

disturbance. In any given study season, 

researchers will visit sites one to two 

times per year for a total of 4–6 hours 

per visit. Therefore, disturbance of 

pinnipeds resulting from the presence of 

researchers lasts only for short periods 

of time and is separated by significant 

amounts of time in which no 

disturbance occurs. 

Some of the pinniped species may use 

some of the sites during certain times of 

year to conduct pupping and/or 

breeding. However, some of these 

species prefer to use the offshore islands 

for these activities. At the sites where 

pups may be present, PISCO has shall 

implement certain mitigation measures, 

such as no intentional flushing if 

dependent pups are present, which will 

avoid mother/pup separation and 

trampling of pups. 

Of the three marine mammal species 

most likely to occur in the activity areas, 

none are listed under the ESA. Taking 

into account the mitigation measures 

that are planned, 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. Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the likely 

effects of the specified activity on 

marine mammals and their habitat, and 

taking into consideration the 

implementation of the mitigation and 

monitoring measures, 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7324 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Notices 

TABLE 1—POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES, TOTAL LEVEL B TAKE, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT MAY BE

TAKEN FOR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SPECIES DURING THE ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING PROGRAM

Species Abundance * Total Level B 

take 

Percentage of 

stock or 

population 

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

2 24,732 

203 0.6–0.8 

California sea lion ........................................................................................................................ 296,750 720 0.2 

Northern elephant seal ................................................................................................................ 179,000 40 <0.01 

* Abundance estimates are taken from the 2014 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2014). 1 California stock abundance estimate; 2 Oregon/Washington stock abundance estimate from 1999—Most recent surveys. 

Small Numbers Analysis 

Table 1 in this document presents the 

abundance of each species or stock, the 

authorized take estimates, the 

percentage of the affected populations 

or stocks that may be taken by 

harassment, and the species or stock 

trends. According to these estimates, 

PISCO would take less than 0.8% of 

each species or stock. Because these are 

maximum estimates, actual take 

numbers are likely to be lower, as some 

animals may select other haulout sites 

the day the researchers are present. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

which are expected to reduce the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

affected by the action, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the populations of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

None of the marine mammals for 

which incidental take is authorized are 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that issuance of the IHA to 

PISCO under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA will have no effect on species 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In 2012, NMFS prepared an EA 

analyzing the potential effects to the 

human environment from conducting 

rocky intertidal surveys along the 

California and Oregon coasts and issued 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) on November 26, 2012 on the 

issuance of an IHA for PISCO’s rocky 

intertidal surveys in accordance with 

section 6.01 of the NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6 

(Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 

1999). We have reviewed the 

application for a renewed IHA for 

ongoing monitoring activities for 2016– 

17 as well as results from the 2014–15 

monitoring report. Based on that review, 

we have determined that the action is 

very similar to that considered in the 

previous IHA. In addition, no significant 

new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns 

have been identified. Thus, we have 

determined that the preparation of a 

new or supplemental NEPA document 

is not necessary, and will, after review 

of public comments determine whether 

or not to reaffirm our 2012 FONSI. The 

2012 NEPA documents are available for 

review at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/research.htm. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

we have issued an IHA to PISCO for 

conducting the described activities 

related to rocky intertidal monitoring 

surveys along the Oregon and 

Washington coasts from February 3, 

2016 and end on February 2, 2017 

provided the previously described 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: February 3, 2016. 

Perry Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02802 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XE434 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council will hold a 

meeting of its Shrimp Optimum Yield 

(OY) and Maximum Sustainable Yield 

(MSY) Working Group. 

DATES: The meeting will convene on 

Wednesday, March 2, 2016, from 9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council, 2203 N. Lois 

Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; 

telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Morgan Kilgour, Fishery Biologist, Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management Council; 

morgan.kilgour@gulfcouncil.org, 

telephone: (813) 348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Working Group will discuss 

appropriate methodology and data 

needs for evaluating aggregate 

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and 

Optimum Yield (OY) for all shrimp 

species; and identify next steps, 

timeline, and assign responsibilities. 

—Meeting Adjourns— 

The Agenda is subject to change, and 

the latest version along with other 

meeting materials will be posted on the 

Council’s file server. To access the file 

server, the URL is https://

public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/

index.cgi, or go to the Council’s Web 

site and click on the FTP link in the 

lower left of the Council Web site 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES