80 FR 76448 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon and California Coasts
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 236 (December 9, 2015)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 236 (December 9, 2015)
| Page Range | 76448-76457 | |
| FR Document | 2015-31036 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 76448-76457] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-31036] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from 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 marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to rocky intertidal monitoring surveys. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to PISCO to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity. DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than January 8, 2016. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected]. NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25- megabyte file size. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information (e.g., [[Page 76449]] name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. An electronic copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. PISCO's 2014-2015 monitoring report can also be found at this Web site. Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 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, other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, 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.'' 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 research group at UC Santa Cruz operates in collaboration with two large-scale 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 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. This IHA, if issued, would only be effective for a 12-month period. 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), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) is anticipated to result from the specified activity. Description of the Specified 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. A short description of each project is contained here. Additional information can be found in PISCO's application (see ADDRESSES). 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, scheduling constraints, 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. Specified 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 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 [[Page 76450]] 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 a year. Biodiversity Surveys are 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. Five sites will be visited as part of this proposed IHA including Government Point, Arroyo Hondo, Coal Oil Point, Mussel Shoals and Treasure Island. In September 2007, the state of California began establishing a network of Marine Protected Areas along the California coast as part of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). Under baseline monitoring programs funded by Sea Grant and the Ocean Protection Council, PISCO established additional intertidal monitoring sites in the Central Coast, North Central Coast, and South Coast study regions. Baseline characterization of newly established areas involves sampling of these new sites, as well as established sites both 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. Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity Several pinniped species can be found along the California and Oregon coasts. The three that are most likely to occur at some of the research sites are California sea lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant seal. On rare occasions, PISCO researchers have seen very small numbers (i.e., five or fewer) of Steller sea lions at one of the sampling sites. However, these sightings are rare. We refer the public to Carretta et al. (2014) for general information on these species which are presented below this section. The publication is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm. Additional information on the status, distribution, seasonal distribution, and life history can also be found in PISCO's application. Northern Elephant Seal Northern elephant seals are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The estimated population of the California breeding stock is approximately 179,000 animals with a minimum population of 81,368 (Carretta et al., 2014). Northern elephant seals range in the eastern and central North Pacific Ocean, from as far north as Alaska and as far south as Mexico. Northern elephant seals spend much of the year, generally about nine months, in the ocean. They are usually underwater, diving to depths of about 330-800 m (1,000-2,500 ft) for 20- to 30-minute intervals with only short breaks at the surface. They are rarely seen out at sea for this reason. While on land, they prefer sandy beaches. Northern elephant seals breed and give birth in California (U.S.) and Baja California (Mexico), primarily on offshore islands (Stewart et al., 1994), from December to March (Stewart and Huber, 1993). Males feed near the eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, and females feed further south, south of 45[deg] N (Stewart and Huber, 1993; Le Boeuf et al., 1993). Adults return to land between March and August to molt, with males returning later than females. Adults return to their feeding areas again between their spring/summer molting and their winter breeding seasons. During PISCO research activities, the maximum number of northern elephant seals ever observed at a single site was at least 10 adults plus 10-20 sub-adults and pups. These were observed offshore of Piedras Blancas. The most recent monitoring report recorded 22 pups at Piedras Blancas resulting in the take of 4 pups. At other sites, elephant seals are very rarely observed during research activities. California Sea Lion California sea lions are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, nor are they categorized as depleted under the MMPA. The California sea lion is now a full species, separated from the Galapagos sea lion (Z. wollebaeki) and the extinct Japanese sea lion ( Z. japonicus) (Brunner, 2003; Wolf et al., 2007; Schramm et al., 2009). The estimated population of the U.S. stock of California sea lion is approximately 296,750 animals with a minimum of 153,337 individuals, and the current maximum population growth rate is 12 percent (Carretta et al., 2014). California sea lion breeding areas are on islands located in southern California, in western Baja California, Mexico, and the Gulf of California. During the breeding season, most California sea lions inhabit southern California and Mexico. Rookery sites in southern California are limited to the San Miguel Islands and the southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente (Carretta et al., 2014). Males establish breeding territories during May through July on both land and in the water. Females come ashore in mid-May and June where they give birth to a single pup approximately 4- 5 days after arrival and will nurse pups for about a week before going on their first feeding trip. Females will alternate feeding trips with nursing bouts until the pup is weaned between 4 and 10 months of age. In central California, a small number of pups are born on Ano Nuevo Island, Southeast Farallon Island, and occasionally at a few other locations; otherwise, the central California population is composed of non-breeders. A 2005 haul-out count of California sea lions between the Oregon/ California border and Point Conception as well as the Channel Islands found 141,842 individuals (Carretta et al., 2010). The number of sea lions historically found at any one of PISCO's study sites is variable, and often no California sea lions are observed during sampling. The most recent monitoring report indicated a total of 23 adults and 7 pups distributed among 6 sites resulting in 19 total takes. However, a strong El Ni[ntilde]o is underway which may significantly increase the numbers of California sea lions observed. 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 estimated population of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals is approximately 30,968 animals with a minimum estimated population size of 27,348. A 1999 census of the Oregon/Washington harbor seal stock found 24,732 (Carretta et al., 2014). 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, [[Page 76451]] 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 U.S., 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. At several sites, harbor seals are often observed and have the potential to be disturbed by researchers accessing or sampling the site. The most recent monitoring report described a total of 48 adults and 4 pups distributed among sites. Observers recorded 37 total takes. Steller Sea Lion Steller sea lions range throughout the north Pacific from Japan to the Kamchatka Peninsula, along the Aleutian Islands, into the Gulf of Alaska, and down the west coast of North America to central California. Based on distribution, population dynamics, and genotypic data, the species occurring in United States waters has been divided into two stocks, the eastern U.S. stock (east of Cape Suckling, AK) and the western U.S. stock (west of Cape Sucking, AK) (Loughlin 1997). Breeding of the eastern stock occurs in rookeries in Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California. This species was hunted by indigenous peoples for several thousand years throughout its range and as recently as the 1990s in the Aleutian Islands. Individuals from British Columbia to California were also killed in the early 1900s to reduce competition with commercial fisheries. The species dramatically declined from the 1970s to 1990s due to competition with commercial fishing and long-term environmental changes (Reeves et al. 2002). There has also been a continued decrease in population numbers along the southern and central California coast possibly due to a northward shift, and subsequent southern contraction in breeding locations (Pitcher et al. 2007). In 1990, due to accelerating declines across its range, the species was listed as threatened under the ESA. According to the 2013 Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment, the minimum population size of the eastern Steller sea lion stock is 59,968 and the estimated population size is 63,160 to 78,198 individuals (Allen and Angliss 2014). In 2013 the eastern U.S. stock was determined to be recovered and was delisted from the ESA. Past monitoring reports have not typically reported Steller sea lion observations. However, several years ago 5 Steller sea lions were observed at the Cape Arago, OR site. Other Marine Mammals in the Proposed Action Area California (southern) sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), listed as threatened under the ESA and categorized as depleted under the MMPA, usually range in coastal waters within 2 km (1.2 mi) of shore. This species is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is not considered further in this notice. Guadalupe fur seals' (Arctocephalus townsendi) and Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) are occasionally observed within the range of the study areas. However, Guadalupe fur seals only known breeding colony is on Guadalupe Island, off the Mexican coast. Increasing numbers have been seen on California's Channel Islands, and in recent years, several Guadalupe fur seals have stranded along the central California coast. It is not yet known whether these strandings are a result of El Ni[ntilde]o events (warmer water pushing their prey northward) or a sign of Guadalupe fur seals returning to their former range. Northern fur seals have recently re-established a rookery on the Farallon Islands. They rarely come ashore except during pupping and breeding times and are almost never seen on mainland beaches unless they are sick. Given that the likelihood of observing these two fur seal species is quite low, they are not considered further. Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., personnel presence) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The appearance of researchers may have the potential to cause Level B 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 (assumed here to be two times their body length) 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 (Monachus schauinslandi) has been shown to avoid beaches that have been disturbed often by humans (Kenyon, 1972). And 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. [[Page 76452]] 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). If disturbed, hauled-out animals in these situations may move toward the water without risk of encountering barriers or hazards that would otherwise prevent them from leaving the area. In these circumstances, the risk of injury, serious injury, or death to hauled-out animals is very low. Thus, research activity poses no risk that disturbed animals may fall and be injured or killed as a result of disturbance at high-relief locations. Furthermore, 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. Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat The only habitat modification associated with the proposed activity is the placement of permanent bolts and other sampling equipment in the intertidal. Once a particular study has ended, the respective sampling equipment is removed. No trash or field gear is left at a site. I 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. 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. Proposed Mitigation In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, 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 (where relevant). Mitigation Measures PISCO proposes to 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 (however, approach must be slow and quiet so as not to cause a stampede). The methodologies and actions noted in this section will be utilized and included as mitigation measures in any issued 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 re-occupied 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. PISCO will suspend sampling and monitoring operations immediately if an injured marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the project area and the monitoring activities could aggravate its condition. Mitigation Conclusions NMFS has carefully reviewed PISCO's proposed mitigation measures to ensure these measures would have 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:The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation. Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS 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 numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). 3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). [[Page 76453]] 4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only). 5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/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 the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Proposed Monitoring and Reporting In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, 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 ITAs 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. PISCO has described their long- standing monitoring actions in Section 13 of the Application. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period. Monitoring measures proposed by the applicant or prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following top-level goals: 1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action, i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and/or density of species. 2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (e.g., sound or visual stimuli), through better understanding of one or more of the following: The action itself and its environment (e.g., sound source characterization, propagation, and ambient noise levels); the affected species (e.g., life history or dive pattern); the likely co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action (in whole or part) associated with specific adverse effects; and/or the likely biological or behavioral context of exposure to the stressor for the marine mammal (e.g., age class of exposed animals or known pupping, calving or feeding areas). 3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible, e.g., at what distance or received level). 4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: The long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (e.g., through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival). 5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (e.g., through characterization of longer-term contributions of multiple sound sources to rising ambient noise levels and assessment of the potential chronic effects on marine mammals). 6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region. 7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures. 8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals. 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. Disturbances will be recorded according to a three-point scale of intensity including: (1) Head orientation 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, 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''. 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 proposed 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. A draft final report must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources within 60 days after the conclusion of the 2015-2016 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season [[Page 76454]] 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. Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities PISCO complied with the mitigation and monitoring that we required under the IHA issued in December 2014. 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 17, 2014, through September 30, 2015, PISCO researchers conducted rocky intertidal sampling at 61 sites over 48 days (see Table 6 in PISCO's 2014-2015 report). During this time period, no injured, stranded, or dead pinnipeds were observed. Tables 7, 8, and 9 in PISCO's monitoring report (see ADDRESSES) outline marine mammal observations and reactions. During this period there were 37 takes of harbor seals, 19 takes of California sea lions, and four takes of northern elephant seals. NMFS had authorized the take of 183 harbor seals, 60 California sea lions, and 30 Northern Elephant seals under the IHA. These takes are authorized to occur during 72 separate visits to all 47 Community Structure Monitoring sites and individual visits to five Biodiversity sites. 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 2014-2015 IHA effected the least practicable impact on the species or stocks. There were no stampede events this year and most disturbances were level 1 and 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. Flushing events have only occurred with harbor seals. Most of these animals tended to observe researchers from the water and then re- haulout farther upcoast or downcoast of the site within 30 minutes or so. 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 proposed 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. As discussed earlier, 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 proposed 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 very 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. Therefore, NMFS proposed the take of 203 harbor seals. Due to the potentially significant effect of El Ni[ntilde]o on California sea lions NMFS is proposing to increase the number of California sea lion takes beyond what PISCO requested. Changes in sea surface temperature associated with El Ni[ntilde]o can have significant impacts throughout the food web. Historically, El Ni[ntilde]o years 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 [[Page 76455]] 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 Ni[ntilde]o event, NMFS proposes to authorize 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 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 by a factor of eight resulting in a proposed authorization of 720 California sea lion takes. 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. Previously, PISCO researchers had voluntarily re-scheduled any surveys when Steller sea lions were present. Stellers were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and PISCO did not want to disturb any threatened or endangered species or enter into a formal ESA section 7 consultation with NMFS on an annual basis. However, Eastern Steller sea lions have been de-listed and, therefore, PISCO will continue with surveys when they are present. PISCO researchers report that they have very rarely observed Stellers at any of their research sites and none have been seen the last several years. Four or five years ago researchers did observe five Stellers at the Cape Arago, OR site. Therefore, NMFS has conservatively authorized the take of up to 10 Steller sea lions. NMFS proposes to authorize the take, by Level B harassment only, of 720 California sea lions, 203 harbor seals, 40 northern elephant seals and 10 Steller sea lions. 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. Analysis and Preliminary Determinations Negligible Impact 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., population- level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 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 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 (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 proposed monitoring surveys. However, a small number of harbor seal, northern elephant seal and California sea lion pups have been observed at several of the proposed 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 cold 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 proposed to 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 four marine mammal species anticipated to occur in the proposed 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 proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily 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. Small Numbers Table 1 in this document presents the abundance of each species or stock, the proposed 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. [[Page 76456]] 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 proposed action, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks. Table 1--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..................................................... \1\ 30,968, 203 <0.01-0.8 \2\ 24,732 California sea lion............................................. 296,750 720 0.2 Northern elephant seal.......................................... 179,000 40 <0.01 Steller sea lion................................................ 59,968 10 <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. Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock 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 proposed are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS has determined that issuance of the proposed 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, we 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 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 2015-16 and the 2014-15 monitoring report. Based on that review, we have determined that the proposed 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 preliminarily 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/construction.htm. Proposed Authorization As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to PISCO for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting rocky intertidal monitoring research activities, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued). 1. This IHA is valid from January 1, 2016, through, December 31, 2016. 2. This IHA is valid only for specified activities associated with rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at specific sites along the U.S. 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. 720 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); iii. 40 northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris); and iv. 10 Steller Sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 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. Field biologists must approach study sites cautiously and quietly, such that any disturbance of pinnipeds is minimized. The pathway and rate of approach must be chosen judiciously, avoiding to the extent possible any approach of hauled-out pinnipeds. If approach is unavoidable, field biologists must approach gradually such that stampeding of pinnipeds is avoided. Specific care must be taken to avoid any disturbance that may place pinniped pups at risk. Site visits should be limited to no more than 6 hours in the absence of extenuating circumstances, and personnel shall vacate the area as soon as sampling of the site is completed. b. Staff shall use binoculars to detect pinnipeds before close approach to avoid being seen by the animals. c. Staff 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. d. Staff shall reschedule work at sites where pups are present, unless other means to accomplishing the work can be [[Page 76457]] done without causing disturbance to mothers and dependent pups. e. Staff shall approach pinnipeds when located in the sampling plots only if there are no other means to accomplish the survey and there are no pups present (however, approach must be slow and quiet so as not to minimize potential for stampede). 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); and ii. Numbers of disturbances, by species and age, according to a three-point scale of intensity including (1) Head orientation 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, 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''. 6. Reporting: The holder of this IHA is required to: a. Report observations of unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of 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 2015-2016 field season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new IHA will 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 Southwest 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. 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 Southwest 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 will 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 Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. PISCO shall provide photographs or 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 NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for PISCO's proposed rocky intertidal monitoring program. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on PISCO's request for an MMPA authorization. Dated: December 4, 2015. Perry Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2015-31036 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![76448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, Analysis of Comments Received and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6491. All issues raised in this review are 351.218.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Dated: December 1, 2015.
Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Christian Marsh,
Background Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
On August 3, 2015, the Department on Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from and Countervailing Duty Operations.
initiated the first sunset review of the Mexico and the People’s Republic of [FR Doc. 2015–31084 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
China’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
antidumping duty orders on MCBs from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Mexico and the PRC, pursuant to
Secretary, Office V, Antidumping and
section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
351.218(c)(1).2 The Department received
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
a notice of intent to participate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Enforcement and Compliance, dated
Magnesia Carbon Bricks Fair Trade Administration
concurrently with and hereby adopted
Committee (Petitioners) within the
by this notice. The issues discussed in RIN 0648–XE282
deadline specified in 19 CFR
the Decision Memorandum include the
351.218(d)(1)(i).3 Petitioners claimed
likelihood of continuation or recurrence Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
interested party status under section
of dumping and the magnitude of the Specified Activities; Taking Marine
771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of margins likely to prevail if the Orders Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal
a domestic like product in the United were to be revoked. Parties may find a Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon
States. complete discussion of all issues raised and California Coasts
We received a complete substantive in the review and the corresponding
response from Petitioners within the 30- recommendations in this public AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
day deadline specified in 19 CFR memorandum which is on file Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
351.218(d)(3)(i).4 We received no electronically via Enforcement and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
responses from respondent interested Compliance’s Antidumping and Commerce.
parties. As a result, the Department Countervailing Duty Centralized ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
conducted an expedited sunset review Electronic Services System (‘‘ACCESS’’). harassment authorization; request for
of the Order, pursuant to section Access to ACCESS is available in the comments.
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR Central Records Unit Room B8024 of the SUMMARY: NMFS has received an
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). main Commerce building. In addition, a application from the Partnership for
complete version of the Decision Interdisciplinary Study of Coastal
Scope of the Orders Memorandum can be accessed directly Oceans (PISCO) at the University of
Imports covered by the Orders consist on the Web at http://trade.gov/ California (UC) Santa Cruz for an
of certain chemically bonded (resin or enforcement. The signed Decision Incidental Harassment Authorization
pitch), MCBs with a magnesia Memorandum and the electronic (IHA) to take marine mammals, by
component of at least 70 percent version of the Decision Memorandum harassment, incidental to rocky
magnesia (‘‘MgO’’) by weight, regardless are identical in content. intertidal monitoring surveys. Pursuant
of the source of raw materials for the Final Results of Review to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
MgO, with carbon levels ranging from (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3)
on its proposal to issue an IHA to PISCO
regardless of enhancements, (for of the Act, we determine that revocation
to incidentally take, by Level B
example, MCBs can be enhanced with of the antidumping duty order on MCBs
harassment only, marine mammals
coating, grinding, tar impregnation or from Mexico and the PRC would be
during the specified activity.
coking, high temperature heat likely to lead to continuation or
DATES: Comments and information must
treatments, anti-slip treatments or metal recurrence of dumping at weighted-
average margins up to 57.90 percent for be received no later than January 8,
casing) and regardless of whether or not 2016.
anti-oxidants are present (for example, Mexico and up to 236 percent for the
PRC. ADDRESSES: Comments on the
antioxidants can be added to the mix
from trace amounts to 15 percent by application should be addressed to Jolie
Notice Regarding Administrative
weight as various metals, metal alloys, Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Protective Order (‘‘APO’’)
and metal carbides). Certain MCBs that Conservation Division, Office of
This notice also serves as the only Protected Resources, National Marine
are the subject of this investigation are
reminder to parties subject to Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
currently classifiable under subheadings
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The
6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000,
of their responsibility concerning the mailbox address for providing email
6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000, and
return or destruction of proprietary comments is ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov.
6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff
information disclosed under APO in NMFS is not responsible for email
Schedule of the United States
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. comments sent to addresses other than
(‘‘HTSUS’’). While HTSUS subheadings
Timely notification of the return or the one provided here. Comments sent
are provided for convenience and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
destruction of APO materials or via email, including all attachments,
customs purposes, the written
conversion to judicial protective order is must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size.
description is dispositive.
hereby requested. Failure to comply Instructions: All comments received
2 See
with the regulations and terms of an are a part of the public record and will
Initiation Notice.
3 See
APO is a violation which is subject to generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.
Letter from the domestic interested parties,
dated August 18, 2015. sanction. noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/
4 See Substantive Responses of the domestic This sunset review and notice are in research.htm without change. All
interested parties, dated September 2, 2015. accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), Personal Identifying Information (e.g.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76684/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices 76449
name, address) voluntarily submitted by wild by causing disruption of behavioral is anticipated to result from the
the commenter may be publicly patterns, including, but not limited to, specified activity.
accessible. Do not submit Confidential migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
Description of the Specified Activity
Business Information or otherwise feeding, or sheltering [Level B
sensitive or protected information. harassment].’’ Overview
An electronic copy of the application PISCO proposes to continue rocky
Summary of Request
containing a list of the references used intertidal monitoring work that has been
in this document may be obtained by On August 10, 2015 NMFS received ongoing for 20 years. PISCO focuses on
writing to the address specified above, an application from PISCO for the understanding the nearshore ecosystems
telephoning the contact listed below taking of marine mammals incidental to of the U.S. west coast through a number
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), rocky intertidal monitoring surveys of interdisciplinary collaborations. The
or visiting the Internet at: http://www. along the Oregon and California coasts. program integrates long-term monitoring
nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/ NMFS determined that the application of ecological and oceanographic
research.htm. PISCO’s 2014–2015 was adequate and complete on October processes at dozens of sites with
monitoring report can also be found at 9, 2015. In December 2012, NMFS experimental work in the lab and field.
this Web site. Documents cited in this issued a 1-year IHA to PISCO to take A short description of each project is
notice may also be viewed, by marine mammals incidental to these contained here. Additional information
appointment, during regular business same proposed activities (77 FR 72327, can be found in PISCO’s application
hours, at the aforementioned address. December 5, 2012). In December 2013, (see ADDRESSES).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob NMFS issued a second 1-year IHA to
PISCO to take marine mammals Dates and Duration
Pauline, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401. incidental to these same proposed PISCO’s research is conducted
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: activities (78 FR 79403, December 30, throughout the year. Most sites are
2013). The 2013 IHA expired on sampled one to two times per year over
Background December 16, 2014. A third IHA was a 1-day period (4–6 hours per site)
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the issued to PISCO with an effective date during a negative low tide series. Due to
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 73048, the large number of research sites,
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, December 9, 2014) to take animals for scheduling constraints, the necessity for
upon request, the incidental, but not these identical activities and expires on negative low tides and favorable
intentional, taking of small numbers of December 16, 2015. weather/ocean conditions, exact survey
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who The research group at UC Santa Cruz dates are variable and difficult to
engage in a specified activity (other than operates in collaboration with two large- predict. Some sampling is anticipated to
commercial fishing) within a specified scale marine research programs: PISCO occur in all months.
geographical region if certain findings and the Multi-agency Rocky Intertidal Specified Geographic Region
are made and either regulations are Network (MARINe). The research group Sampling sites occur along the
issued or, if the taking is limited to at UC Santa Cruz (PISCO) is responsible California and Oregon coasts.
harassment, a notice of a proposed for many of the ongoing rocky intertidal Community Structure Monitoring sites
authorization is provided to the public monitoring programs along the Pacific range from Ecola State Park near
for review. coast. Monitoring occurs at rocky Cannon Beach, Oregon to Government
Authorization for incidental takings intertidal sites, often large bedrock Point located northwest of Santa
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the benches, from the high intertidal to the Barbara, California. Biodiversity Survey
taking will have a negligible impact on water’s edge. Long-term monitoring sites extend from Ecola State Park south
the species or stock(s), will not have an projects include Community Structure to Cabrillo National Monument in San
unmitigable adverse impact on the Monitoring, Intertidal Biodiversity Diego County, California. Exact
availability of the species or stock(s) for Surveys, Marine Protected Area locations of sampling sites can be found
subsistence uses (where relevant), and if Baseline Monitoring, Intertidal in Tables 1 and 2 of PISCO’s application
the permissible methods of taking, other Recruitment Monitoring, and Ocean (see ADDRESSES).
means of effecting the least practicable Acidification. Research is conducted
impact on the species or stock and its throughout the year along the California Detailed Description of Activities
habitat, and requirements pertaining to and Oregon coasts and will continue Community Structure Monitoring
the mitigation, monitoring and reporting indefinitely. Most sites are sampled one involves the use of permanent photoplot
of such takings are set forth. NMFS has to two times per year over a 4–6 hour quadrats which target specific algal and
defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR period during a negative low tide series. invertebrate assemblages (e.g., mussels,
216.103 as ‘‘. . . an impact resulting This IHA, if issued, would only be rockweeds, barnacles). Each photoplot
from the specified activity that cannot effective for a 12-month period. The is photographed and scored for percent
be reasonably expected to, and is not following specific aspects of the cover. The Community Structure
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the proposed activities are likely to result in Monitoring approach is based largely on
species or stock through effects on the take of marine mammals: Presence surveys that quantify the percent cover
annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ of survey personnel near pinniped and distribution of algae and
Except with respect to certain haulout sites and unintentional invertebrates that constitute these
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA approach of survey personnel towards communities. This approach allows
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘any act of hauled out pinnipeds. Take, by Level B researchers to quantify both the patterns
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) harassment only, of individuals of of abundance of targeted species, as well
has the potential to injure a marine California sea lions (Zalophus as characterize changes in the
mammal or marine mammal stock in the californianus), harbor seals (Phoca communities in which they reside. Such
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has vitulina richardii), Steller sea lions information provides managers with
the potential to disturb a marine (Eumetopias jubatus) and northern insight into the causes and
mammal or marine mammal stock in the elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) consequences of changes in species
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76684/page/2.svg)
![76454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices
if a new IHA will be requested. The Estimated Take by Incidental immediately offshore are also recorded.
report will include a summary of the Harassment Any other relevant information,
information gathered pursuant to the Except with respect to certain including the location of a marine
monitoring requirements set forth in the activities not pertinent here, the MMPA mammal relevant to the site, any
IHA. A final report must be submitted defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of unusual behavior, and the presence of
to the Director of the NMFS Office of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) pups is also noted.
Protected Resources and to the NMFS These observations formed the basis
has the potential to injure a marine
West Coast Regional Administrator from which researchers with extensive
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
within 30 days after receiving comments knowledge and experience at each site
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has
from NMFS on the draft final report. If estimated the actual number of marine
the potential to disturb a marine
no comments are received from NMFS, mammals that may be subject to take. In
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
the draft final report will be considered most cases the number of takes is based
wild by causing disruption of behavioral on the maximum number of marine
to be the final report.
patterns, including, but not limited to, mammals that have been observed at a
Monitoring Results From Previously migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, site throughout the history of the site
Authorized Activities feeding, or sheltering [Level B (1–3 observation per year for 5–10 years
PISCO complied with the mitigation harassment]. or more). Section 6 in PISCO’s
and monitoring that we required under All anticipated takes would be by application outlines the number of visits
the IHA issued in December 2014. In Level B harassment, involving per year for each sampling site and the
compliance with the IHA, PISCO temporary changes in behavior. The potential number of pinnipeds
submitted a report detailing the proposed mitigation and monitoring anticipated to be encountered at each
activities and marine mammal measures are expected to minimize the site. Tables 3, 4, 5 in PISCO’s
monitoring they conducted. The IHA possibility of injurious or lethal takes application outlines the number of
required PISCO to conduct counts of such that take by injury, serious injury, potential takes per site (see ADDRESSES).
pinnipeds present at study sites prior to or mortality is considered remote. Harbor seals are expected to occur at
approaching the sites and to record Animals hauled out close to the actual 15 locations in numbers ranging from 30
species counts and any observed survey sites may be disturbed by the per visit (25 adults and 5 pups) at the
reactions to the presence of the presence of biologists and may alter Pebble Beach site to 5 per visit (all
researchers. their behavior or attempt to move away adults) at the Shelter Cove, Kibesillah
From December 17, 2014, through from the researchers. Hill, Sea Ranch and Franklin Point sites
September 30, 2015, PISCO researchers As discussed earlier, NMFS considers (Table 3 in Application). These numbers
conducted rocky intertidal sampling at an animal to have been harassed if it are based on past observations at each
61 sites over 48 days (see Table 6 in moved greater than 2 times its body site as well as input from researchers
PISCO’s 2014–2015 report). During this length in response to the researcher’s with extensive knowledge of individual
time period, no injured, stranded, or presence or if the animal was already sites. NMFS took the number of takes
dead pinnipeds were observed. Tables moving and changed direction and/or estimated at each site, based on past
7, 8, and 9 in PISCO’s monitoring report speed, or if the animal flushed into the observations as well as input from
(see ADDRESSES) outline marine water. Animals that became alert researchers with extensive site
mammal observations and reactions. without such movements were not knowledge, and multiplied by the
During this period there were 37 takes considered harassed. number of site visits scheduled during
of harbor seals, 19 takes of California sea For the purpose of this proposed IHA, the authorization period. Nine sites
lions, and four takes of northern only Oregon and California sites that are were scheduled for one visit while six
elephant seals. NMFS had authorized frequently sampled and have a marine sites were projected to have 2 sites. A
the take of 183 harbor seals, 60 mammal presence during sampling were total of 190 adults and 13 pups were
California sea lions, and 30 Northern included in generating take estimates. anticipated for take. Therefore, NMFS
Elephant seals under the IHA. These Sites where only Biodiversity Surveys proposed the take of 203 harbor seals.
takes are authorized to occur during 72 are conducted did not provide enough Due to the potentially significant
separate visits to all 47 Community data to confidently estimate takes since effect of El Niño on California sea lions
Structure Monitoring sites and they are sampled infrequently (once NMFS is proposing to increase the
individual visits to five Biodiversity very 3–5 years). A small number of number of California sea lion takes
sites. harbor seal, northern elephant seal and beyond what PISCO requested. Changes
Based on the results from the California sea lion pup takes are in sea surface temperature associated
monitoring report, we conclude that anticipated as pups may be present at with El Niño can have significant
these results support our original several sites during spring and summer impacts throughout the food web.
findings that the mitigation measures set sampling. Historically, El Niño years have resulted
forth in the 2014–2015 IHA effected the Take estimates are based on marine in high numbers of marine mammal
least practicable impact on the species mammal observations from each site. strandings, likely due to changes in prey
or stocks. There were no stampede Marine mammal observations are done availability and increased physiologic
events this year and most disturbances as part of PISCO site observations, stress on the animals. NOAA fisheries
were level 1 and 2—meaning the animal which include notes on physical and west coast region office has reported
did not fully flush but observed or biological conditions at the site. The elevated strandings at locations in
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
moved slightly in response to maximum number of marine mammals, central and southern California. For a
researchers. Those that did fully flush to by species, seen at any given time five-month period from January to May
the water did so slowly. Flushing events throughout the sampling day is recorded 2015, strandings were over ten times
have only occurred with harbor seals. at the conclusion of sampling. A marine higher than the average stranding level
Most of these animals tended to observe mammal is counted if it is seen on for the same 5 month period during
researchers from the water and then re- access ways to the site, at the site, or 2004–2012. PISCO plans to conduct 8
haulout farther upcoast or downcoast of immediately up-coast or down-coast of visits under this authorization at 5
the site within 30 minutes or so. the site. Marine mammals in the water different sites during the one-year
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76684/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / Notices 76457
done without causing disturbance to 1. Time and date of the incident; Request for Public Comments
mothers and dependent pups. 2. Description of the incident; NMFS requests comment on our
e. Staff shall approach pinnipeds analysis, the draft authorization, and
3. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
when located in the sampling plots only any other aspect of the Notice of
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
if there are no other means to Proposed IHA for PISCO’s proposed
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
accomplish the survey and there are no rocky intertidal monitoring program.
pups present (however, approach must 4. Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding Please include with your comments any
be slow and quiet so as not to minimize supporting data or literature citations to
potential for stampede). the incident;
help inform our final decision on
5. Monitoring: The holder of this IHA 5. Species identification or PISCO’s request for an MMPA
is required to conduct monitoring of description of the animal(s) involved; authorization.
marine mammals present at study sites 6. Fate of the animal(s); and
prior to approaching the sites. Dated: December 4, 2015.
a. Information to be recorded shall 7. Photographs or video footage of the Perry Gayaldo,
include the following: animal(s). Deputy Director, Office of Protected
i. Species counts (with numbers of Activities shall not resume until Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
pups/juveniles); and NMFS is able to review the [FR Doc. 2015–31036 Filed 12–8–15; 8:45 am]
ii. Numbers of disturbances, by circumstances of the prohibited take. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
species and age, according to a three- NMFS will work with PISCO to
point scale of intensity including (1) determine what measures are necessary
Head orientation in response to to minimize the likelihood of further DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
disturbance, which may include turning prohibited take and ensure MMPA
head towards the disturbance, craning compliance. PISCO may not resume the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
head and neck while holding the body activities until notified by NMFS. Administration
rigid in a u-shaped position, or changing ii. In the event that an injured or dead RIN 0648-XE231
from a lying to a sitting position and/or marine mammal is discovered and it is
slight movement of less than 1 m; determined that the cause of the injury Endangered and Threatened Species;
‘‘alert’’; (2) Movements in response to or or death is unknown and the death is Recovery Plans
away from disturbance, over short relatively recent (e.g., in less than a AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
distances (typically two times its body moderate state of decomposition), Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
length) and including dramatic changes PISCO shall immediately report the Atmospheric Administration,
in direction or speed of locomotion for incident to the Office of Protected Commerce.
animals already in motion; Resources, NMFS, and the Southwest
‘‘movement’’; and (3) All flushes to the ACTION: Notice of availability; extension
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS.
water as well as lengthier retreats (>3 of public comment period.
The report must include the same
m); ‘‘flight’’. information identified in 6(c)(i) of this SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the
6. Reporting: The holder of this IHA IHA. Activities may continue while extension of the comment period for the
is required to: NMFS reviews the circumstances of the Proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA)
a. Report observations of unusual incident. NMFS will work with PISCO Recovery Plan for Oregon Coast Coho
behaviors, numbers, or distributions of to determine whether additional Salmon (Proposed Plan) published on
pinnipeds, or of tag-bearing carcasses, to mitigation measures or modifications to October 13, 2015. The Proposed Plan
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science the activities are appropriate. addresses the Oregon Coast Coho
Center (SWFSC). Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
b. Submit a draft monitoring report to iii. In the event that an injured or
dead marine mammal is discovered and evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
it is determined that the injury or death listed as threatened under the ESA. The
within 60 days after the conclusion of
is not associated with or related to the geographic area covered by the
the 2015–2016 field season or 60 days
activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., Proposed Plan is the Pacific Ocean and
prior to the start of the next field season
previously wounded animal, carcass freshwater habitat (rivers, streams and
if a new IHA will be requested. A final
with moderate to advanced lakes) from the Necanicum River near
report shall be prepared and submitted
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Seaside, Oregon, on the northern end to
within 30 days following resolution of
PISCO shall report the incident to the the Sixes River near Port Orford, Oregon
any comments on the draft report from
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, on the south. As required under the
NMFS. This report must contain the
and the Southwest Regional Stranding ESA, the Proposed Plan contains
informational elements described above,
Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of objective, measurable delisting criteria,
at minimum.
c. Reporting injured or dead marine the discovery. PISCO shall provide site-specific management actions
mammals: photographs or video footage or other necessary to achieve the Proposed
i. In the event that the specified documentation of the stranded animal Plan’s goals, and estimates of the time
activity clearly causes the take of a sighting to NMFS. Activities may and costs required to implement
marine mammal in a manner prohibited continue while NMFS reviews the recovery actions. We are soliciting
by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A circumstances of the incident. review and comment from the public
and all interested parties on the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
harassment), serious injury, or 7. This IHA may be modified,
mortality, PISCO shall immediately suspended or withdrawn if the holder Proposed Plan. The comment period is
cease the specified activities and report fails to abide by the conditions being extended—from December 14,
the incident to the Office of Protected prescribed herein or if NMFS 2015, to December 31, 2015—to provide
Resources, NMFS, and the Southwest determines the authorized taking is additional opportunity for public
Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. having more than a negligible impact on comment.
The report must include the following the species or stock of affected marine DATES: The deadline for receipt of
information: mammals. comments on the Public Draft Recovery
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:21 Dec 08, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM 09DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_76684/page/10.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 13:32:06
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 13:32:06
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments. | |
| Dates | Comments and information must be received no later than January 8, 2016. | |
| Contact | Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 76448 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XE28 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR