Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon and California Coasts, 60831-60839 [2014-23927]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60831-60839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD531


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 November 
7, 2014.

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 ITP.Nachman@noaa.gov. 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 https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application containing a list of the 
references used in this document and associated Environmental 
Assessment (EA) may be

[[Page 60832]]

obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the 
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting 
the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. PISCO's 2013-2014 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: Candace Nachman, 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 July 30, 2014, 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 August 22, 2014. 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 expires on December 16, 2014.
    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. 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, though, 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 approach 
of survey personnel towards hauled out pinnipeds. Take, by Level B 
harassment only, of individuals of California sea lions (Zalophus 
californianus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), 
and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) is anticipated to 
result from the specified activity.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    PISCO 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. Table 1 in PISCO's application (see 
ADDRESSES) outlines the typical sampling season for the various 
locations. Some sampling is anticipated to occur in all months, except 
for January and September.

Specified Geographic Region

    Sampling sites occur along the California and Oregon coasts. Exact 
locations of sampling sites can be found in Tables 1 through 3 of 
PISCO's application (see ADDRESSES). 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.

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 abundance. Each Community Structure 
site is surveyed over a 1-day period during a low tide series one to 
two times a year. Sites, location, number of times sampled per year, 
and typical sampling months for each site are presented in Table 1 in 
PISCO's application (see ADDRESSES).
    Biodiversity Surveys, which are part of a long-term monitoring 
project and

[[Page 60833]]

are conducted every 3-5 years at established sites, involve point 
contact identification along permanent transects, mobile invertebrate 
quadrat counts, sea star band counts, and tidal height topographic 
measurements. Table 2 in PISCO's application (see ADDRESSES) lists 
established biodiversity sites in Oregon and California.
    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. Six 
additional sites will be established and sampled in the North Coast 
study region during 2015 (see Table 3 in PISCO's application). 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. These sightings are rare. Therefore, encounters are not 
expected. However, if Steller sea lions are sighted before approaching 
a sampling site, researchers will abandon approach and return at a 
later date. For this reason, this species is not considered further in 
this proposed IHA notice.
    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 on the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/pacific2013_final.pdf. 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 124,000 animals with a minimum estimate 
of 74,913 (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 observed at a single site was at least 10 adults plus 
10-20 sub-adults and pups. These were observed offshore of Piedras 
Blancas. One adult elephant seal has been observed at Pigeon Point. 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 
(NMML, 2010). 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 found at any one of PISCO's study sites is variable, and often no 
California sea lions are observed during sampling.

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 30,196 animals with a minimum estimated population size 
of 26,667 (Carretta et al., 2014). No current estimation of annual 
growth rate has been made for the California stock (Carretta et al., 
2014). A 1999 census of the Oregon/Washington harbor seal stock found 
16,165 individuals, of which 5,735 were in Oregon (Carretta et al., 
2014). This stock is growing at a maximum annual rate of 12% (Carretta 
et al., 2014).

[[Page 60834]]

    The animals inhabit near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from 
Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. Pacific 
harbor seals are divided into two subspecies: P. v. stejnegeri in the 
western North Pacific, near Japan, and P. v. richardii in the northeast 
Pacific Ocean. The latter subspecies, recognized as three separate 
stocks, inhabits the west coast of the continental 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 
(NCCOS, 2007).
    At several sites, harbor seals are often observed and have the 
potential to be disturbed by researchers accessing or sampling the 
site. The largest number of harbor seals occurs at Hopkins where often 
20-30 adults and 10-15 pups are hauled-out on a small beach adjacent to 
the sampling 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.

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 ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative 
analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by 
this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include 
the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals 
and will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, 
and the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to 
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on 
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
    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 move greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) 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, an occurrence that is not expected 
at the proposed sampling sites. 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.
    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). However, while 
cliffs do exist along the coast, shoreline habitats near the abalone 
study sites are of steeply sloping rocks with unimpeded and non-
obstructive access to the water. 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.

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. Bolts are installed during the set-up of a site and, at 
existing sites, this has already occurred. In some instances, bolts 
will need to be replaced or installed for new plots. Bolts are 7.6 to 
12.7 cm (2 to 5 in) long, stainless steel 1 cm (3/8 in) Hex or Carriage 
bolts. They are installed by drilling a hole with a battery powered 
DeWalt 24 volt rotary hammer drill with a 1 cm (3/8 in) bit. The bolts 
protrude 1.3-7.6 cm (0.5-3 in) above the rock surface and are held in 
place with marine epoxy. Although the drill does produce noticeable 
noise, researchers have never observed an instance where near-by or 
offshore marine mammals were disturbed by it. Any marine mammal at the 
site would likely be disturbed by the presence of researchers and 
retreat to a distance where the noise of the drill would not increase 
the disturbance. In most instances, wind and wave noise also

[[Page 60835]]

drown out the noise of the drill. The installation of bolts and other 
sampling equipment is conducted under the appropriate permits (Monterey 
Bay National Marine Sanctuary, California State Parks). Once a 
particular study has ended, the respective sampling equipment is 
removed. No trash or field gear is left at a site. Thus, the proposed 
activity is not expected to have any habitat-related effects, including 
to marine mammal prey species, 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; (6) only flushing pinnipeds if they are located 
in the sampling plots and there are no other means to accomplish the 
survey (however, flushing must be done slowly and quietly so as not to 
cause a stampede); (7) no intentional flushing if pups are present at 
the sampling site; and (8) rescheduling sampling if Steller sea lions 
are present at the site.
    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, 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 evaluated PISCO's proposed mitigation measures 
and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring 
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting 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).
    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 submitted a marine mammal 
monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found in 
Section 13 of the application. The plan may be modified or supplemented 
based on comments or new information

[[Page 60836]]

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 can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in California and 
Oregon by noting observations of: (1) unusual behaviors, numbers, or 
distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research 
can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) 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), numbers of observed disturbances, and 
descriptions of the disturbance behaviors during the monitoring 
surveys, including location, date, and time of the event. In addition, 
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 2014-2015 field 
season or 60 days prior to the start of the next field season if a new 
IHA will be requested. The report will include a summary of the 
information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth 
in the IHA. A final report must be submitted to the Director of the 
NMFS Office of Protected Resources and to the NMFS West Coast Regional 
Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the 
draft final report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft 
final report will be considered to be the final report.

Monitoring Results From Previously Authorized Activities

    PISCO complied with the mitigation and monitoring that we required 
under the IHA issued in December 2013. 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, 2013, through August 31, 2014, PISCO researchers 
conducted rocky intertidal sampling at 65 sites during 50 days (see 
Table 6 in PISCO's 2013-2014 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. Level B harassment takes of harbor seals, 
California sea lions, and northern elephant seals included short 
movements of 1-3 m (3.3-10 ft) away from researchers and in some 
instances flushing into the water.
    Based on the results from the previous monitoring report, we 
conclude that these results support our original findings that the 
mitigation measures set forth in the 2013-2014 IHA effected the least 
practicable impact on the species or stocks. 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.

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

[[Page 60837]]

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 1 m (3.3 ft) 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 take estimates. Sites where only 
Biodiversity Surveys are conducted were not included due to the 
infrequency of sampling and rarity of occurrences of pinnipeds during 
sampling. In addition, Steller sea lions are not included in take 
estimates as they will not be disturbed by researchers or research 
activities since activities will not occur or will be suspended if 
Steller sea lions are present. A small number of harbor seal and 
northern elephant seal pup takes are anticipated as pups may be present 
at several sites during spring and summer sampling.
    Takes 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. Table 4 in PISCO's application outlines the 
number of potential takes per site (see ADDRESSES).
    Based on this information, NMFS proposes to authorize the take, by 
Level B harassment only, of 55 California sea lions, 183 harbor seals, 
and 30 northern elephant seals. These numbers are considered to be 
maximum take estimates; therefore, actual take may be slightly 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 behavioral harassments that could occur would be of 
limited duration, as researchers only conduct sampling one to two times 
per year at each site for a total of 4-6 hours per sampling event. 
Therefore, disturbance will be limited to a short duration, allowing 
pinnipeds to reoccupy the sites within a short amount of time.
    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. No California sea lion pups are anticipated to be 
encountered, as rookery sites are typically limited to the islands. A 
very small number of harbor seal and northern elephant seal pups have 
been observed at a couple of the proposed monitoring sites over the 
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. Further, 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. Because such disturbance is sporadic, rather than 
chronic, and of low intensity, individual

[[Page 60838]]

marine mammals are unlikely to incur any detrimental impacts to vital 
rates or ability to forage and, thus, loss of fitness. Correspondingly, 
even local populations, much less the overall stocks of animals, are 
extremely unlikely to accrue any significantly detrimental impacts.
    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 three 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, falling within 
the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment.'' 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. Based on these estimates, PISCO would take less than 
1.1% 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.

 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\ 30,196             183         0.6-1.1
                                                                      \2\ 16,165
California Sea Lion.............................................         296,750              60            0.02
Northern Elephant Seal..........................................         124,000              30            0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Abundance estimates are taken from the 2013 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al.,
  2014).
\1\ California stock abundance estimate; \2\ Oregon/Washington stock abundance estimate.

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. NMFS' Permits and 
Conservation Division worked with the NMFS Southwest Regional Office to 
ensure that Steller sea lions would be avoided and incidental take 
would not occur. 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). PISCO's proposed 
activities and impacts for 2014-2015 are within the scope of our 2012 
EA and FONSI. We have reviewed the 2012 EA and determined that there 
are no new direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the human and 
natural environment associated with the IHA requiring evaluation in a 
supplemental EA and we, therefore, intend to reaffirm the 2012 FONSI.

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 December 17, 2014, through December 16, 
2015.
    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. 183 harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii);
    ii. 60 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus); and
    iii. 30 northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris).

[[Page 60839]]

    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: In order to ensure the least practicable 
impact on the species listed in condition 3(b), 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 deliberate approach of hauled-out pinnipeds. If 
deliberate 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 done without 
causing disturbance to mothers and dependent pups.
    e. Staff shall only flush pinnipeds if they are located in the 
sampling plots and there are no other means to accomplish the survey 
(however, flushing must be done slowly and quietly so as not to cause a 
stampede).
    f. No intentional flushing if pups are present at the sampling 
site.
    g. Sampling shall be rescheduled if Steller sea lions are present 
at the study site.
    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, typically over short distances (1-3 m) 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 2014-2015 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 (301-427-8401), NMFS, and the 
Southwest Regional Stranding Coordinator (562-980-3230), 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: October 2, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23927 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P