Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Port of Kalama Expansion Project on the Lower Columbia River, 89436-89446 [2016-29748]
Download as PDF
89436
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: December 5, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary, for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary
Decision Memorandum
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Scope of the Order
4. Preliminary Determination of No
Shipments
5. Discussion of the Methodology
i. Normal Value Comparisons
ii. Determination of Comparison Method
iii. Product Comparisons
iv. Date of Sale
v. Constructed Export Price
vi. Normal Value
vii. Currency Conversion
6. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2016–29710 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Advisory Committee;
Meeting
International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.
AGENCY:
The Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee
(REEEAC) will hold a conference call on
Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 11:00
a.m. The conference call is open to the
public with registration instructions
provided below.
DATES: December 22, 2016, from
approximately 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members
of the public wishing to participate
must register in advance with Victoria
Gunderson at the contact information
below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday,
December 20, 2016, including any
requests to make comments during the
meeting or for accommodations or
auxiliary aids.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal
Officer, Office of Energy and
Environmental Industries (OEEI),
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce at (202)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
482–7890; email: Victoria.Gunderson@
trade.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The Secretary of
Commerce established the REEEAC
pursuant to discretionary authority and
in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. App.), on July 14, 2010. The
REEEAC was re-chartered on June 18,
2012, June 12, 2014, and June 9, 2016.
The REEEAC provides the Secretary of
Commerce with consensus advice from
the private sector on the development
and administration of programs and
policies to enhance the export
competitiveness of the U.S. renewable
energy and energy efficiency industries.
During the December 22 conference
call of the REEEAC, committee members
will recommend/approve the SubCommittee structure, select their
recommendations for Sub-Committee
leadership, and potentially approve
recommendations and/or a letter for
input to the Secretary of Commerce.
The meeting will be open to the
public and will be accessible to people
with disabilities. All guests are required
to register in advance by the deadline
identified under the DATES caption.
Requests for auxiliary aids must be
submitted by the registration deadline.
Last minute requests will be accepted,
but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time before the
close of the meeting will be available for
pertinent oral comments from members
of the public attending the meeting. To
accommodate as many speakers as
possible, the time for public comments
will be limited to two to five minutes
per person (depending on the number of
public participants). Individuals
wishing to reserve speaking time during
the meeting must contact Ms.
Gunderson and submit a brief statement
of the general nature of the comments,
as well as the name and address of the
proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST
on Tuesday, December 20, 2016. If the
number of registrants requesting to
make statements is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the
meeting, the International Trade
Administration may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers. Speakers are
requested to submit a copy of their oral
comments by email to Ms. Gunderson
for distribution to the participants in
advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public may
submit pertinent written comments
concerning the REEEAC’s affairs at any
time before or after the meeting.
Comments may be submitted to the
Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal
Officer, Office of Energy and
Environmental Industries, U.S.
Department of Commerce; 1401
Constitution Avenue NW.; Mail Stop:
4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be
considered during the meeting, written
comments must be received no later
than 5:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday,
December 20, 2016, to ensure
transmission to the Committee prior to
the meeting. Comments received after
that date will be distributed to the
members but may not be considered at
the meeting.
Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes
will be available within 30 days
following the meeting.
Dated: December 6, 2016.
Edward A. O’Malley,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental
Industries.
[FR Doc. 2016–29701 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE395
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Port of Kalama
Expansion Project on the Lower
Columbia River
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA).
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Port
of Kalama (POK) for an IHA to take
small numbers of marine mammals, by
Level B harassment, incidental to inwater construction activities associated
with the Port of Kalama Expansion
Project.
DATES: Effective September 1, 2017,
through August 31, 2018.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the
final Authorization, POK’s application
and the environmental assessment (EA)
may be obtained by writing to the
address specified below, telephoning
the contact listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or
visiting the internet at: https://
www.NOAA Fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.html. Documents
cited in this notice may also be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
89437
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
requested by writing to Jolie Harrison,
Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale
Youngkin, Office of Protected
Resources, NOAA Fisheries, (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.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NOAA
Fisheries finds that the taking will have
a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses
(where relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NOAA Fisheries 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].
lions (Zalophus californianus) is
anticipated to result from the specified
activity.
Summary of Request
Description of the Specified Activity
On September 28, 2015, NOAA
Fisheries received an application from
the Port of Kalama (POK) for the taking
of marine mammals incidental to the
construction of a new pier. On
December 10, 2015, a final revised
version of the application was
submitted and NOAA Fisheries
determined that the application was
adequate and complete. NMFS
published a notice making preliminary
determinations and proposing an IHA
on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 15064). The
notice initiated a 30-day comment
period. At the end of the 30-day
comment period, POK notified NMFS
that work would be postponed until the
2017 season. NMFS reviewed the initial
application and EA and has determined
that there are no substantial changes to
the specified activities that would
require reinitiating the process.
The POK proposes to construct the
Kalama Marine Manufacturing and
Export Facility, including a new marine
terminal and dredging of a berth
extension, for the export of methanol.
The proposed action also includes the
installation of engineered log jams,
restoration of riparian wetlands, and the
removal of existing wood piles in a side
channel as mitigation activities. The
proposed activity is expected to occur
during the 2017–2018 in-water work
season for ESA listed fish species
(September 1 through January 31). This
IHA covers from September 1, 2017 to
August 31, 2018, to allow for
adjustments to the schedule in-water
work based on logistics, weather, and
contractor needs. It is possible that the
work would require a second season, at
which time the applicant will seek
another IHA covering the second
season. The following specific aspects of
the proposed activities are likely to
result in the take of marine mammals:
Impact pile driving and vibratory pile
driving. Take, by Level B Harassment
only, of individuals of harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lions
(Eumetopias jubatus), and California sea
A detailed description of the project
construction activities is provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016).
Since that time, no changes have been
made to the planned activities.
Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to the
referenced Federal Register notice for
the description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of preliminary
determinations and proposed IHA for
POK’s in-water construction activities
was published in the Federal Register
on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 15064).
During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission). The comments are
posted online at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.html. Following
are the substantive comments and
NMFS’s responses:
Comment 1: The Commission concurs
with NMFS’s preliminary findings and
recommends that NMFS issue the
requested IHA, subject to inclusion of
the proposed mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting measures.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
Commission’s recommendation and has
issued the IHA to the Port of Kalama.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
Marine mammal species that have
been observed within the region of
activity consist of the harbor seal,
California sea lion, and Steller sea lion.
Pinnipeds follow prey species into
freshwater up to, primarily, the
Bonneville Dam (RM 146) in the
Columbia River, but also to Willamette
Falls in the Willamette River (RM 26).
None of the species of marine mammal
that occur in the project area are listed
under the ESA or is considered depleted
or strategic under the MMPA. See Table
1, below.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THIS IHA REQUEST
Species
Common name
Scientific name
ESA listing
status
Harbor Seal .........................................................
California Sea Lion .............................................
Steller Sea Lion ..................................................
Phoca vitulina; ssp. richardsi ..............................
Zalophus californianus ........................................
Eumatopius jubatus ............................................
Not Listed .........
Not Listed .........
Not Listed .........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Stock
OR/WA Coast Stock.
US Stock.
Eastern DPS.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
89438
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
The sea lion species use this portion
of the river primarily for transiting to
and from Bonneville Dam, which
concentrates adult salmonids and
sturgeon returning to natal streams,
providing for increased foraging
efficiency. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has conducted
surface observations to evaluate the
seasonal presence, abundance, and
predation activities of pinnipeds in the
Bonneville Dam tailrace each year since
2002. This monitoring program was
initiated in response to concerns over
the potential impact of pinniped
predation on adult salmonids passing
Bonneville Dam in the spring. An active
sea lion hazing, trapping, and
permanent removal program was in
place below the dam from 2008 through
2013.
Pinnipeds remain in upstream
locations for a couple of days or longer,
feeding heavily on salmon, steelhead,
and sturgeon, although the occurrence
of harbor seals near Bonneville Dam is
much lower than sea lions (Stansell et
al., 2013). Sea lions congregate at
Bonneville Dam during the peaks of
salmon return, from March through May
each year, and a few California sea lions
have been observed feeding on
salmonids in the area below Willamette
Falls during the spring adult fish
migration.
There are no pinniped haul-out sites
in the area of potential effects from the
proposed project. The nearest haul-out
sites, shared by harbor seals and
California sea lions, are near the Cowlitz
River/Carroll Slough confluence with
the Columbia River, approximately 3.5
miles downriver from the proposed
project (Jeffries et al., 2000). The nearest
known haul-out for Steller sea lions is
a rock formation (Phoca Rock) near RM
132 and the jetty (RM 0) near the mouth
of the Columbia River. There are no
pinniped rookeries located in or near
the region of activity.
A detailed description of the species
likely to be affected by the project’s inwater construction activities were
provided in the Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (81 FR 15064,
March 21, 2016). Since that time, we are
not aware of any changes in the status
of these species/stocks. Therefore,
detailed descriptions are not provided
here. Please refer to the referenced
Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to
NMFS’s Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
species/mammals) for generalized
species accounts.
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
In-water construction activities
associated with the POK project such as
impact and vibratory pile driving
components of the specified activity
have the potential to result in impacts
to marine mammals and their habitat in
the project area. The Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR
15064, March 21, 2016) included a
detailed discussion of the behavioral
and acoustic effects on marine
mammals. Therefore, that information is
not repeated here. Please refer to the
referenced Federal Register notice for
that information. No take by injury,
serious injury, or death is anticipated as
a result of the construction activities.
Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an Incidental Take
Authorization (ITA) under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
prescribe, where applicable, 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).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance).
This new guidance established new
thresholds for predicting auditory
injury, which equates to Level A
harassment under the MMPA. In the
Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694),
NMFS explained the approach it would
take during a transition period, wherein
we balance the need to consider this
new best available science with the fact
that some applicants have already
committed time and resources to the
development of analyses based on our
previous guidance and have constraints
that preclude the recalculation of take
estimates, as well as where the action is
in the agency’s decision-making
pipeline. In that Notice, we included a
non-exhaustive list of factors that would
inform the most appropriate approach
for considering the new Guidance,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including: The scope of effects; how far
in the process the applicant has
progressed; when the authorization is
needed; the cost and complexity of the
analysis; and the degree to which the
guidance is expected to affect our
analysis.
In this case, POK submitted an
adequate and complete application in a
timely manner and indicated that they
would need to receive an IHA (if issued)
by September 1, 2016. After the close of
the public comment period for the
Proposed IHA, POK informed NMFS
that they would postpone construction
activities until September, 2017.
Therefore, although the action had
substantially progressed through the
decision-making pipeline, there was
enough time to allow for re-evaluation
under the new Guidance prior to when
the IHA was needed. POK’s original
analysis considered the potential for
Level A take (auditory injury (PTS)), but
ultimately concluded that no Level A
takes would occur due to mitigation
monitoring and the implementation of
shut down procedures if any marine
mammals entered or approached the
Level A harassment zone. POK utilized
the alternative methodology provided
by NMFS in the new Guidance to
evaluate how it may affect the analysis.
Based on the new Guidance, likely
injury zones would increase in size for
the two hearing groups that may be
present in the project area. POK
provided NMFS with an updated
Monitoring Plan (available online at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/construction.html), which
increased the mitigation monitoring
thresholds to avoid Level A harassment.
More detail on the previously identified
and updated mitigation monitoring
zones is provided below.
Mitigation Monitoring
Initial monitoring zones were based
on a practical spreading loss model and
data found in Illingworth and Rodkin
(2007). A minimum distance of 10 m
was used for all shutdown zones, even
if actual or initial calculated distances
are less. A maximum distance of inwater line of sight is used for all
disturbance zones for vibratory pile
driving, even if actual or calculated
values are greater. To provide the best
estimate of transmission loss at a
specific range, the data were estimated
using a practical spreading loss model.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
89439
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 2—DISTANCE TO INITIAL SHUTDOWN AND DISTURBANCE MONITORING ZONES FOR IN-WATER SOUND IN THE
COLUMBIA RIVER FROM PROPOSED RULE
Distance to monitoring zones (m) 1
Pile type
Hammer type
190 dB 2
24in Concrete pile .....................................................
18in Steel pipe pile ...................................................
18in Steel pipe pile ...................................................
Impact ..............................
Vibratory ..........................
Impact ..............................
160 dB 2
10
10
18
117
N/A
1,848
120 dB 2
N/A.
Line of Sight, (max 5.7km).
NA.
1 Monitoring zones based on a practical spreading loss model and data from Illingworth and Rodkin (2007). A minimum distance of 10 m is
used for all shutdown zones, even if actual or initial calculated distances are less.
2 All values unweighted and relative to 1 μPa.
Among other changes, the new
Guidance established a dual metric for
analysis: A peak (PK) sound pressure
level (SPL) for impulsive sounds (e.g.,
impact pile driving) and a cumulative
sound exposure level (SELcum) for both
impulsive and non-impulsive (e.g.,
vibratory pile driving). Table 3 provides
a summary of the thresholds established
in the new Guidance for phocids and
otariids (pinnipeds), which are
anticipated to be located in the action
area. As shown in Table 3, the
thresholds established for phocids are
lower than those established for
otariids, so the updated analysis was
based on the phocid pinniped
thresholds.
TABLE 3—NEW ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS
[From NMFS 2016]
Acoustic thresholds
(received levels)
Hearing group
Impulsive sounds
Phocid pinnipeds (underwater) .........................................
Otariid pinnipeds (underwater) .........................................
Lpk,
Lpk,
flat:
flat:
Non-impulsive sounds
218 dB; LEPW, 24hr: 185 dB .................................
232 dB; LEOW, 24hr: 203 dB ................................
LEPW, 24hr: 201 dB.
LEOW, 24hr: 219 dB.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1
μPa2s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound
pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (PW and OW
pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours (NMFS 2016).
The new guidance does not affect the
thresholds for behavioral disturbance
(Level B harassment), and would not
affect the extent of Level B harassment
requested by POK. Therefore, the
analysis of Level B harassment in the
original application and Proposed Rule
remains valid and is not discussed
further. In addition, the peak sound
pressure thresholds (218 dB for phocids
and 232 dB for otariids) would not be
exceeded during any project activities.
The greatest single strike peak sound
pressure levels would be generated
during impact installation of steel piles
and these sound levels would not
exceed 207 dB (CALTRANS 2012). As
noted in POK’s application and
Proposed Rule, it is anticipated that all
steel piles will be driven with a
vibratory hammer, and that it will not
be necessary to impact drive or impact
proof any of the steel piles. However,
impact driving of steel piles is analyzed
as a precaution in the event that this is
required. As peak sound pressure
thresholds would not be exceeded for
either phocids or otariids, there is no
further discussion of peak sound
pressure levels.
Distances for which the Level A (PTS)
threshold for cumulative sound pressure
exposure could be exceeded are
provided in Table 4, below.
TABLE 4—NEW LEVEL A ISOPLETHS (DISTANCES) USING NMFS NEW TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
Level A
(PTS) threshold
Impact-driving concrete piles ..................................................................
Impact-driving steel piles .........................................................................
Vibratory-driving steel piles .....................................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Activity
185 dB SELcum ..............................
185 dB SELcum ..............................
201 dB SELcum ..............................
POK has updated the marine mammal
monitoring plan to revise the Level A
injury protection zone to fully cover the
Level A isopleths for potential injury
from cumulative sound pressure
exposure, as established under the new
Guidance. This modification to the
monitoring plan would ensure that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Level A takes of marine mammals
would be avoided in a similar manner
as presented in the Proposed Rule (i.e.,
shut down procedures would be
implemented if any marine mammals
approach or enter the Level A
harassment zone). Therefore, our
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Isopleth
(distance)
40 m (131 ft).
252 m (828 ft).
16.5 m (54 ft).
analysis remains the same as presented
in the Proposed Rule.
In order to accomplish appropriate
monitoring for mitigation purposes,
POK will have an observer stationed on
each active impact pile driving location
to closely monitor the shutdown zone as
well as the surrounding area. In
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
89440
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
addition, POK will post two shore-based
observers (one upstream of the project,
and another downstream of the project
area; see application), whose primary
responsibility would be to record
pinnipeds in the disturbance zone and
to alert barge-based observers to the
presence of pinnipeds in the
disturbance zone, thus creating a
redundant alert system for prevention of
injurious interaction as well as
increasing the probability of detecting
pinnipeds in the disturbance zone. POK
estimates that shore-based observers
would be able to scan approximately
800 m (upstream and downstream) from
the available observation posts;
therefore, shore-based observers would
be capable of monitoring the agreedupon disturbance zone.
As described, at least three observers
will be on duty during pile vibratory
driving activity for the first two days,
and thereafter on every third day to
allow for estimation of Level B takes.
The first observer will be positioned on
a work platform or barge where the
entire 10 m shutdown zone is clearly
visible, with the shore-based observers
positioned to observe the disturbance
zone from the bank of the river.
Protocols will be implemented to ensure
that coordinated communication of
sightings occurs between observers in a
timely manner.
In summary:
• POK will implement shutdown
zones around all pile driving that
encompasses the Level A harassment
zones as defined in Table 4, above to
avoid Level A take of marine mammals.
These shutdown zones provides a buffer
for the Level A harassment threshold
but would also further avoid the risk of
direct interaction between marine
mammals and the equipment.
• POK will have a redundant
monitoring system, in which one
observer would be stationed at the area
of active pile driving, while two
observers would be shore-based, as
required to provide complete
observational coverage of the reduced
disturbance zone for each pile driving
site. The former will be capable of
providing comprehensive monitoring of
the proposed shutdown zones. This
observer’s first priority will be
shutdown zone monitoring in
prevention of injurious interaction, with
a secondary priority of counting takes
by Level B harassment in the
disturbance zone. The additional shorebased observers will be able to monitor
the same distances, but their primary
responsibility will be counting of takes
in the disturbance zone and
communication with barge-based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
observers to alert them to pinniped
presence in the action area.
• The shutdown and disturbance
zones will be monitored throughout the
time required to drive a pile. If a marine
mammal is observed within the
disturbance zone, a take will be
recorded and behaviors documented.
However, that pile segment will be
completed without cessation, unless the
animal approaches or enters the
shutdown zone, at which point all pile
driving activities will be halted.
• Soft start procedures shall be
implemented at the start of each day’s
impact pile driving and at any time
following cessation of impact pile
driving for a period of thirty minutes or
longer. Soft start procedures require that
the contractor provides an initial set of
three strikes at reduced energy, followed
by a thirty-second waiting period, then
two subsequent reduced energy strike
sets.
• If steel piles require impact
installation or proofing, a bubble curtain
will be used for sound attenuation
The following measures will apply to
visual monitoring:
• If the shutdown zone is obscured by
fog or poor lighting conditions, pile
driving will not be initiated until the
entire shutdown zone is visible. Work
that has been initiated appropriately in
conditions of good visibility may
continue during poor visibility.
• The shutdown zone will be
monitored for the presence of pinnipeds
before, during, and after any pile driving
activity. The shutdown zone will be
monitored for 30 minutes prior to
initiating the start of pile driving, during
the activity, and for 30 minutes after
activities have ceased. If pinnipeds are
present within the shutdown zone prior
to pile driving, the start of pile driving
will be delayed until the animals leave
the shutdown zone of their own
volition, or until 15 minutes elapse
without re-sighting the animal(s).
• Monitoring will be conducted using
binoculars. When possible, digital video
or still cameras will also be used to
document the behavior and response of
pinnipeds to construction activities or
other disturbances.
• Each observer will have a radio or
cell phone for contact with other
monitors or work crews. Observers will
implement shut-down or delay
procedures when applicable by calling
for the shut-down to the hammer
operator.
• A GPS unit or electric range finder
will be used for determining the
observation location and distance to
pinnipeds, boats, and construction
equipment.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Monitoring will be conducted by
qualified observers. In order to be
considered qualified, observers must
meet the following criteria:
• Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target. Advanced education
in biological science, wildlife
management, mammalogy, or related
fields (bachelor’s degree or higher is
required).
• Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (this
may include academic experience).
• Experience or training in the field
identification of pinnipeds, including
the identification of behaviors.
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the construction
operation to provide for personal safety
during observations.
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
pinnipeds observed; dates and times
when in-water construction activities
were conducted; dates and times when
in-water construction activities were
suspended to avoid potential incidental
injury from construction sound of
pinnipeds observed within a defined
shutdown zone; and pinniped behavior.
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with project
personnel to provide real-time
information on pinnipeds observed in
the area as necessary.
Other Mitigation and Best Management
Practices
In addition, NOAA Fisheries and
POK, together with other relevant
regulatory agencies, have developed a
number of mitigation measures designed
to protect fish through prevention or
minimization of turbidity and
disturbance and introduction of
contaminants, among other things.
These measures have been prescribed
under the authority of statutes other
than the MMPA, and are not a part of
this proposed rulemaking. However,
because these measures minimize
impacts to pinniped prey species (either
directly or indirectly, by minimizing
impacts to prey species’ habitat), they
are summarized briefly here. Additional
detail about these measures may be
found in POK’s application. Timing
restrictions will be used to avoid inwater work when ESA-listed fish are
most likely to be present.
POK will work to ensure minimum
degradation of water quality in the
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
project area, and requires compliance
with Surface Water Quality Standards
for Washington. In addition, the
contractor will prepare a Spill
Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to
beginning construction. The SPCC Plan
will identify the appropriate spill
containment materials; as well as the
method of implementation. All
equipment to be used for construction
activities will be cleaned and inspected
prior to arriving at the project site, to
ensure no potentially hazardous
materials are exposed, no leaks are
present, and the equipment is
functioning properly. Equipment that
will be used below OHW will be
identified; daily inspection and cleanup
procedures will insure that identified
equipment is free of all external
petroleum-based products. Should a
leak be detected on heavy equipment
used for the project, the equipment must
be immediately removed from the area
and not used again until adequately
repaired.
The contractor will also be required to
prepare and implement a Temporary
Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)
Plan and a Source Control Plan for
project activities requiring clearing,
vegetation removal, grading, ditching,
filling, embankment compaction, or
excavation. The BMPs in the plans
would be used to control sediments
from all vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities.
Conclusions for Effectiveness of
Mitigation
NOAA Fisheries has carefully
evaluated the applicant’s proposed
mitigation measures and considered a
range of other measures in the context
of ensuring that NOAA Fisheries
prescribes the means of affecting the
least practicable adverse 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.
While the Level A harassment zone
for impact hammering of steel piers
would be fairly large (252 m), we feel
confident that all Level A zones would
be able to be monitored to effectively
implement shut down procedures to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
avoid Level A takes for the following
reasons:
• The applicant has past experience
with monitoring much larger areas from
previous projects in other areas on the
same river;
• The largest Level A harassment
zone (252 m) is associated with impact
hammering of steel piers; however, steel
piers are anticipated to be driven with
a vibratory hammer and impact
hammering is only included as a
precaution in the event that vibratory
hammering is unable to be completed.
Therefore, if impact hammering of steel
piers were to be conducted, it would be
for a very short duration and on a very
few occasions. Additionally, if impact
hammering of steel piers were to be
conducted, bubble curtains would be
utilized to attenuate sound and reduce
the Level A harassment zone;
• Level A harassment zones
associated with impact hammering of
concrete piers and vibratory hammering
of steel piers (40 m and 16.5 m,
respectively) would be easily monitored
for shut down procedures/avoidance of
Level A takes;
• Even without the use of bubble
curtains, the Level A harassment zone
for impact hammering of steel piers
would encompass approximately half of
the width of the river in the action area,
which allows for approximately half of
the width of the river in the action area
for marine mammals to avoid the Level
A harassment zone, which we would
expect them to do;
• Other mitigation measures (e.g.,
monitoring prior to starting, or
restarting, construction activities and
the use of soft-start procedures for
impact pile driving) would ensure that
marine mammals are able to avoid
injury; therefore, only temporary shortterm Level B harassment of marine
mammals is anticipated.
Based on our evaluation, NOAA
Fisheries has determined that the
mitigation measures proposed from both
NOAA Fisheries and POK provide the
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Reporting
Discussion of reporting requirements
were unintentionally omitted from the
Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA. Therefore, the following sections
on reporting requirements include
language that was not part of the
proposed IHA notification, but
represents standard reporting
requirements for NMFS IHAs.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89441
In order to issue an incidental take
authorization (ITA) for an activity,
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states
that NOAA Fisheries 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 would
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.
POK will submit a draft summary
report of marine mammal observations
and construction activities to the NMFS
West Coast Regional Office and the
Headquarters Office of Protected
Resources 90 days after expiration of the
current Authorization. A final report
must be submitted to NMFS within 30
days after receiving comments from
NMFS on the draft report. If no
comments are received from NMFS
within 30 days after submittal of the
draft report, the draft report would be
considered the final report. This report
will summarize the information
gathered pursuant to the monitoring
requirements set forth in the IHA,
including dates and times of operations
and all marine mammal sightings (dates,
times, locations, species, behavior
observations [activity, and any changes
in activity observed including causes if
known], associated construction
activities, and weather conditions.
While the IHA does not authorize
injury (i.e., Level A harassment), serious
injury, or mortality, should anyone
associated with the project observe an
injured or dead marine mammal, the
incident (regardless of cause) will be
reported to NMFS as soon as
practicable. The report should include
species or description of the animal,
condition of the animal, location, time
first found, observed behaviors (if alive)
and photo or video footage, if available.
Reporting Prohibited Take
In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take
of a marine mammal in a manner
prohibited in this IHA, such as an injury
(Level A harassment), serious injury, or
mortality, POK shall immediately cease
the specified activity and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at
301–427–8401 and/or by email to
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov. The report
must contain the following information:
(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
89442
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at
301–427–8401, and/or by email to
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov, and the NMFS
West Coast Regional Office and/or the
West Coast Regional Stranding
Coordinator at (206) 526–6550. The
report must include the same
information identified above. Activities
may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
will work with POK to determine
whether modification of the
construction activities is appropriate.
longitude) of the incident; (ii) The type
of activity involved; (iii) Description of
the circumstances during and leading
up to the incident; (iv) Description of
marine mammal observations (including
species identification/descriptions of
animal(s) involved) and construction
activities/status of all sound sources
used in the 24 hours preceding the
incident; (v) The fate of the animal(s),
and photographic or video footage of the
animal, if available.
Activities shall not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
NMFS shall work with POK to
determine the action necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. POK may not resume its
activities until notified by NMFS via
letter, email, or telephone.
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine
Mammal Not Related to Construction
Activities
In the event that POK discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal and it
is determined that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the
activities authorized in this IHA (e.g.,
previously wounded animal, carcass
with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
POK shall report the incident to the
Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, at 301–427–8401, and/or by
email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov, and
the NMFS West Coast Regional Office
and/or the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator at (206) 526–
6550 within 24 hours of the discovery.
POK shall provide photographs or video
footage, if available, or other
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine
Mammal With an Unknown Cause of
Injury/Death
In the event that POK discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal during
its in-water construction activities in
this IHA, and the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and/or the death is
relatively recent (i.e., in less than a
moderate state of decomposition as
described below), POK will immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division,
documentation of the stranded animal
sighting to NMFS. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident.
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]. Take by Level B
harassment only is anticipated as a
result of POK’s proposed project. Take
of marine mammals is anticipated to be
associated with the installation of piles
via impact and vibratory methods
(including installation and removal of
temporary piles). The following
activities are not anticipated to result in
takes of marine mammals: Dredging;
Removal of 157 wood piles from a
former trestle in the freshwater
intertidal backwater area; and ELJ
construction. No take by injury, serious
injury, or death is anticipated, nor is
any such take authorized.
TABLE 5—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA
Non-explosive sound criterion
Criterion definition
Level A Harassment (Injury) ...................
Level B Harassment ...............................
Level B Harassment ...............................
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) .........................................
Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) ............................
Behavioral Disruption (for continuous, noise) .......................
habitat (Figure 1). Because there are no
haul outs, feeding areas, or other
important habitat areas for marine
mammals in the action area, it is
anticipated that take exposures will
result primarily from animals transiting
from downstream areas to upstream
feeding areas.
Assumptions regarding numbers of
pinnipeds and number of round trips
per individual per year in the Region of
Activity are based on information from
ongoing pinniped research and
The area of potential Level B
harassment varies with the activity
being conducted. For impact pile
driving that will be used for the
concrete piles, the area of potential
harassment extends 117m from the pile
driving activity. For vibratory pile
driving associated with the installation
of steel pipe piles, the zone of potential
harassment extends in a line of sight
from the pile driving activities to the
nearest shoreline, covering an area of
approximately 1800 acres of riverine
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Threshold
see Table 3 above.
160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms).
120 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms).
management activities conducted in
response to concern over California sea
lion predation on fish populations
concentrated below Bonneville Dam. An
intensive monitoring program has been
conducted in the Bonneville Dam
tailrace since 2002, using surface
observations to evaluate seasonal
presence, abundance, and predation
activities of pinnipeds. Minimum
estimates of the number of pinnipeds
present in the tailrace from 2002
through 2014 are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 3—MINIMUM ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF PINNIPEDS PRESENT AT BONNEVILLE DAM ON AN ANNUAL BASIS
FROM 2002 THROUGH 2013
[Stansell et al., 2013]
Species
2002
Harbor seals ......................................................
California sea lions ............................................
Steller sea lions .................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
1
30
0
PO 00000
2003
2004
2
104
3
Frm 00018
2005
2006
2
99
3
1
81
4
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2007
3
72
11
2
71
9
2008
2
82
39
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
2009
2
54
26
12DEN1
2010
2
89
75
2011
1
54
89
2012
0
39
73
2013
0
56
80
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
Harbor Seals
There is no documented breeding or
pupping activity in the action area
(Jeffries 1985), and only adult males and
females are anticipated to be present in
the action area. There is no current data
estimating abundance of harbor seals
either locally or for the OregonWashington coastal stock (Carretta et al.,
2014). In this case, we must rely on
estimates provided in the application
that are believed to provide a
conservative estimate of the number of
harbor seals potentially affected by the
proposed action. The conservative
estimate of harbor seals likely to be
present in the action area when
construction activities are occurring is
up to 10 animals per day based on local
anecdotal reports (lacking local
observational data), with the animals
primarily transiting between the mouth
of the Columbia River and the Cowlitz
or Kalama Rivers. Because harbor seals
occur in the action area throughout the
year, and in-water construction
activities are expected to take up to 153
days, it is possible that harbor seals
could be exposed above the Level B
harassment threshold up to 1,530 times,
although some of these exposures would
likely be exposures of the same
individual across multiple days so the
number of individual harbor seals taken
is likely lower. We believe that this
estimate is doubly conservative, because
the majority of pile driving work will be
impact pile driving of concrete piles.
Impact pile driving of concrete piles has
a much smaller area of potential
harassment (a radius of 117m from pile
driving) than vibratory pile driving, and
this area covers only approximately
1/6th of the channel width of the
Columbia River, indicating a large
portion of the river will be passable by
pinnipeds without experiencing take in
the form of harassment during most pile
driving activities.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
California Sea Lions
California sea lions are the most
frequently observed pinnipeds upstream
of the project site. California sea lions
do not breed or bear their young near
the Columbia River watershed, with the
nearest breeding grounds off the coast of
southern California (Caretta et al., 2014).
There are no documented haulouts
within the action area, so the only
California sea lions expected to be
present in the action area are adult
males and females traveling to and from
dams upstream of the project location.
Historically (prior to 2008), California
sea lions were the most frequently
observed pinniped species at Bonneville
Dam (Stansell et al., 2013). However,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
between 2008 and 2014, the number of
California sea lions observed at the dam
declined. Then, in 2015, an estimated
190 individually branded California sea
lions were recorded, which was in
contrast to the 56 unique individuals
identified in 2013. Typically the run
time for California sea lions has begun
later in the year than the run for Steller
sea lions. The first California sea lion
observed at the dam in 2015 was
observed on February 9. For this reason,
the bulk of the California sea lion run
would be expected to occur outside of
the pile driving window. However, a
number of factors could cause the run
to appear earlier or later. In addition,
any estimate of anticipated run size
must take into account the increased
California sea lion presence at the dam
in 2015. For this reason, to make a
conservative assessment, the anticipated
take estimate is based on the average
daily abundance of up to 12 pinnipeds
per day reported at the dam in 2015.
Using this number, it is estimated that
up to 372 California sea lions could be
exposed to Level B harassment in the
2016–2017 work window. However, this
is a very conservative estimate and the
actual number could be less.
Additionally, the majority of pile
driving work will be impact pile driving
of concrete piles. Impact pile driving of
concrete piles has a much smaller area
of potential harassment (a radius of
117m from pile driving) than vibratory
pile driving, and this area covers only
approximately 1/6th of the channel
width of the Columbia River, indicating
a large portion of the river will be
passable by pinnipeds without
experiencing take in the form of
harassment during most pile driving
activities. Thus we would expect that
less than 1⁄3 of the transits would occur
during the project’s in-water work
window based on avoiding peak transit
periods, and that some proportion of
those transits would occur in unaffected
areas of the Columbia River during
impact pile driving activities.
Steller Sea Lions
Steller sea lions do not breed or bear
their young near the Columbia River
watershed, with the nearest breeding
grounds on the marine coast of Oregon
(Stansell et al., 2013). There are no
documented haulouts within the action
area, so the only Steller sea lions
expected to be present in the action area
are adult males and females traveling to
and from dams upstream of the project
location.
Prior to 2002, Steller sea lions were
sighted infrequently at Bonneville Dam,
with fewer than 10 individuals recorded
in most years. However, since 2008, the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
89443
number of Steller sea lions documented
at the dam has increased steadily. In
2010, 75 individual Steller sea lions
were identified, at an average rate of less
than 12.6 individuals per day (between
January 1 and May 31). In 2015 an
average of 12 pinnipeds were observed
at the dam per day in January (van der
Leeuw, 2015). While no specific data
exists regarding the number of trips up
and down the river each individual sea
lion makes, it is assumed that on
average each individual makes one
round trip during the spring migration.
All pile driving will occur between
September 1, 2016 and January 31,
2017, which will avoid the April and
May peak of the run. Steller sea lion
presence at the dam in January and
February represents approximately one
third of the total run in a given year
(Stansell et al., 2013). Using these
numbers, it has been estimated that up
to 12 individual Steller sea lions per day
could be exposed to Level B harassment.
This represents up to 372 individual
takes of Steller sea lions in the 2016–
2017 work window. However, this is a
conservative estimate, and the actual
number of takes could be less.
Additionally, the majority of pile
driving work will be impact pile driving
of concrete piles. Impact pile driving of
concrete piles has a much smaller area
of potential harassment (a radius of
117m from pile driving) than vibratory
pile driving, and this area covers only
approximately 1/6th of the channel
width of the Columbia River, indicating
a large portion of the river will be
passable by pinnipeds without
experiencing take in the form of
harassment during most pile driving
activities. Thus we would expect that
less than 1⁄3 of the transits would occur
during the project’s in-water work
window based on avoiding peak transit
periods, and that some proportion of
those transits would occur in unaffected
areas of the Columbia River during
impact pile driving activities.
Analysis and 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. populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes, alone, is not enough
information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
89444
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’,
NOAA Fisheries 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,
migration, etc.), as well as the number
and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of
estimated mortalities, and the status of
the species. To avoid repetition, the
discussion of our analyses applies to all
three species of pinnipeds (harbor seals,
California sea lions, and Steller sea
lions), given that the anticipated effects
of this project on these species are
expected to be relatively similar in
nature. There is no information about
the nature or severity of the impacts, or
the size, status, or structure of any
species or stock that would lead to a
different analysis for any species, else
species-specific factors would be
identified and analyzed.
Incidental take, in the form of Level
B harassment only, is likely to occur
primarily as a result of pinniped
exposure to elevated levels of sound
caused by impact and vibratory
installation and removal of pipe and
sheet pile and steel casings. No take by
injury, serious injury, or death is
anticipated and is not authorized. By
incorporating the proposed mitigation
measures, including pinniped
monitoring and shut-down procedures
described previously, harassment to
individual pinnipeds from the proposed
activities is expected to be limited to
temporary behavioral impacts. POK
assumes that all individuals travelling
past the project area would be exposed
each time they pass the area and that all
exposures would cause disturbance.
NOAA Fisheries agrees that this
represents a worst-case scenario and is
therefore sufficiently precautionary.
There are no pinniped haul-outs or
rookeries located within or near the
Region of Activity.
The shutdown zone monitoring
proposed as mitigation, and the small
size of the zones in which injury may
occur, makes any potential injury of
pinnipeds extremely unlikely, and
therefore discountable. Because
pinniped exposures would be limited to
the period they are transiting the
disturbance zone, with potential repeat
exposures (on return to the mouth of the
Columbia River) separated by days to
weeks, the probability of experiencing
TTS is also considered unlikely.
In addition, it is unlikely that
pinnipeds exposed to elevated sound
levels would temporarily avoid
traveling through the affected area, as
they are highly motivated to travel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
through the action area in pursuit of
foraging opportunities upriver. Sea lions
have shown increasing habituation in
recent years to various hazing
techniques used to deter the animals
from foraging in the Bonneville tailrace
area, including acoustic deterrent
devices, boat chasing, and above-water
pyrotechnics (Stansell et al., 2013).
Many of the individuals that travel to
the tailrace area return in subsequent
years (Stansell et al., 2013). Therefore,
it is likely that pinnipeds would
continue to pass through the action area
even when sound levels are above
disturbance thresholds.
Although pinnipeds are unlikely to be
deterred from passing through the area,
even temporarily, they may respond to
the underwater sound by passing
through the area more quickly, or they
may experience stress as they pass
through the area. Sea lions already move
quickly through the lower river on their
way to foraging grounds below
Bonneville Dam (transit speeds of 4.6
km/hr in the upstream direction and 8.8
km/hr in the downstream direction
(Brown et al., 2010). Any increase in
transit speed is therefore likely to be
slight. Another possible effect is that the
underwater sound would evoke a stress
response in the exposed individuals,
regardless of transit speed. However, the
period of time during which an
individual would be exposed to sound
levels that might cause stress is short
given their likely speed of travel
through the affected areas. In addition,
there would be few repeat exposures for
individual animals. Thus, it is unlikely
that the potential increased stress would
have a significant effect on individuals
or any effect on the population as a
whole.
Therefore, NOAA Fisheries finds it
unlikely that the amount of anticipated
disturbance would significantly change
pinnipeds’ use of the lower Columbia
River or significantly change the amount
of time they would otherwise spend in
the foraging areas below Bonneville
Dam. Pinniped usage of the Bonneville
Dam foraging area, which results in
transit of the action area, is a relatively
recent learned behavior resulting from
human modification (i.e. fish
accumulation at the base of the dam).
Even in the unanticipated event that
either change was significant and
animals were displaced from foraging
areas in the lower Columbia River, there
are alternative foraging areas available
to the affected individuals. NOAA
Fisheries does not anticipate any effects
on haul-out behavior because there are
no proximate haul-outs within the areas
affected by elevated sound levels. All
other effects of the proposed action are
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at most expected to have a discountable
or insignificant effect on pinnipeds,
including an insignificant reduction in
the quantity and quality of prey
otherwise available.
Any adverse effects to prey species
would occur on a temporary basis
during project construction. Given the
large numbers of fish in the Columbia
River, the short-term nature of effects to
fish populations, and extensive BMPs
and minimization measures to protect
fish during construction, as well as
conservation and habitat mitigation
measures that would continue into the
future, the project is not expected to
have significant effects on the
distribution or abundance of potential
prey species in the long term. Therefore,
these temporary impacts are expected to
have a negligible impact on habitat for
pinniped prey species.
A detailed description of potential
impacts to individual pinnipeds was
provided previously in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (81
FR 15064, March 21, 2016). The
following sections put into context what
those effects mean to the respective
populations or stocks of each of the
pinniped species potentially affected.
Harbor Seal
The Oregon/Washington coastal stock
of harbor seals consisted of about 24,732
animals in 1999 (Carretta et al., 2014).
As described previously, both the
Washington and Oregon portions of this
stock have reached carrying capacity
and are no longer increasing, and the
stock is believed to be within its
optimum sustained population level
(Jeffries et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2005).
The estimated take of up to 1,530
individuals (though likely somewhat
fewer, as the estimate really indicates
instances of take and some individuals
are likely taken more than once across
the 153-day period) by Level B
harassment is small relative to a stable
population of approximately 24.732 (6.2
percent), and is not expected to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival
of the stock.
California Sea Lion
The U.S. stock of California sea lions
had a minimum estimated population of
153,337 in the 2013 Stock Assessment
Report (Carretta et al., 2014). The
estimated take of 372 individuals by
Level B harassment is small relative to
a population of approximately 153,337
(0.2 percent), and is not expected to
impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of the stock.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
Steller Sea Lion
The total population of the eastern
DPS of Steller sea lions had a minimum
estimated population of 59,968 animals
with an overall annual rate of increase
of 4 percent throughout most of the
range (Oregon to southeastern Alaska)
since the 1970s (Allen and Angliss,
2015). In 2006, the NOAA Fisheries
Steller sea lion recovery team proposed
removal of the eastern stock from listing
under the ESA based on its annual rate
of increase, and the population was
delisted in 2013 (though still considered
depleted under the MMPA). The total
estimated take of 372 individuals per
year is small compared to a population
of approximately 59,968 (0.6 percent)
and is not expected to impact annual
rates of recruitment or survival of the
stock.
Summary
The anticipated behavioral
harassment is not expected to impact
recruitment or survival of the any
affected pinniped species. The Level B
harassment experienced is expected to
be of short duration, with 1–2 exposures
per individual separated by days to
weeks, with each exposure resulting in
minimal behavioral effects (increased
transit speed or avoidance). For all
species, because the type of incidental
harassment is not expected to actually
remove individuals from the population
or decrease significantly their ability to
feed or breed, this amount of incidental
harassment is anticipated to have a
negligible impact on the stock.
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,
NOAA Fisheries finds that POK’s
proposed activities would have a
negligible impact on the affected species
or stocks.
89445
Small Numbers
Using the estimated take described
previously, the species with the greatest
proportion of affected population is
harbor seals (Table 5), with an estimated
6.2% of the population potentially
experiencing take from the proposed
action. California sea lions population
will experience 0.2% exposure, and
Steller sea lions an approximate
exposure rate of 0.6%. 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, NOAA Fisheries
finds that small numbers of marine
mammals will be taken relative to the
populations of the affected species or
stocks.
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED TAKE TO BE AUTHORIZED AND PROPORTION OF POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Estimated take
by Level B
harassment
Abundance of
stock
1,530
372
372
24,732
153,337
59,968
Harbor Seal ...................................................
California Sea Lion .......................................
Steller Sea Lion ............................................
Percentage of
stock potentially
affected
6.2
0.2
0.6
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
section 7 consultation under the ESA is
not required.
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals implicated by this
action. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NOAA Fisheries prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
considered comments submitted in
response to this notice as part of that
process. NMFS prepared and signed a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) determining that preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement was
not required. The FONSI was signed on
October 24, 2016, prior to the issuance
of the IHA for POK’s construction
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
No species of marine mammal listed
under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore,
NOAA Fisheries has determined that a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Population trend
Stable/Carrying Capacity.
Stable.
Increasing.
activities. The EA and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) have been
posted at the foregoing internet site.
Authorization
NOAA Fisheries has issued an IHA to
Port of Kalama for constructing the
Kalama Marine Manufacturing and
Export Facility on the Columbia River
during the 2016–2017 in-water work
season, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: December 7, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
89446
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Notices
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Dec 09, 2016
Jkt 241001
Written comments must be
submitted on or before February 10,
2017.
DATES:
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; West Coast Region
Vessel Monitoring System and Pre-Trip
Reporting Requirements
Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Shannon Penna, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), West
Coast Region (WCR) Long Beach Office,
501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long
Beach, CA 90802, (562) 980–4238 or
Shannon.Penna@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This request is for revision and
extension of a current information
collection. The title will change from
West Coast Region Longline Monitoring
System and Pre-Trip Reporting
Requirements to West Coast Region
Vessel Monitoring System and Pre-trip
Reporting Requirements. In addition,
this collection will merge OMB Control
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
EN12DE16.028
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
[FR Doc. 2016–29748 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am]
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89436-89446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29748]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE395
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Port of Kalama Expansion Project on
the Lower Columbia River
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Port of
Kalama (POK) for an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by
Level B harassment, incidental to in-water construction activities
associated with the Port of Kalama Expansion Project.
DATES: Effective September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the final Authorization, POK's
application and the environmental assessment (EA) may be obtained by
writing to the address specified below, telephoning the contact listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet
at: https://www.NOAA Fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html.
Documents cited in this notice may also be
[[Page 89437]]
requested by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected
Resources, NOAA Fisheries, (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.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NOAA
Fisheries finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the
species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NOAA Fisheries 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 September 28, 2015, NOAA Fisheries received an application from
the Port of Kalama (POK) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to
the construction of a new pier. On December 10, 2015, a final revised
version of the application was submitted and NOAA Fisheries determined
that the application was adequate and complete. NMFS published a notice
making preliminary determinations and proposing an IHA on March 21,
2016 (81 FR 15064). The notice initiated a 30-day comment period. At
the end of the 30-day comment period, POK notified NMFS that work would
be postponed until the 2017 season. NMFS reviewed the initial
application and EA and has determined that there are no substantial
changes to the specified activities that would require reinitiating the
process.
The POK proposes to construct the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and
Export Facility, including a new marine terminal and dredging of a
berth extension, for the export of methanol. The proposed action also
includes the installation of engineered log jams, restoration of
riparian wetlands, and the removal of existing wood piles in a side
channel as mitigation activities. The proposed activity is expected to
occur during the 2017-2018 in-water work season for ESA listed fish
species (September 1 through January 31). This IHA covers from
September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018, to allow for adjustments to the
schedule in-water work based on logistics, weather, and contractor
needs. It is possible that the work would require a second season, at
which time the applicant will seek another IHA covering the second
season. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are
likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Impact pile driving and
vibratory pile driving. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of
individuals of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lions
(Eumetopias jubatus), and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus)
is anticipated to result from the specified activity.
Description of the Specified Activity
A detailed description of the project construction activities is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR
15064, March 21, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to
the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to the referenced Federal Register notice
for the description of the specific activity.
Comments and Responses
A notice of preliminary determinations and proposed IHA for POK's
in-water construction activities was published in the Federal Register
on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 15064). During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission). The comments are posted online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.html. Following
are the substantive comments and NMFS's responses:
Comment 1: The Commission concurs with NMFS's preliminary findings
and recommends that NMFS issue the requested IHA, subject to inclusion
of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has
issued the IHA to the Port of Kalama.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
Marine mammal species that have been observed within the region of
activity consist of the harbor seal, California sea lion, and Steller
sea lion. Pinnipeds follow prey species into freshwater up to,
primarily, the Bonneville Dam (RM 146) in the Columbia River, but also
to Willamette Falls in the Willamette River (RM 26). None of the
species of marine mammal that occur in the project area are listed
under the ESA or is considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA.
See Table 1, below.
Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Addressed in This IHA Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------- ESA listing status Stock
Common name Scientific name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal................... Phoca vitulina; ssp. Not Listed............ OR/WA Coast Stock.
richardsi.
California Sea Lion........... Zalophus californianus Not Listed............ US Stock.
Steller Sea Lion.............. Eumatopius jubatus.... Not Listed............ Eastern DPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 89438]]
The sea lion species use this portion of the river primarily for
transiting to and from Bonneville Dam, which concentrates adult
salmonids and sturgeon returning to natal streams, providing for
increased foraging efficiency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
has conducted surface observations to evaluate the seasonal presence,
abundance, and predation activities of pinnipeds in the Bonneville Dam
tailrace each year since 2002. This monitoring program was initiated in
response to concerns over the potential impact of pinniped predation on
adult salmonids passing Bonneville Dam in the spring. An active sea
lion hazing, trapping, and permanent removal program was in place below
the dam from 2008 through 2013.
Pinnipeds remain in upstream locations for a couple of days or
longer, feeding heavily on salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, although
the occurrence of harbor seals near Bonneville Dam is much lower than
sea lions (Stansell et al., 2013). Sea lions congregate at Bonneville
Dam during the peaks of salmon return, from March through May each
year, and a few California sea lions have been observed feeding on
salmonids in the area below Willamette Falls during the spring adult
fish migration.
There are no pinniped haul-out sites in the area of potential
effects from the proposed project. The nearest haul-out sites, shared
by harbor seals and California sea lions, are near the Cowlitz River/
Carroll Slough confluence with the Columbia River, approximately 3.5
miles downriver from the proposed project (Jeffries et al., 2000). The
nearest known haul-out for Steller sea lions is a rock formation (Phoca
Rock) near RM 132 and the jetty (RM 0) near the mouth of the Columbia
River. There are no pinniped rookeries located in or near the region of
activity.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
project's in-water construction activities were provided in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016).
Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these
species/stocks. Therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here.
Please refer to the referenced Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
In-water construction activities associated with the POK project
such as impact and vibratory pile driving components of the specified
activity have the potential to result in impacts to marine mammals and
their habitat in the project area. The Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016) included a detailed
discussion of the behavioral and acoustic effects on marine mammals.
Therefore, that information is not repeated here. Please refer to the
referenced Federal Register notice for that information. No take by
injury, serious injury, or death is anticipated as a result of the
construction activities.
Mitigation Measures
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must prescribe, where
applicable, 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).
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting
auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In
the Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach
it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need
to consider this new best available science with the fact that some
applicants have already committed time and resources to the development
of analyses based on our previous guidance and have constraints that
preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as where the
action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we
included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most
appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: The
scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed;
when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the
analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is expected to affect
our analysis.
In this case, POK submitted an adequate and complete application in
a timely manner and indicated that they would need to receive an IHA
(if issued) by September 1, 2016. After the close of the public comment
period for the Proposed IHA, POK informed NMFS that they would postpone
construction activities until September, 2017. Therefore, although the
action had substantially progressed through the decision-making
pipeline, there was enough time to allow for re-evaluation under the
new Guidance prior to when the IHA was needed. POK's original analysis
considered the potential for Level A take (auditory injury (PTS)), but
ultimately concluded that no Level A takes would occur due to
mitigation monitoring and the implementation of shut down procedures if
any marine mammals entered or approached the Level A harassment zone.
POK utilized the alternative methodology provided by NMFS in the new
Guidance to evaluate how it may affect the analysis. Based on the new
Guidance, likely injury zones would increase in size for the two
hearing groups that may be present in the project area. POK provided
NMFS with an updated Monitoring Plan (available online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.html), which
increased the mitigation monitoring thresholds to avoid Level A
harassment. More detail on the previously identified and updated
mitigation monitoring zones is provided below.
Mitigation Monitoring
Initial monitoring zones were based on a practical spreading loss
model and data found in Illingworth and Rodkin (2007). A minimum
distance of 10 m was used for all shutdown zones, even if actual or
initial calculated distances are less. A maximum distance of in-water
line of sight is used for all disturbance zones for vibratory pile
driving, even if actual or calculated values are greater. To provide
the best estimate of transmission loss at a specific range, the data
were estimated using a practical spreading loss model.
[[Page 89439]]
Table 2--Distance to Initial Shutdown and Disturbance Monitoring Zones for In-water Sound in the Columbia River
From Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to monitoring zones (m) \1\
Pile type Hammer type ------------------------------------------------------------------
190 dB \2\ 160 dB \2\ 120 dB \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24in Concrete pile.......... Impact......... 10 117 N/A.
18in Steel pipe pile........ Vibratory...... 10 N/A Line of Sight, (max 5.7km).
18in Steel pipe pile........ Impact......... 18 1,848 NA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Monitoring zones based on a practical spreading loss model and data from Illingworth and Rodkin (2007). A
minimum distance of 10 m is used for all shutdown zones, even if actual or initial calculated distances are
less.
\2\ All values unweighted and relative to 1 [micro]Pa.
Among other changes, the new Guidance established a dual metric for
analysis: A peak (PK) sound pressure level (SPL) for impulsive sounds
(e.g., impact pile driving) and a cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) for both impulsive and non-impulsive (e.g.,
vibratory pile driving). Table 3 provides a summary of the thresholds
established in the new Guidance for phocids and otariids (pinnipeds),
which are anticipated to be located in the action area. As shown in
Table 3, the thresholds established for phocids are lower than those
established for otariids, so the updated analysis was based on the
phocid pinniped thresholds.
Table 3--New Acoustic Thresholds
[From NMFS 2016]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acoustic thresholds (received levels)
-----------------------------------------
Hearing group Non-impulsive
Impulsive sounds sounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid pinnipeds (underwater). Lpk, flat: 218 dB; LEPW, 24hr: 201
LEPW, 24hr: 185 dB. dB.
Otariid pinnipeds (underwater) Lpk, flat: 232 dB; LEOW, 24hr: 219
LEOW, 24hr: 203 dB. dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1
[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
weighting function (PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended
accumulation period is 24 hours (NMFS 2016).
The new guidance does not affect the thresholds for behavioral
disturbance (Level B harassment), and would not affect the extent of
Level B harassment requested by POK. Therefore, the analysis of Level B
harassment in the original application and Proposed Rule remains valid
and is not discussed further. In addition, the peak sound pressure
thresholds (218 dB for phocids and 232 dB for otariids) would not be
exceeded during any project activities. The greatest single strike peak
sound pressure levels would be generated during impact installation of
steel piles and these sound levels would not exceed 207 dB (CALTRANS
2012). As noted in POK's application and Proposed Rule, it is
anticipated that all steel piles will be driven with a vibratory
hammer, and that it will not be necessary to impact drive or impact
proof any of the steel piles. However, impact driving of steel piles is
analyzed as a precaution in the event that this is required. As peak
sound pressure thresholds would not be exceeded for either phocids or
otariids, there is no further discussion of peak sound pressure levels.
Distances for which the Level A (PTS) threshold for cumulative
sound pressure exposure could be exceeded are provided in Table 4,
below.
Table 4--New Level A Isopleths (Distances) Using NMFS New Technical
Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A (PTS) Isopleth
Activity threshold (distance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact-driving concrete piles... 185 dB SELcum..... 40 m (131 ft).
Impact-driving steel piles...... 185 dB SELcum..... 252 m (828 ft).
Vibratory-driving steel piles... 201 dB SELcum..... 16.5 m (54 ft).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POK has updated the marine mammal monitoring plan to revise the
Level A injury protection zone to fully cover the Level A isopleths for
potential injury from cumulative sound pressure exposure, as
established under the new Guidance. This modification to the monitoring
plan would ensure that Level A takes of marine mammals would be avoided
in a similar manner as presented in the Proposed Rule (i.e., shut down
procedures would be implemented if any marine mammals approach or enter
the Level A harassment zone). Therefore, our analysis remains the same
as presented in the Proposed Rule.
In order to accomplish appropriate monitoring for mitigation
purposes, POK will have an observer stationed on each active impact
pile driving location to closely monitor the shutdown zone as well as
the surrounding area. In
[[Page 89440]]
addition, POK will post two shore-based observers (one upstream of the
project, and another downstream of the project area; see application),
whose primary responsibility would be to record pinnipeds in the
disturbance zone and to alert barge-based observers to the presence of
pinnipeds in the disturbance zone, thus creating a redundant alert
system for prevention of injurious interaction as well as increasing
the probability of detecting pinnipeds in the disturbance zone. POK
estimates that shore-based observers would be able to scan
approximately 800 m (upstream and downstream) from the available
observation posts; therefore, shore-based observers would be capable of
monitoring the agreed-upon disturbance zone.
As described, at least three observers will be on duty during pile
vibratory driving activity for the first two days, and thereafter on
every third day to allow for estimation of Level B takes. The first
observer will be positioned on a work platform or barge where the
entire 10 m shutdown zone is clearly visible, with the shore-based
observers positioned to observe the disturbance zone from the bank of
the river. Protocols will be implemented to ensure that coordinated
communication of sightings occurs between observers in a timely manner.
In summary:
POK will implement shutdown zones around all pile driving
that encompasses the Level A harassment zones as defined in Table 4,
above to avoid Level A take of marine mammals. These shutdown zones
provides a buffer for the Level A harassment threshold but would also
further avoid the risk of direct interaction between marine mammals and
the equipment.
POK will have a redundant monitoring system, in which one
observer would be stationed at the area of active pile driving, while
two observers would be shore-based, as required to provide complete
observational coverage of the reduced disturbance zone for each pile
driving site. The former will be capable of providing comprehensive
monitoring of the proposed shutdown zones. This observer's first
priority will be shutdown zone monitoring in prevention of injurious
interaction, with a secondary priority of counting takes by Level B
harassment in the disturbance zone. The additional shore-based
observers will be able to monitor the same distances, but their primary
responsibility will be counting of takes in the disturbance zone and
communication with barge-based observers to alert them to pinniped
presence in the action area.
The shutdown and disturbance zones will be monitored
throughout the time required to drive a pile. If a marine mammal is
observed within the disturbance zone, a take will be recorded and
behaviors documented. However, that pile segment will be completed
without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown
zone, at which point all pile driving activities will be halted.
Soft start procedures shall be implemented at the start of
each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of
impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft
start procedures require that the contractor provides an initial set of
three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting
period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets.
If steel piles require impact installation or proofing, a
bubble curtain will be used for sound attenuation
The following measures will apply to visual monitoring:
If the shutdown zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting
conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the entire
shutdown zone is visible. Work that has been initiated appropriately in
conditions of good visibility may continue during poor visibility.
The shutdown zone will be monitored for the presence of
pinnipeds before, during, and after any pile driving activity. The
shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes prior to initiating the
start of pile driving, during the activity, and for 30 minutes after
activities have ceased. If pinnipeds are present within the shutdown
zone prior to pile driving, the start of pile driving will be delayed
until the animals leave the shutdown zone of their own volition, or
until 15 minutes elapse without re-sighting the animal(s).
Monitoring will be conducted using binoculars. When
possible, digital video or still cameras will also be used to document
the behavior and response of pinnipeds to construction activities or
other disturbances.
Each observer will have a radio or cell phone for contact
with other monitors or work crews. Observers will implement shut-down
or delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shut-down to the
hammer operator.
A GPS unit or electric range finder will be used for
determining the observation location and distance to pinnipeds, boats,
and construction equipment.
Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers. In order to be
considered qualified, observers must meet the following criteria:
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target. Advanced education
in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy, or related
fields (bachelor's degree or higher is required).
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic
experience).
Experience or training in the field identification of
pinnipeds, including the identification of behaviors.
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
construction operation to provide for personal safety during
observations.
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
pinnipeds observed; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
construction sound of pinnipeds observed within a defined shutdown
zone; and pinniped behavior.
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
project personnel to provide real-time information on pinnipeds
observed in the area as necessary.
Other Mitigation and Best Management Practices
In addition, NOAA Fisheries and POK, together with other relevant
regulatory agencies, have developed a number of mitigation measures
designed to protect fish through prevention or minimization of
turbidity and disturbance and introduction of contaminants, among other
things. These measures have been prescribed under the authority of
statutes other than the MMPA, and are not a part of this proposed
rulemaking. However, because these measures minimize impacts to
pinniped prey species (either directly or indirectly, by minimizing
impacts to prey species' habitat), they are summarized briefly here.
Additional detail about these measures may be found in POK's
application. Timing restrictions will be used to avoid in-water work
when ESA-listed fish are most likely to be present.
POK will work to ensure minimum degradation of water quality in the
[[Page 89441]]
project area, and requires compliance with Surface Water Quality
Standards for Washington. In addition, the contractor will prepare a
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to
beginning construction. The SPCC Plan will identify the appropriate
spill containment materials; as well as the method of implementation.
All equipment to be used for construction activities will be cleaned
and inspected prior to arriving at the project site, to ensure no
potentially hazardous materials are exposed, no leaks are present, and
the equipment is functioning properly. Equipment that will be used
below OHW will be identified; daily inspection and cleanup procedures
will insure that identified equipment is free of all external
petroleum-based products. Should a leak be detected on heavy equipment
used for the project, the equipment must be immediately removed from
the area and not used again until adequately repaired.
The contractor will also be required to prepare and implement a
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan and a Source Control
Plan for project activities requiring clearing, vegetation removal,
grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The
BMPs in the plans would be used to control sediments from all
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.
Conclusions for Effectiveness of Mitigation
NOAA Fisheries has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed
mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the
context of ensuring that NOAA Fisheries prescribes the means of
affecting the least practicable adverse 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.
While the Level A harassment zone for impact hammering of steel
piers would be fairly large (252 m), we feel confident that all Level A
zones would be able to be monitored to effectively implement shut down
procedures to avoid Level A takes for the following reasons:
The applicant has past experience with monitoring much
larger areas from previous projects in other areas on the same river;
The largest Level A harassment zone (252 m) is associated
with impact hammering of steel piers; however, steel piers are
anticipated to be driven with a vibratory hammer and impact hammering
is only included as a precaution in the event that vibratory hammering
is unable to be completed. Therefore, if impact hammering of steel
piers were to be conducted, it would be for a very short duration and
on a very few occasions. Additionally, if impact hammering of steel
piers were to be conducted, bubble curtains would be utilized to
attenuate sound and reduce the Level A harassment zone;
Level A harassment zones associated with impact hammering
of concrete piers and vibratory hammering of steel piers (40 m and 16.5
m, respectively) would be easily monitored for shut down procedures/
avoidance of Level A takes;
Even without the use of bubble curtains, the Level A
harassment zone for impact hammering of steel piers would encompass
approximately half of the width of the river in the action area, which
allows for approximately half of the width of the river in the action
area for marine mammals to avoid the Level A harassment zone, which we
would expect them to do;
Other mitigation measures (e.g., monitoring prior to
starting, or restarting, construction activities and the use of soft-
start procedures for impact pile driving) would ensure that marine
mammals are able to avoid injury; therefore, only temporary short-term
Level B harassment of marine mammals is anticipated.
Based on our evaluation, NOAA Fisheries has determined that the
mitigation measures proposed from both NOAA Fisheries and POK provide
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Reporting
Discussion of reporting requirements were unintentionally omitted
from the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA. Therefore, the
following sections on reporting requirements include language that was
not part of the proposed IHA notification, but represents standard
reporting requirements for NMFS IHAs.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NOAA Fisheries
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 would 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.
POK will submit a draft summary report of marine mammal
observations and construction activities to the NMFS West Coast
Regional Office and the Headquarters Office of Protected Resources 90
days after expiration of the current Authorization. A final report must
be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS
on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30
days after submittal of the draft report, the draft report would be
considered the final report. This report will summarize the information
gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA,
including dates and times of operations and all marine mammal sightings
(dates, times, locations, species, behavior observations [activity, and
any changes in activity observed including causes if known], associated
construction activities, and weather conditions.
While the IHA does not authorize injury (i.e., Level A harassment),
serious injury, or mortality, should anyone associated with the project
observe an injured or dead marine mammal, the incident (regardless of
cause) will be reported to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report
should include species or description of the animal, condition of the
animal, location, time first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and
photo or video footage, if available.
Reporting Prohibited Take
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited in this IHA,
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality,
POK shall immediately cease the specified activity and immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or
by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov. The report must contain the
following information: (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/
[[Page 89442]]
longitude) of the incident; (ii) The type of activity involved; (iii)
Description of the circumstances during and leading up to the incident;
(iv) Description of marine mammal observations (including species
identification/descriptions of animal(s) involved) and construction
activities/status of all sound sources used in the 24 hours preceding
the incident; (v) The fate of the animal(s), and photographic or video
footage of the animal, if available.
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with POK to
determine the action necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. POK may not resume its
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal With an Unknown Cause of
Injury/Death
In the event that POK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal
during its in-water construction activities in this IHA, and the cause
of the injury or death is unknown and/or the death is relatively recent
(i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described
below), POK will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov, and the
NMFS West Coast Regional Office and/or the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator at (206) 526-6550. The report must include the
same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with POK to
determine whether modification of the construction activities is
appropriate.
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Not Related to Construction
Activities
In the event that POK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal
and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or
related to the activities authorized in this IHA (e.g., previously
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or
scavenger damage), POK shall report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov, and the
NMFS West Coast Regional Office and/or the West Coast Regional
Stranding Coordinator at (206) 526-6550 within 24 hours of the
discovery. POK shall provide photographs or video footage, if
available, or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of
the incident.
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]. Take by Level B harassment only is
anticipated as a result of POK's proposed project. Take of marine
mammals is anticipated to be associated with the installation of piles
via impact and vibratory methods (including installation and removal of
temporary piles). The following activities are not anticipated to
result in takes of marine mammals: Dredging; Removal of 157 wood piles
from a former trestle in the freshwater intertidal backwater area; and
ELJ construction. No take by injury, serious injury, or death is
anticipated, nor is any such take authorized.
Table 5--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion
Non-explosive sound criterion definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury)..... Permanent see Table 3 above.
Threshold Shift
(PTS).
Level B Harassment.............. Behavioral 160 dB re 1
Disruption (for microPa-m (rms).
impulse noises).
Level B Harassment.............. Behavioral 120 dB re 1
Disruption (for microPa-m (rms).
continuous,
noise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The area of potential Level B harassment varies with the activity
being conducted. For impact pile driving that will be used for the
concrete piles, the area of potential harassment extends 117m from the
pile driving activity. For vibratory pile driving associated with the
installation of steel pipe piles, the zone of potential harassment
extends in a line of sight from the pile driving activities to the
nearest shoreline, covering an area of approximately 1800 acres of
riverine habitat (Figure 1). Because there are no haul outs, feeding
areas, or other important habitat areas for marine mammals in the
action area, it is anticipated that take exposures will result
primarily from animals transiting from downstream areas to upstream
feeding areas.
Assumptions regarding numbers of pinnipeds and number of round
trips per individual per year in the Region of Activity are based on
information from ongoing pinniped research and management activities
conducted in response to concern over California sea lion predation on
fish populations concentrated below Bonneville Dam. An intensive
monitoring program has been conducted in the Bonneville Dam tailrace
since 2002, using surface observations to evaluate seasonal presence,
abundance, and predation activities of pinnipeds. Minimum estimates of
the number of pinnipeds present in the tailrace from 2002 through 2014
are presented in Table 4.
Table 3--Minimum Estimated Total Numbers of Pinnipeds Present at Bonneville Dam on an Annual Basis From 2002 Through 2013
[Stansell et al., 2013]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals................................ 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0
California sea lions........................ 30 104 99 81 72 71 82 54 89 54 39 56
Steller sea lions........................... 0 3 3 4 11 9 39 26 75 89 73 80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 89443]]
Harbor Seals
There is no documented breeding or pupping activity in the action
area (Jeffries 1985), and only adult males and females are anticipated
to be present in the action area. There is no current data estimating
abundance of harbor seals either locally or for the Oregon-Washington
coastal stock (Carretta et al., 2014). In this case, we must rely on
estimates provided in the application that are believed to provide a
conservative estimate of the number of harbor seals potentially
affected by the proposed action. The conservative estimate of harbor
seals likely to be present in the action area when construction
activities are occurring is up to 10 animals per day based on local
anecdotal reports (lacking local observational data), with the animals
primarily transiting between the mouth of the Columbia River and the
Cowlitz or Kalama Rivers. Because harbor seals occur in the action area
throughout the year, and in-water construction activities are expected
to take up to 153 days, it is possible that harbor seals could be
exposed above the Level B harassment threshold up to 1,530 times,
although some of these exposures would likely be exposures of the same
individual across multiple days so the number of individual harbor
seals taken is likely lower. We believe that this estimate is doubly
conservative, because the majority of pile driving work will be impact
pile driving of concrete piles. Impact pile driving of concrete piles
has a much smaller area of potential harassment (a radius of 117m from
pile driving) than vibratory pile driving, and this area covers only
approximately 1/6th of the channel width of the Columbia River,
indicating a large portion of the river will be passable by pinnipeds
without experiencing take in the form of harassment during most pile
driving activities.
California Sea Lions
California sea lions are the most frequently observed pinnipeds
upstream of the project site. California sea lions do not breed or bear
their young near the Columbia River watershed, with the nearest
breeding grounds off the coast of southern California (Caretta et al.,
2014). There are no documented haulouts within the action area, so the
only California sea lions expected to be present in the action area are
adult males and females traveling to and from dams upstream of the
project location.
Historically (prior to 2008), California sea lions were the most
frequently observed pinniped species at Bonneville Dam (Stansell et
al., 2013). However, between 2008 and 2014, the number of California
sea lions observed at the dam declined. Then, in 2015, an estimated 190
individually branded California sea lions were recorded, which was in
contrast to the 56 unique individuals identified in 2013. Typically the
run time for California sea lions has begun later in the year than the
run for Steller sea lions. The first California sea lion observed at
the dam in 2015 was observed on February 9. For this reason, the bulk
of the California sea lion run would be expected to occur outside of
the pile driving window. However, a number of factors could cause the
run to appear earlier or later. In addition, any estimate of
anticipated run size must take into account the increased California
sea lion presence at the dam in 2015. For this reason, to make a
conservative assessment, the anticipated take estimate is based on the
average daily abundance of up to 12 pinnipeds per day reported at the
dam in 2015. Using this number, it is estimated that up to 372
California sea lions could be exposed to Level B harassment in the
2016-2017 work window. However, this is a very conservative estimate
and the actual number could be less. Additionally, the majority of pile
driving work will be impact pile driving of concrete piles. Impact pile
driving of concrete piles has a much smaller area of potential
harassment (a radius of 117m from pile driving) than vibratory pile
driving, and this area covers only approximately 1/6th of the channel
width of the Columbia River, indicating a large portion of the river
will be passable by pinnipeds without experiencing take in the form of
harassment during most pile driving activities. Thus we would expect
that less than \1/3\ of the transits would occur during the project's
in-water work window based on avoiding peak transit periods, and that
some proportion of those transits would occur in unaffected areas of
the Columbia River during impact pile driving activities.
Steller Sea Lions
Steller sea lions do not breed or bear their young near the
Columbia River watershed, with the nearest breeding grounds on the
marine coast of Oregon (Stansell et al., 2013). There are no documented
haulouts within the action area, so the only Steller sea lions expected
to be present in the action area are adult males and females traveling
to and from dams upstream of the project location.
Prior to 2002, Steller sea lions were sighted infrequently at
Bonneville Dam, with fewer than 10 individuals recorded in most years.
However, since 2008, the number of Steller sea lions documented at the
dam has increased steadily. In 2010, 75 individual Steller sea lions
were identified, at an average rate of less than 12.6 individuals per
day (between January 1 and May 31). In 2015 an average of 12 pinnipeds
were observed at the dam per day in January (van der Leeuw, 2015).
While no specific data exists regarding the number of trips up and down
the river each individual sea lion makes, it is assumed that on average
each individual makes one round trip during the spring migration. All
pile driving will occur between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017,
which will avoid the April and May peak of the run. Steller sea lion
presence at the dam in January and February represents approximately
one third of the total run in a given year (Stansell et al., 2013).
Using these numbers, it has been estimated that up to 12 individual
Steller sea lions per day could be exposed to Level B harassment. This
represents up to 372 individual takes of Steller sea lions in the 2016-
2017 work window. However, this is a conservative estimate, and the
actual number of takes could be less. Additionally, the majority of
pile driving work will be impact pile driving of concrete piles. Impact
pile driving of concrete piles has a much smaller area of potential
harassment (a radius of 117m from pile driving) than vibratory pile
driving, and this area covers only approximately 1/6th of the channel
width of the Columbia River, indicating a large portion of the river
will be passable by pinnipeds without experiencing take in the form of
harassment during most pile driving activities. Thus we would expect
that less than \1/3\ of the transits would occur during the project's
in-water work window based on avoiding peak transit periods, and that
some proportion of those transits would occur in unaffected areas of
the Columbia River during impact pile driving activities.
Analysis and 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 takes, alone, is not
enough information on which to base an impact determination. In
addition to
[[Page 89444]]
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'', NOAA Fisheries 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,
migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A
harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and the status
of the species. To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses
applies to all three species of pinnipeds (harbor seals, California sea
lions, and Steller sea lions), given that the anticipated effects of
this project on these species are expected to be relatively similar in
nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the
impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that
would lead to a different analysis for any species, else species-
specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Incidental take, in the form of Level B harassment only, is likely
to occur primarily as a result of pinniped exposure to elevated levels
of sound caused by impact and vibratory installation and removal of
pipe and sheet pile and steel casings. No take by injury, serious
injury, or death is anticipated and is not authorized. By incorporating
the proposed mitigation measures, including pinniped monitoring and
shut-down procedures described previously, harassment to individual
pinnipeds from the proposed activities is expected to be limited to
temporary behavioral impacts. POK assumes that all individuals
travelling past the project area would be exposed each time they pass
the area and that all exposures would cause disturbance. NOAA Fisheries
agrees that this represents a worst-case scenario and is therefore
sufficiently precautionary. There are no pinniped haul-outs or
rookeries located within or near the Region of Activity.
The shutdown zone monitoring proposed as mitigation, and the small
size of the zones in which injury may occur, makes any potential injury
of pinnipeds extremely unlikely, and therefore discountable. Because
pinniped exposures would be limited to the period they are transiting
the disturbance zone, with potential repeat exposures (on return to the
mouth of the Columbia River) separated by days to weeks, the
probability of experiencing TTS is also considered unlikely.
In addition, it is unlikely that pinnipeds exposed to elevated
sound levels would temporarily avoid traveling through the affected
area, as they are highly motivated to travel through the action area in
pursuit of foraging opportunities upriver. Sea lions have shown
increasing habituation in recent years to various hazing techniques
used to deter the animals from foraging in the Bonneville tailrace
area, including acoustic deterrent devices, boat chasing, and above-
water pyrotechnics (Stansell et al., 2013). Many of the individuals
that travel to the tailrace area return in subsequent years (Stansell
et al., 2013). Therefore, it is likely that pinnipeds would continue to
pass through the action area even when sound levels are above
disturbance thresholds.
Although pinnipeds are unlikely to be deterred from passing through
the area, even temporarily, they may respond to the underwater sound by
passing through the area more quickly, or they may experience stress as
they pass through the area. Sea lions already move quickly through the
lower river on their way to foraging grounds below Bonneville Dam
(transit speeds of 4.6 km/hr in the upstream direction and 8.8 km/hr in
the downstream direction (Brown et al., 2010). Any increase in transit
speed is therefore likely to be slight. Another possible effect is that
the underwater sound would evoke a stress response in the exposed
individuals, regardless of transit speed. However, the period of time
during which an individual would be exposed to sound levels that might
cause stress is short given their likely speed of travel through the
affected areas. In addition, there would be few repeat exposures for
individual animals. Thus, it is unlikely that the potential increased
stress would have a significant effect on individuals or any effect on
the population as a whole.
Therefore, NOAA Fisheries finds it unlikely that the amount of
anticipated disturbance would significantly change pinnipeds' use of
the lower Columbia River or significantly change the amount of time
they would otherwise spend in the foraging areas below Bonneville Dam.
Pinniped usage of the Bonneville Dam foraging area, which results in
transit of the action area, is a relatively recent learned behavior
resulting from human modification (i.e. fish accumulation at the base
of the dam). Even in the unanticipated event that either change was
significant and animals were displaced from foraging areas in the lower
Columbia River, there are alternative foraging areas available to the
affected individuals. NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any effects on
haul-out behavior because there are no proximate haul-outs within the
areas affected by elevated sound levels. All other effects of the
proposed action are at most expected to have a discountable or
insignificant effect on pinnipeds, including an insignificant reduction
in the quantity and quality of prey otherwise available.
Any adverse effects to prey species would occur on a temporary
basis during project construction. Given the large numbers of fish in
the Columbia River, the short-term nature of effects to fish
populations, and extensive BMPs and minimization measures to protect
fish during construction, as well as conservation and habitat
mitigation measures that would continue into the future, the project is
not expected to have significant effects on the distribution or
abundance of potential prey species in the long term. Therefore, these
temporary impacts are expected to have a negligible impact on habitat
for pinniped prey species.
A detailed description of potential impacts to individual pinnipeds
was provided previously in the Federal Register notice for the proposed
IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016). The following sections put into
context what those effects mean to the respective populations or stocks
of each of the pinniped species potentially affected.
Harbor Seal
The Oregon/Washington coastal stock of harbor seals consisted of
about 24,732 animals in 1999 (Carretta et al., 2014). As described
previously, both the Washington and Oregon portions of this stock have
reached carrying capacity and are no longer increasing, and the stock
is believed to be within its optimum sustained population level
(Jeffries et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2005). The estimated take of up
to 1,530 individuals (though likely somewhat fewer, as the estimate
really indicates instances of take and some individuals are likely
taken more than once across the 153-day period) by Level B harassment
is small relative to a stable population of approximately 24.732 (6.2
percent), and is not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of the stock.
California Sea Lion
The U.S. stock of California sea lions had a minimum estimated
population of 153,337 in the 2013 Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et
al., 2014). The estimated take of 372 individuals by Level B harassment
is small relative to a population of approximately 153,337 (0.2
percent), and is not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival of the stock.
[[Page 89445]]
Steller Sea Lion
The total population of the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions had a
minimum estimated population of 59,968 animals with an overall annual
rate of increase of 4 percent throughout most of the range (Oregon to
southeastern Alaska) since the 1970s (Allen and Angliss, 2015). In
2006, the NOAA Fisheries Steller sea lion recovery team proposed
removal of the eastern stock from listing under the ESA based on its
annual rate of increase, and the population was delisted in 2013
(though still considered depleted under the MMPA). The total estimated
take of 372 individuals per year is small compared to a population of
approximately 59,968 (0.6 percent) and is not expected to impact annual
rates of recruitment or survival of the stock.
Summary
The anticipated behavioral harassment is not expected to impact
recruitment or survival of the any affected pinniped species. The Level
B harassment experienced is expected to be of short duration, with 1-2
exposures per individual separated by days to weeks, with each exposure
resulting in minimal behavioral effects (increased transit speed or
avoidance). For all species, because the type of incidental harassment
is not expected to actually remove individuals from the population or
decrease significantly their ability to feed or breed, this amount of
incidental harassment is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the
stock.
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, NOAA Fisheries finds that POK's proposed activities would
have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
Small Numbers
Using the estimated take described previously, the species with the
greatest proportion of affected population is harbor seals (Table 5),
with an estimated 6.2% of the population potentially experiencing take
from the proposed action. California sea lions population will
experience 0.2% exposure, and Steller sea lions an approximate exposure
rate of 0.6%. 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, NOAA Fisheries finds that small numbers of marine
mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected
species or stocks.
Table 4--Estimated Take To Be Authorized and Proportion of Population Potentially Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Estimated take Abundance of stock
by Level B stock potentially Population trend
harassment affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal.......................... 1,530 24,732 6.2 Stable/Carrying
Capacity.
California Sea Lion.................. 372 153,337 0.2 Stable.
Steller Sea Lion..................... 372 59,968 0.6 Increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by this action. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries 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)
No species of marine mammal listed under the ESA are expected to be
affected by these activities. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries has determined
that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NOAA Fisheries prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considered
comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process.
NMFS prepared and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
determining that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was
not required. The FONSI was signed on October 24, 2016, prior to the
issuance of the IHA for POK's construction activities. The EA and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been posted at the
foregoing internet site.
Authorization
NOAA Fisheries has issued an IHA to Port of Kalama for constructing
the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and Export Facility on the Columbia
River during the 2016-2017 in-water work season, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: December 7, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[[Page 89446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12DE16.028
[FR Doc. 2016-29748 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P