[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15064-15089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06252]


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

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; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NOAA Fisheries has received an application from the Port of 
Kalama (POK) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 
marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Port of Kalama Expansion 
Project. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NOAA 
Fisheries is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to the 
POK to incidentally take, by Level B Harassment only, marine mammals 
during the in-water construction of Kalama Marine Manufacturing and 
Export Facility during the 2016-2017. Work is anticipated to occur 
between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017. The authorization for 
this proposed project would be 120 days of in-water work between 
September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017 to account for the possible 
need to vary the schedule due to logistics and weather. Per the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, we are requesting comments on our proposal to 
issue and Incidental Harassment Authorization to the Port of Kalama to 
incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, 3 species of marine 
mammals during the specified activity. NOAA Fisheries does not expect, 
and is not proposing to authorize, Level A harassment (injury), serious 
injury, or mortality as a result of the proposed activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 
20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is [email protected]. Comments sent via email, including 
all attachments, must not exceed a 25-

[[Page 15065]]

megabyte file size. NOAA Fisheries is not responsible for comments sent 
to addresses other than those provided here.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.NOAAFisheries.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to 
the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.NOAA Fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited 
in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular 
business hours, at the aforementioned address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Hughes, 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.
    The POK proposes to construct the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and 
Export Facility, including a new marine terminal, 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 2016-2017 in-water 
work season for ESA listed fish species (September 1 through January 
31). This proposed IHA covers from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017 
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, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory 
pile extraction. 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

Overview

    The Port of Kalama proposes to construct the Kalama Manufacturing 
and Marine Export Facility to manufacture and export methanol. This 
project consists of the upland facility for the manufacture of methanol 
(see application for more detail on the upland components of the 
proposed action), the construction of a marine terminal for the export 
of methanol, and associated compensatory mitigation activities for the 
purpose of offsetting habitat effects from the proposed action. The 
marine terminal will be approximately 45,000 square feet in size, 
supported by 320 concrete piles (24 inch precast octagonal piles) and 
16 steel pipe piles (12 x 12 inch and 4 x 18-inch). In order to provide 
full access to the marine terminal, the adjacent waters of the Columbia 
River will be dredged to -48 MLLW, with an estimated 126,000 cubic 
yards of sediment needing to be removed.
    The compensatory mitigation includes installation of eight 
engineered log jams (ELJs), which will be anchored by untreated wooden 
piles driven in by impact pile driving at low tides and not in-water. 
The proposed compensatory mitigation also includes the removal of 
approximately 320 untreated wooden piles from and abandoned U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers dike in a nearby backwater area. These piles will be 
removed either by direct pull or vibratory extraction. Finally, the 
compensatory mitigation includes wetland restoration and enhancement by 
removal of invasive species and replacement with native wetland 
species.
    According to the application, the proposed action is important to 
meet the growing global demand for methanol as a lower greenhouse gas 
emitting feedstock (as compared to coal) used for the production of 
olefins, and important for the economic development of the local 
community.

Dates and Duration

    The proposed action will result in increased sound energy 
throughout the work window (September 1 through August 31) during the 
2016-2017 season, and work may possibly extend into the next season and 
require the issuance of a separate IHA for an additional year for the 
2017-2018 work season. The proposed IHA would cover the period 
beginning September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. Construction of 
the pier and associated compensatory mitigation will require both 
impact and vibratory pile driving. Pile driving may occur every day 
during the approved work window and throughout daylight hours. The zone 
of potential harassment will be centered at the port facility, 
approximately at river mile 72, and may affect all waters within direct 
line of site from the project, ensonifying approximately 7.3 km\2\ 
acres of tidally influenced riverine habitat above the Level B 
harassment threshold. This IHA, which would authorize take incidental 
to the first year of work for this project

[[Page 15066]]

would be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance.

Specified Geographic Region

    The proposed action will take place on approximately 100 acres 
(including uplands) at the northern end of the Port of Kalama's North 
Port site (Lat. 46.049, Long. -122.874), located at approximately river 
mile 72 along the lower Columbia River along the east bank in Cowlitz 
County, Washington (Figure 1). The area of potential impact will extend 
by line of sight from the proposed action location to the nearest 
shoreline, and includes approximately 1800 acres of tidally influenced 
river habitat (see application, Figure 15).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21MR16.004

Detailed Description of Activities

    The proposed upland project is designed to produce up to 10,000 
metric tons per day of methanol from natural gas. The proposed 
manufacturing facility will have two production lines, each with a 
production capacity of 5,000 metric tons per day. The project site and 
infrastructure will be developed initially to accommodate both 
production lines. The anticipated yearly production at full capacity is 
approximately 3.6 million metric tons of methanol. The methanol will be 
stored in non-pressurized aboveground storage tanks with a total 
capacity of approximately 200,000 tons and will be surround by a 
containment area. Methanol will be transferred by pipeline from the 
storage area to a deep draft marine terminal to be constructed by the 
Port on the Columbia River. The facility will receive natural gas via 
pipeline that will undergo a separate permitting process under the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    In order to provide electric service to the proposed project, it is 
expected that the Cowlitz Public Utility District (PUD) will upgrade an 
existing transmission line from its existing Kalama Industrial 
Substation to the project site by installing new lines on existing 
towers within the existing transmission line corridor. Any new 
equipment (such as breakers and switches), would be installed at the 
Kalama Industrial

[[Page 15067]]

Substation within the existing footprint. Cowlitz PUD may also provide 
redundant electrical supply by constructing a new short transmission 
line of approximately 750 feet crossing the adjacent I-5 and railroad.
    The propose project includes both upland and marine components. 
This document focuses on the riverine components, as those are most 
relevant in determining the potential for effects to marine mammals. 
The major upland components are briefly summarized here for reference:

--Methanol production components
    [cir] Two methanol production lines;
    [cir] Interconnecting facilities, including piping, product 
pipelines, electrical, and control systems;
    [cir] Eight finished product storage tanks within a containment 
area and additional tanks (rework tanks and shift tanks) for storing 
raw methanol during the manufacturing process;
    [cir] Cooling towers for industrial process water cooling;
    [cir] Steam boilers;
    [cir] Two air separation units;
    [cir] Flare system for the disposable flammable gases during 
startup, shutdown, and malfunctions;
--Power generation facility;
--Fire suppression infrastructure and risk management;
--Water supply and treatment components;
    [cir] Process water supply wells, treatment system, storage tanks, 
and distribution network;
    [cir] Industrial process water treatment and disposal system;
    [cir] Stormwater treatment, infiltration pond and disposal system;
--Support buildings and accessory facilities;
    [cir] Security gate houses, laboratory, control rooms, warehouses, 
and other buildings and enclosures;
    [cir] Lay-down areas for construction activities, plant 
maintenance, and spare part storage;
    [cir] Electrical substation;
    [cir] Natural gas meter station and transfer equipment;
    [cir] Emergency generators;
--Site access ways and public recreation access.

    This document will review in depth the construction activities that 
may impact marine mammals, listed as follows:

--Construction of the marine terminal including a single berth and dock 
with methanol loading equipment;
--Berth dredging;
--Compensatory mitigation activities.
    Proposed in-water work will be conducted only during the in-water 
work window that is ultimately approved for this project. The currently 
published in-water work window for this reach of the Columbia River is 
1 November-28 February. However, regulatory agencies, including the 
USACE, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), US Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NOAA Fisheries, have recently suggested 
making modifications to the window to take into account the best 
available science and to address newly listed species. The following 
work windows are proposed for this project, as explained further below:

--Pile installation will be conducted between 1 September and 31 
January;
--Dredging will be conducted between 1 August and 31 December;
--ELJ installation will be conducted between 1 August and 31 December;
--Compensatory mitigation pile removal may be conducted year-round;
--Work conducted below the OHWM, but outside the wetted perimeter of 
the river (in the dry) may be conducted year-round.

    The proposed project may be built out in either one or two phases. 
The construction duration would be 26 to 48 months in total, with 
construction scheduled to begin in 2016 and completed between 2018 and 
2020. In water construction activities are expected to take 120 days 
(not necessarily consecutive) during the 2016-2017 and/or 2017-2018 in-
water work windows. Any in-water work that may result in the harassment 
of marine mammals will be conducted during daylight hours.

Marine Terminal Construction

    The proposed marine terminal will be located along the shoreline 
and will consist of a single berth to accommodate oceangoing tankers 
arriving from the Pacific Ocean via the Columbia River navigation 
channel and designed for methanol storage that will transport methanol 
to destination ports. The marine terminal will include a dock, a berth, 
loading equipment, utilities, and a stormwater system. The components 
are designed to support the necessary product transfer equipment and 
safely moor the vessels that may call at the proposed terminal. The 
marine terminal will provide sufficient clearances from the existing 
North Port dock and space that will be required for vessel maneuvering 
during berthing and departure. The proposed terminal will accommodate 
vessels ranging in size from 45,000 to 127,000 DWT, which would include 
vessels measuring from approximately 600 to 900 feet in length and 106 
to 152 feet in width. The Port expects to receive between 3 and 6 
vessels per month at the new terminal for the purposes of exporting 
methanol. The berth may also be used for loading and unloading other 
types of cargo, vessel supply operations, as a lay berth, vessel 
moorage, and for topside vessel maintenance activities.
    The dock structure will consist of an access trestle extending from 
the shoreline to provide vehicle, equipment, and emergency access to 
the dock. The trestle will be 34 feet wide by 365 feet long. From the 
access trestle, the berth face of the dock will extend approximately 
530 feet downstream, and will consist of an 100 by 54-foot transition 
platform, a 370 by 36-foot berth trestle, and a 100 by 112-foot turning 
platform. The dock will be supported by precast 24-inch precast 
octagonal concrete piles supporting cast-in-place concrete pile caps, 
and precast, pre-stressed, haunched concrete deck panels. The dock will 
total approximately 45,000 square feet and includes 320 concrete piles 
and 16 steel pipe piles in total. The bottom of the superstructure will 
be located above the ordinary high water mark.
    For vessel mooring, two 15-foot by 15-foot breasting dolphins will 
be constructed near the center of the berth trestle. Steel plates will 
bridge the short distance between the dock and dolphins. Each breasting 
dolphin will consist of seven, 24-inch precast, pre-stressed concrete 
battered 3 piles supporting a cast-in-place concrete pile cap with 
mooring bollards.
    Four 15-foot by 15-foot mooring dolphins will be constructed (2 
upstream and 2 downstream of the platforms) for securing bow and/or 
stern lines. Each mooring dolphin will consist of twelve 24-inch 
octagonal diameter concrete piles supporting a cast-in-place concrete 
pile cap. The dolphins will be equipped with mooring bollards and 
electric capstans. Access to the mooring dolphins will be provided from 
the platform by trussed walkways with open grating surfaces. The 
walkways will be 3 feet wide with a combined length of 375 feet and 
will be supported by four 18-inch diameter steel pipe piles.
    The fender system will consist of 9-foot by 9-foot ultra-high 
molecular weight polyethylene face panels with a super cone fender unit 
and two 12-inch diameter steel pipe fender piles. Below the fender 
panels, the fender piles will have 18-inch-diameter high-density 
polyethylene sleeves. Fender units will be placed on the dock face, two 
upstream and two downstream, and on the two breasting dolphins.

[[Page 15068]]

    A small building will be constructed on a corner of the turning 
platform. The building will function as a shelter from the weather and 
a small lunch area for the dockworkers and as a place to store tools 
and supplies. A second small building will be constructed at the center 
of the dock, adjacent to the loading arms. The building will be used as 
an operations shack for the loading arms. Electricity and 
communications services will be provided to the pier buildings, but no 
water or sewer services would be provided.
    Stormwater from the dock will be collected and conveyed to upland 
treatment and infiltration swale. The stormwater system will also 
accommodate stormwater from the existing North Port dock, which is 
currently infiltrated in an upland swale that will be removed for the 
development.
    Since pile layout is conceptual, a 10 percent contingency has been 
added for the estimated number of concrete piles. This will accommodate 
potential revisions to the pile layout and configuration as the 
structural design is finalized. The project may also require the 
installation of temporary piles during construction. Temporary piles 
are typically steel pipe or h-piles and will be driven with a vibratory 
hammer. These are placed and removed as necessary during the pile 
driving and overwater construction process. With the addition of the 
contingency, the proposed terminal will require the installation of 
approximately 320, 24-inch concrete piles; 12, 12-inch steel pipe 
piles; and 4, 18-inch steel pipe piles. Additional information 
regarding the specific design elements of the proposed project can be 
found in the application from the applicant.
    Piles will be installed using vibratory and/or impact hammers 
(depending upon pile type, as described below), most likely operated 
from a barge. Piles will most likely be transported to the site and 
stored on site on a work barge. The contractor's water-based equipment 
will be a barge-mounted crane with pile-driving equipment and a 
materials barge with piles. At times, a second barge-mounted crane may 
be on site with an additional materials barge.
    Concrete piles will be installed with an impact hammer. A bubble 
curtain will not be used during impact driving of concrete piles, as 
impact installation of concrete piles does not generate underwater 
sound pressure levels that are injurious to marine mammals. A 
conservative estimate is that up to a maximum of 6 to 8 piles will be 
impact-driven per day, with an estimated maximum of approximately 1,025 
strikes per pile. Based on these estimates, it is assumed that up to 
approximately 8,200 strikes per day might be necessary to impact-drive 
concrete piles to their final tip elevation. Actual pile driving rates 
will vary, and a typical day will involve fewer piles and fewer 
strikes.
    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. If it does become necessary to 
impact-drive steel piles, a bubble curtain or similarly effective noise 
attenuation device will be employed to reduce the potential for effects 
from temporarily elevated underwater noise levels. In addition, the 
project may require the installation of temporary piles during 
construction. Temporary piles are typically steel pipe or h-piles and 
will be driven with a vibratory hammer. These are placed and removed as 
necessary during the pile driving and overwater construction process.
    All pile installation will be conducted during the in-water work 
window (September 1 through January 31).

Berth Dredging

    The existing berth serving the Port's North Port Terminal will be 
extended downstream to accommodate vessel activities at the new dock. 
The extended berth area will be deepened to -48 feet Columbia River 
datum (CRD) with a 2-foot overdredge allowance consistent with the 
existing berth. The berth will extend at an angle from the edge of the 
Columbia River navigation channel to the berthing line at the face of 
the proposed dock. The footprint of the expanded berth will be 
approximately 18 acres, of which approximately 16 acres will require 
dredging to achieve the berth depth. Existing water depths in the 
proposed berth area vary from -50 feet CRD to -39 feet CRD. The total 
volume to be dredged the first year is approximately 126,000 cubic 
yards (cy).
    Sediment characterization for dredged material placement 
suitability was conducted in February 2015 in accordance with the 
regional Sediment Evaluation Framework, and the sediments to be dredged 
were found to be suitable for any beneficial reuse. Dredged material 
will be placed upland at the project site to provide material for 
construction or for other uses, or it may be placed at existing 
authorized in-water and upland placement sites. The existing authorized 
(NWP-1994-462-1) in-water placement locations include: (1) Flow lane 
placement to restore sediment at a deep scour hole associated with a 
pile dike at RM 77.48 located on the Oregon side of the river; (2) flow 
lane placement to restore sediment at a deep scour hole associated with 
a pile dike at RM 75.63 located on the Washington side of the river; 
(3) beach nourishment at the Port's shoreline park (Louis Rasmussen 
Park) at RM 76; and (4) the Ross Island Sand and Gravel disposal site 
in Portland, Oregon. The anticipated upland placement sites include the 
South Port site located north of the CHS/TEMCO grain terminal at 
approximately RM 77 and the project site. Additional in-water and 
upland sites may be identified and permitted for dredge material 
placement for general Port maintenance dredging needs in the future.
    Dredged material will be placed upland at the project site to 
provide material for construction or for other uses, or it may be 
placed at existing authorized in-water and upland placement sites. The 
existing authorized (NWP-1994-462-1) in-water placement locations 
include: (1) Flow lane placement to restore sediment at a deep scour 
hole associated with a pile dike at RM 77.48 located on the Oregon side 
of the river; (2) flow lane placement to restore sediment at a deep 
scour hole associated with a pile dike at RM 75.63 located on the 
Washington side of the river; (3) beach nourishment at the Port's 
shoreline park (Louis Rasmussen Park) at RM 76; and (4) the Ross Island 
Sand and Gravel disposal site in Portland, Oregon. The anticipated 
upland placement sites include the South Port site located north of the 
CHS/TEMCO grain terminal at approximately RM 77 and the project site. 
Additional in-water and upland sites may be identified and permitted 
for dredge material placement for general Port maintenance dredging 
needs in the future.
    Dredging is a temporary construction activity, conducted in deep 
water, which would be expected to have only minor, localized, and 
temporary effects. No dredging would be conducted in shallow water 
habitats, and no shallow water habitat would be converted to deep 
water. Dredging operations maybe completed using either hydraulic or 
mechanical (clamshell) dredging methods. A hydraulic dredge uses a 
cutter head on the end of an arm that is buried typically 3 to 6 feet 
deep in the river bottom and swings in a 250- to 300-foot arc in front 
of the dredge. Dredge material is sucked up through the cutter head and 
the pipes, and deposited via pipeline to the placement areas. The 
hydraulic dredge will also be used for placement of dredge material in 
the flow-lane, as beach nourishment, or at approved upland sites.

[[Page 15069]]

    A mechanical dredge removes material by scooping it up with a 
bucket. Mechanical dredges include clamshell, dragline, and backhoe 
dredges. Mechanical dredging is performed using a bucket operated from 
a crane or derrick that is mounted on a barge or operated from shore. 
Sediment from the bucket is usually placed directly in an upland area 
or on a scow or bottom dump (split) barge. In-water placement of the 
material occurs through opening the bottom doors or splitting the 
barge. The process of splitting will be tightly controlled to minimize 
turbidity and the spread of material outside the placement area.
    Upland placement will likely be completed through the use of a 
hydraulic pipeline. In this method, dredged material is pumped as 
slurry through a pipeline that floats on the water using pontoons, is 
submerged, or runs across dry land. Dredged material transported by 
hydraulic pipeline to an upland management site must be dewatered prior 
to final placement or rehandling. In this case, dewatering generally 
will be accomplished using settling ponds or overland flow. Settling 
ponds are sized based on the settling characteristics of the dredged 
material and the rate of dredging. Water from the sediments will be 
either infiltrated to the ground or will be discharged to the river 
through weirs already constructed at the disposal sites.
    Several BMPs and conservation measures will be implemented to 
minimize environmental impacts during dredging, and these are described 
in the application.

Compensatory Mitigation Activities

    The applicant has incorporated mitigation activities as part of the 
proposed action. The applicant proposes three categories of activity: 
(1) Pile removal; (2) construction of engineered log jams (ELJ); and 
(3) riparian and wetland buffer habitat restoration.
    The Applicant will remove a portion of a row of existing timber 
piles now located in the freshwater intertidal backwater channel 
portion of the project site on Port property. The structure is a former 
trestle, and these piles may be treated with creosote. Piles are 
estimated to range between 12 and 14 inches in diameter at the mudline. 
A total of approximately 157 piles will be removed from the structure. 
There is a second timber pile structure in the backwater, which was 
previously proposed for removal. This structure is a USACE-owned pile 
dike, and will not be removed.
    The proposed pile removal will restore a minimum of 123 square feet 
of benthic habitat, within an area approximately 2.05 acres in size. 
These piles, in their current configuration, affect the movement of 
water and sediment into and out of approximately 13 acres of this 
backwater area (CHE 2015). The removal of the piles will facilitate 
sediment transport and seasonal flushing of this backwater area, which 
will help improve water quality and maintain this area as an off-
channel refuge for juvenile salmonids in the long term. The piles most 
likely will be removed by direct pulling. A vibratory hammer may also 
be used if necessary, and this request assumes that either method could 
be used.
    In addition to the proposed pile removals, the applicant will 
install eight ELJs within the nearshore habitat along the Columbia 
River shoreline adjacent to the site. ELJs are a restoration and 
mitigation method that helps build high quality fish habitat, develops 
scour pools, and provides complex cover.
    Each ELJ will measure approximately 20 x 20 feet and be composed of 
large-diameter untreated logs, logs with root wads attached, small wood 
debris, and boulders. Logs generally will have a minimum diameter of 
20-inches and be 20 feet long. They will be anchored to untreated wood 
piles driven a minimum of 20 feet into the river stream bed and will be 
fastened to the piles by drilling holes in the wood and inserting 1-
inch through-bolts for attaching chains to secure the wood to the 
piles. The structures will be installed at or near the mean lower low 
water mark using vibratory pile driving at low tides, so that the 
structures are regularly inundated. The logs that comprise the 
structure will be further bolted together to create a complex crib 
structure with 2- to 3-inch interstitial spaces. These spaces may be 
filled with smaller wood debris and/or boulders to enhance structural 
complexity and capture free-floating wood from the Columbia River.
    Small equipment operated from a barge will be used to construct the 
ELJs. Anchor piling will be installed either by a vibratory hammer, or 
will be pushed directly into the substrate with crane-mounted 
equipment. This request assumes that either method could be used. Logs 
and debris will be placed using crane-mounted equipment, or similar. 
Aquatic mitigation construction activities, including vibratory timber 
pile removal and installation of timber anchor piling outside of the 
wetted perimeter of the river, and would not generate levels of noise 
that would harass of marine mammals.
    The Applicant also proposes to conduct riparian enhancement and 
invasive species management within an area approximately 1.41 acres in 
size along approximately 700 linear feet of the Columbia River 
shoreline at the site to further enhance riparian and shoreline habitat 
at the site. The applicant also proposes to enhance approximately 0.58 
acres of wetland buffer at the north end of the site to offset 
unavoidable wetland buffer impacts. The riparian and wetland buffer 
habitats will be enhanced by removing invasive species and installing 
native trees and shrubs that are common to this reach of the Columbia 
River shoreline and adjacent wetlands. Native plantings proposed for 
the riparian restoration include black cottonwood and a mix of native 
willow species including Columbia River willow (Salix fluviatilis), 
Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis). 
Portions of the wetland buffer will be planted with black cottonwood. 
Invasive species management at the site will target locally common and 
aggressive invasive weed species, primarily Scotch broom and Himalayan 
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). The restoration sites will be monitored 
and maintained for 5 years to document proper site establishment.
    Aquatic habitat mitigation construction activities will most likely 
be conducted using cranes and similar equipment operated from one or 
more barges temporarily located within the backwater area. Because 
water depths are relatively shallow in the backwater area where pile 
removal will be conducted, equipment access to this area may be 
limited. A small barge will most likely be floated in on a high tide, 
grounding out if necessary as waters recede. Benthic habitats and 
native plant communities are not expected to be affected by the barge, 
as substrates are silt-dominated, and vegetation consists primarily of 
reed canary grass. If necessary, disturbed areas will be restored to 
their original or an improved condition after pile removal is complete.

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

[[Page 15070]]

under the ESA or is considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA.

                          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               Not Listed..........  U.S. Stock.
                                     californianus.
Steller Sea Lion..................  Eumatopius jubatus...  Not Listed..........  Eastern DPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Harbor Seal

Species Description

    Harbor seals, which are members of the Phocid family (true seals), 
inhabit coastal and estuarine waters and shoreline areas from Baja 
California, Mexico to western Alaska. For management purposes, 
differences in mean pupping date (i.e. birthing), movement patterns, 
pollutant loads, and fishery interactions have led to the recognition 
of three separate harbor seal stocks along the west coast of the 
continental U.S. (Boveng 1988). The three distinct stocks are: (1) 
Inland waters of Washington (including Hood Canal, Puget Sound, and the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca out to Cape Flattery), (2) outer coast of Oregon 
and Washington, and (3) California (Carretta et al. 2014). The seals in 
the region of activity are from the outer coast of Oregon and 
Washington stock.
    The average weight for adult seals is about 180 lb (82 kg) and 
males are slightly larger than females. Male harbor seals weigh up to 
245 lb (111 kg) and measure approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) in length. The 
basic color of harbor seals' coat is gray and mottled but highly 
variable, from dark with light color rings or spots to light with dark 
markings.

Status

    In 1999, the population of the Oregon/Washington coastal stock of 
harbor seals was estimated at 24,732 animals (Carretta et al. 2014). 
Although this abundance estimate represents the best scientific 
information available, per NOAA Fisheries stock assessment policy it is 
not considered current because it is more than 8 years old. This harbor 
seal stock includes coastal estuaries (Columbia River) and bays 
(Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor). Both the Washington and Oregon portions 
of this stock are believed to have reached carrying capacity and the 
stock is within its optimum sustainable population level (Jeffries et 
al. 2003; Brown et al. 2005). Because there is no current estimate of 
minimum abundance, potential biological removal (PBR) cannot be 
calculated for this stock. However, the level of human-caused mortality 
and serious injury is less than ten percent of the previous PBR of 
1,343 harbor seals per year (Carretta et al. 2014), and human-caused 
mortality is considered to be small relative to the stock size. 
Therefore, the Oregon and Washington outer coast stock of harbor seals 
are not classified as a strategic stock under the MMPA.

Behavior and Ecology

    Harbor seals are generally non-migratory with local movements 
associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food 
availability, and reproduction (Bigg 1981). They are not known to make 
extensive pelagic migrations, although some long distance movement of 
tagged animals in Alaska (174 km), and along the U.S. west coast (up to 
550 km), have been recorded. Harbor seals are coastal species, rarely 
found more than 12 mi (20 km) from shore, and frequently occupy bays, 
estuaries, and inlets (Baird 2001). Individual seals have been observed 
several miles upstream in coastal rivers. Ideal harbor seal habitat 
includes haul-out sites, shelter during the breeding periods, and 
sufficient food (Bigg 1981).
    Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and ice and feed in 
marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals display 
strong fidelity for haul-out sites (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher 
and McAllister1981), although human disturbance can affect haul-out 
choice (Harris et al. 2003). Group sizes range from small numbers of 
animals on intertidal rocks to several thousand animals found 
seasonally in coastal estuaries. The harbor seal is the most commonly 
observed and widely distributed pinniped found in Oregon and 
Washington. Harbor seals use hundreds of sites to rest or haul out 
along the coast and inland waters of Oregon and Washington, including 
tidal sand bars and mudflats in estuaries, intertidal rocks and reefs, 
beaches, log booms, docks, and floats in all marine areas of the two 
states. Numerous harbor seal haul-out sites are found on intertidal 
mudflats and sand bars from the mouth of the lower Columbia River to 
Carroll Slough at the confluence of the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers.

[[Page 15071]]

    Harbor seals mate at sea and females give birth during the spring 
and summer, although the pupping season varies by latitude. Pupping 
seasons vary by geographic region with pups born in coastal estuaries 
(Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor) from mid-April through 
June and in other areas along the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound 
from May through September (Jeffries et al. 2000). Suckling harbor seal 
pups spend as much as forty percent of their time in the water (Bowen 
et al. 1999).
    Adult harbor seals can be found throughout the year at the mouth of 
the Columbia River. Peak harbor seal abundances in the Columbia River 
occur during the winter and spring when a number of upriver haul-out 
sites are used. Peak abundances and upriver movements in the winter and 
spring months are correlated with spawning runs of eulachon 
(Thaleichthys pacificus) smelt and out-migration of salmonid smolts.
    Within the region of activity, there are no known harbor seal haul-
out sites. The nearest known haul-out sites to the region of activity 
are located at Carroll Slough at the confluence of the Cowlitz and 
Columbia Rivers approximately 3.5 mi (72 km) downriver of the region of 
activity. The low number of observations of harbor seals at Bonneville 
Dam over the years, combined with the fact that no pupping or haul-out 
locations are within or upstream from the region of activity, suggest 
that very few harbor seals transit through the region of activity 
(Stansell et al. 2013).

Acoustics

    In air, harbor seal males produce a variety of low-frequency (less 
than 4 kHz) vocalizations, including snorts, grunts, and growls. Male 
harbor seals produce communication sounds in the frequency range of 
100-1,000 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). Pups make individually unique 
calls for mother recognition that contain multiple harmonics with main 
energy below 0.35 kHz (Bigg 1981). Harbor seals hear nearly as well in 
air as underwater and have lower thresholds than California sea lions 
(Kastak and Schusterman 1998). Kastak and Schusterman (1998) reported 
airborne low frequency (100 Hz) sound detection thresholds at 65 dB for 
harbor seals. In air, they hear frequencies from 0.25-30 kHz and are 
most sensitive from 6-16 kHz (Wolski et al. 2003).
    Adult males also produce underwater sounds during the breeding 
season that typically range from 0.25-4 kHz (duration range: 0.1 s to 
multiple seconds; Hanggi and Schusterman 1994). Hanggi and Schusterman 
(1994) found that there is individual variation in the dominant 
frequency range of sounds between different males, and Van Parijs et 
al. (2003) reported oceanic, regional, population, and site-specific 
variation that could be vocal dialects. In water, they hear frequencies 
from 1-75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007) and can detect sound levels as 
weak as 60-85 dB within that band. They are most sensitive at 
frequencies below 50 kHz; above 60 kHz sensitivity rapidly decreases.

California Sea Lions

Species Description

    California sea lions are members of the Otariid family (eared 
seals). The breeding areas of the California sea lion are on islands 
located in southern California, western Baja California, and the Gulf 
of California (Carretta et al. 2014). These three geographic regions 
are used to separate this subspecies into three stocks: (1) The U.S. 
stock begins at the U.S./Mexico border and extends northward into 
Canada, (2) the Western Baja California stock extends from the U.S./
Mexico border to the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, and 
(3) the Gulf of California stock which includes the Gulf of California 
from the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula and across to 
the mainland and extends to southern.
    The California sea lion is sexually dimorphic. Males may reach 
1,000 lb (454 kg) and 8 ft (2.4 m) in length; females grow to 300 lb 
(136 kg) and 6 ft (1.8 m) in length. Their color ranges from chocolate 
brown in males to a lighter, golden brown in females. At around 5 years 
of age, males develop a bony bump on top of the skull called a sagittal 
crest. The crest is visible in the dog-like profile of male sea lion 
heads, and hair around the crest gets lighter with age. Status--The 
U.S. stock of California sea lions is estimated at 296,750 and the 
minimum population size of this stock is 153,337 individuals (Carretta 
et al. 2014). The current estimate of human induced mortality for 
California sea lions is on average 431 animals per year (Carretta et 
al. 2014). California sea lions are not considered a strategic stock 
under the MMPA because total human-caused mortality is still very 
likely to be less than the PBR of 9200 animals per year (Carretta et 
al. 2014).

Behavior and Ecology

    During the summer, the U.S. stock of California sea lions breed on 
the primary rookeries on the Channel Islands, and seldom travel more 
than about 31 mi (50 km) from the islands (Carretta et al. 2014). Their 
distribution shifts to the northwest in fall and to the southeast 
during winter and spring, probably in response to changes in prey 
availability (Bonnell and Ford 1987). The non-breeding distribution 
extends from Baja California north to Alaska for males, and encompasses 
the waters of California and Baja California for females (Carretta et 
al. 2014). In the non-breeding season, an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 
adult and sub-adult males migrate northward along the coast to central 
and northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island from 
September to May (Jeffries et al. 2000) and return south the following 
spring.
    California sea lions do not breed in the Columbia River. Though a 
few young animals may remain in Oregon during summer months, most 
return south for the breeding season (ODFW, 2015). Male California sea 
lions are commonly seen in Oregon from September through May. During 
this time period California sea lions can be found in many bays, 
estuaries and on offshore sites along the coast, often hauled-out in 
the same locations as Steller sea lions. Some pass through Oregon to 
feed along coastal waters to the north during fall and winter months.
    California sea lions feed on a wide variety of prey, including many 
species of fish and squid. In some locations where salmon runs exist, 
California sea lions also feed on returning adult and out-migrating 
juvenile salmonids. Sexual maturity occurs at around 4-5 years of age 
for California sea lions. California sea lions are gregarious during 
the breeding season and social on land during other times.
    California sea lions are known to occur in several areas of the 
Columbia River during much of the year, except the summer breeding 
months of June through August. Approximately 1,000 California sea lions 
have been observed at haul-out sites at the mouth of the Columbia 
River, while approximately 100 individuals have been observed in past 
years at the Bonneville Dam between January and May prior to returning 
to their breeding rookeries in California at the end of May (Stansell 
et al. 2013). The nearest known haul-out sites to the region of 
activity are near the Cowlitz River/Carroll Slough confluence with the 
Columbia River, approximately 3.5 miles downriver of the proposed 
action (Jeffries et al. 2000).
    The USACE's intensive sea lion monitoring program began as a result 
of the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) biological 
opinion, which required an evaluation of

[[Page 15072]]

pinniped predation in the tailrace of Bonneville Dam. The objective of 
the study was to determine the timing and duration of pinniped 
predation activity, estimate the number of fish caught, record the 
number of pinnipeds present, identify and track individual California 
sea lions, and evaluate various pinniped deterrents used at the dam 
(Tackley et al. 2008). The study period for monitoring was January 1 
through May 31, beginning in 2002. During the study period, pinniped 
observations began after consistent sightings of at least one animal 
occurred. Tackley et al. (2008) note that sightings began earlier each 
year from 2002 to 2004. Although some sightings were reported earlier 
in the season, full-time observations began March 21 in 2002, March 3 
in 2003, and February 24 in 2004 (Tackley et al. 2008). In 2005 
observations began in April, but in 2006 through 2012 observations 
began in January or early February (Tackley et al. 2008; Stansell et 
al. 2013). In 2012, 39 California sea lions were observed at Bonneville 
Dam, the fewest since 2002 (Stansell et al. 2013). However, in 2010, 89 
California sea lion individuals were observed at Bonneville Dam 
(Stansell et al. 2013).
    California sea lion daily abundance estimates at Bonneville Dam are 
compiled in Stansell et al. (2013, Figure 1) from the reports listed in 
the preceding paragraph. If arrival and departure dates were not 
available, the timing of surface observations within the January 
through May study period were recorded. Because regular observations in 
the study period generally began as California sea lions were observed 
below Bonneville Dam, and sometimes reports stated that observations 
stopped as sea lion numbers dropped, the observation dates only give a 
general idea of first arrival and departure. Because tracking data 
indicate that sea lions travel at fast rates between hydrophone 
locations above and below the POK project area, dates of first arrival 
at Bonneville Dam and departure from the dam are assumed to coincide 
closely with potential passage timing through the POK project area.
    Based on the information presented in Stansell et al. (2013), 
California sea lions have generally been observed at Bonneville Dam 
between early January and early June, although beginning in 2008, a few 
individuals have been noted at the dam as early as September and as 
late as August. Therefore, the majority of California sea lions are 
expected to pass the project site beginning in early January through 
early June. Stansell et al. (2013) shows that California sea lion 
abundance below Bonneville Dam peaks in April, when it drops through 
about the end of May. Wright et al. (2010) reported a median start date 
for the southbound migration from the Columbia River to the breeding 
grounds of May 20 (range: May 7 to May 27; n = 8 sea lions).
    The highest number of California sea lions observed in the 
Bonneville Dam tailrace over the last 9 years was 104 in 2003 (Stansell 
et al. 2013). However, Tackley et al. (2008) noted that numbers of sea 
lions estimated from early study years were likely underestimated, 
because the observers' ability to uniquely identify individuals 
increased over the years. In addition, the high number of 104 
individuals present below the dam in 2003 occurred prior to hazing 
(2005) or permanent removal (2008) activities began. The high after 
both hazing and removal programs were implemented has been 89 
individuals in a year in 2010 (Stansell et al. 2013).

Acoustics

    On land, California sea lions make incessant, raucous barking 
sounds; these have most of their energy at less than 2 kHz (Schusterman 
and Balliet 1969). Males vary both the number and rhythm of their barks 
depending on the social context; the barks appear to control the 
movements and other behavior patterns of nearby conspecifics 
(Schusterman, 1977). Females produce barks, squeals, belches, and 
growls in the frequency range of 0.25-5 kHz, while pups make bleating 
sounds at 0.25-6 kHz. California sea lions produce two types of 
underwater sounds: Clicks (or short-duration sound pulses) and barks 
(Schusterman and Balliet 1969). All of these underwater sounds have 
most of their energy below 4 kHz (Schusterman and Balliet 1969).
    The range of maximal hearing sensitivity for California sea lions 
underwater is between 1-28 kHz (Schusterman et al. 1972). Functional 
underwater high frequency hearing limits are between 35-40 kHz, with 
peak sensitivities from 15-30 kHz (Schusterman et al. 1972). The 
California sea lion shows relatively poor hearing at frequencies below 
1 kHz (Kastak and Schusterman 1998). Peak hearing sensitivities in air 
are shifted to lower frequencies; the effective upper hearing limit is 
approximately 36 kHz (Schusterman, 1974). The best range of sound 
detection is from 2-16 kHz (Schusterman, 1974). Kastak and Schusterman 
(2002) determined that hearing sensitivity generally worsens with 
depth--hearing thresholds were lower in shallow water, except at the 
highest frequency tested (35 kHz), where this trend was reversed. 
Octave band sound levels of 65-70 dB above the animal's threshold 
produced an average temporary threshold shift (TTS; discussed later in 
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals) of 4.9 
dB in the California sea lion (Kastak et al. 1999).

Steller Sea Lions

Species Description

    Steller sea lions are the largest members of the Otariid (eared 
seal) family. Steller sea lions show marked sexual dimorphism, in which 
adult males are noticeably larger and have distinct coloration patterns 
from females. Males average approximately 1,500 lb (680 kg) and 10 ft 
(3 m) in length; females average about 700 lb (318 kg) and 8 ft (2.4 m) 
in length. Adult females have a tawny to silver-colored pelt. Males are 
characterized by dark, dense fur around their necks, giving a mane-like 
appearance, and light tawny coloring over the rest of their body. 
Steller sea lions are distributed mainly around the coasts to the outer 
continental shelf along the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern 
Hokkaido, Japan through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, Aleutian 
Islands and central Bering Sea, southern coast of Alaska and south to 
California. The population is divided into the Western and the Eastern 
Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) at 144[deg] W (Cape Suckling, 
Alaska). The Western DPS includes Steller sea lions that reside in the 
central and western Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, as well as those 
that inhabit coastal waters and breed in Asia (e.g. Japan and Russia). 
The Eastern DPS extends from California to Alaska, including the Gulf 
of Alaska.

Status

    Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the 
ESA in 1990. After genetics work identified strong genetic separation 
between two distinct populations (Allen and Angliss 2015), the species 
was divided into two stocks, with the western stock listed as 
endangered under the ESA in 1997 with the eastern stock remaining 
listed as threatened. After receiving a petition for delisting, NOAA 
Fisheries evaluated the eastern stock and found it suitable for 
delisting, which was completed in 2013. However, the eastern stock of 
Steller sea lions is still considered depleted under the MMPA. Animals 
found in the region of activity are from the eastern stock. The eastern 
stock breeds in rookeries located in southeast Alaska, British 
Columbia, Oregon, and California; there are no rookeries located in 
Washington or in the Columbia River (Allen and Angliss 2015).

[[Page 15073]]

    The abundance of the Eastern DPS of Steller sea lions is increasing 
throughout the northern portion of its range (Southeast Alaska and 
British Columbia), and stable or increasing slowly in the central 
portion (Oregon through central California). In the southern end of its 
range (Channel Islands in southern California), it has declined 
significantly since the late 1930s, and several rookeries and haul-outs 
have been abandoned (Allen and Angliss 2015). The most recent stock 
assessment report estimated the population for Steller sea lions to be 
between 60,131 and 74,448 animals (Allen and Angliss 2015). This stock 
has been increasing approximately four percent per year over the entire 
range since the late 1970s (Allen and Angliss 2015). The most recent 
minimum population estimate for the eastern stock is 59,968 
individuals, with actual population estimated to be within the range 
58,334 to 72,223 (Allen and Angliss 2015).

Behavior and Ecology

    Steller sea lions forage near shore and in pelagic waters. They are 
capable of traveling long distances in a season and can dive to 
approximately 1,300 ft (400 m) in depth. They also use terrestrial 
habitat as haul-out sites for periods of rest, molting, and as 
rookeries for mating and pupping during the breeding season. At sea, 
they are often seen alone or in small groups, but may gather in large 
rafts at the surface near rookeries and haul-outs. Steller sea lions 
prefer the colder temperate to sub-arctic waters of the North Pacific 
Ocean. Haul-outs and rookeries usually consist of beaches (gravel, 
rocky or sand), ledges, and rocky reefs. In the Bering and Okhotsk 
Seas, sea lions may also haul-out on sea ice, but this is considered 
atypical behavior.
    Steller sea lions are gregarious animals that often travel or haul 
out in large groups of up to 45 individuals (Keple 2002). At sea, 
groups usually consist of female and subadult males; adult males are 
usually solitary while at sea (Loughlin 2002). In the Pacific 
Northwest, breeding rookeries are located in British Columbia, Oregon, 
and northern California. Steller sea lions form large rookeries during 
late spring when adult males arrive and establish territories (Pitcher 
and Calkins 1979). Large males aggressively defend territories while 
non-breeding males remain at peripheral sites or haul-outs. Females 
arrive soon after and give birth. Most births occur from mid-May 
through mid-July, and breeding takes place shortly thereafter. Most 
pups are weaned within a year. Non-breeding individuals may not return 
to rookeries during the breeding season but remain at other coastal 
haul-outs (Scordino 2006).
    Steller sea lions are opportunistic predators, feeding primarily on 
fish and cephalopods, and their diet varies geographically and 
seasonally. Foraging habitat is primarily shallow, nearshore and 
continental shelf waters; freshwater rivers; and also deep waters 
(Scordino, 2010).
    In Oregon, Steller sea lions are found on offshore rocks and 
islands. Most of these haul-out sites are part of the Oregon Islands 
National Wildlife Refuge and are closed to the public. Oregon is home 
to the largest breeding site in U.S. waters south of Alaska, with 
breeding areas at Three Arch Rocks (Oceanside), Orford Reef (Port 
Orford), and Rogue Reef (Gold Beach). Steller sea lions are also found 
year-round in smaller numbers at Sea Lion Caves and at Cape Arago State 
Park.
    Although Steller sea lions occur primarily in coastal habitat in 
Oregon and Washington, they are present year-round in the lower 
Columbia River, usually downstream of the confluence of the Cowlitz 
River. However, adult and subadult male Steller sea lions have been 
observed at Bonneville Dam, where they prey primarily on sturgeon and 
salmon that congregate below the dam. In 2002, the USACE began 
monitoring seasonal presence, abundance, and predation activities of 
marine mammals in the Bonneville Dam tailrace (Stansell et al. 2013). 
Steller sea lions have been documented every year since 2003; 
observations have steadily increased to maximum of 89 Steller sea lions 
in 2011 (Stansell et al. 2013).
    Steller sea lions use the Columbia River for travel, foraging, and 
resting as they move between haul-out sites and the dam. There are no 
known haul-out sites within the portions of the region of activity 
occurring in the Columbia River. The nearest known haul-out in the 
Columbia River is a rock formation (Phoca Rock) approximately 8 miles 
downstream of Bonneville Dam (approximately 66 miles upstream from the 
project site). Steller sea lions are also known to haul out on the 
south jetty at the mouth of the Columbia River, near Astoria, Oregon. 
There are no rookeries located in or near the region of activity. The 
nearest Steller sea lion rookery is on the northern Oregon coast at 
Oceanside (ODFW, 2015), approximately 70 miles south of Astoria, i.e. 
more than 150 milies from the region of activity.
    Steller sea lions arrive at the dam in late fall (Tackley et al. 
2008), although occasionally individuals are sighted near Bonneville 
Dam in the months of September, October, and November (Stansell et al. 
2013). Steller sea lions are present at the dam through May, and can 
travel between the dam and the mouth of the Columbia River several 
times during these months (Tackley et al. 2008). Stansell et al. (2013) 
shows the average abundance of pinnipeds at the Bonneville Dam, showing 
peak abundance during April. Because tracking data indicate that sea 
lions travel at fast rates between hydrophone locations above and below 
the POK project area (Brown et al. 2010), dates of first arrival at 
Bonneville Dam and departure from the dam are assumed to coincide 
closely with potential passage timing through the project area.
    Steller sea lions are expected to pass the project site beginning 
with a few individuals as early as September and most individuals in 
January through early June. Stansell et al. (2013) show that Steller 
sea lion abundance below Bonneville Dam increases through approximately 
mid-April, and then drops through about the end of May.

Acoustics

    Like all pinnipeds, the Steller sea lion is amphibious; while all 
foraging activity takes place in the water, breeding behavior is 
carried out on land in coastal rookeries. On land, territorial male 
Steller sea lions regularly use loud, relatively low-frequency calls/
roars to establish breeding territories (Loughlin et al. 1987). The 
calls of females range from 0.03 to 3 kHz, with peak frequencies from 
0.15 to 1 kHz; typical duration is 1.0 to 1.5 sec (Campbell et al. 
2002). Pups also produce bleating sounds. Individually distinct 
vocalizations exchanged between mothers and pups are thought to be the 
main modality by which reunion occurs when mothers return to crowded 
rookeries following foraging at sea (Campbell et al. 2002).
    Mulsow and Reichmuth (2010) measured the unmasked airborne hearing 
sensitivity of one male Steller sea lion. The range of best hearing 
sensitivity was between 5 and 14 kHz. Maximum sensitivity was found at 
10 kHz, where the subject had a mean threshold of 7 dB. The underwater 
hearing threshold of a male Steller sea lion was significantly 
different from that of a female. The peak sensitivity range for the 
male was from 1 to 16 kHz, with maximum sensitivity (77 dB re: 1[mu]Pa-
m) at 1 kHz. The range of best hearing for the female was from 16 to 
above 25 kHz, with maximum sensitivity (73 dB re: 1[mu]Pa-m) at 25 kHz. 
However, because of the small number of animals tested, the findings 
could not be attributed to either

[[Page 15074]]

individual differences in sensitivity or sexual dimorphism (Kastelein 
et al. 2005).

Sound Primer

    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave 
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths 
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more 
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the 
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is 
typically described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A 
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a 
measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this 
is 1 microPascal [[mu]Pa]), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for 
large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in 
dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level 
(SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source 
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the 
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the 
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square 
root of the average. Rms accounts for both positive and negative 
values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they 
may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and 
Popper 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of 
discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, 
which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through 
averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa2-s) 
represents the total energy contained within a pulse, and considers 
both intensity and duration of exposure. For a single pulse, the 
numerical value of the SEL measurement is usually 5-15 dB lower than 
the rms sound pressure in dB re 1 [mu]Pa, with the comparative 
difference between measurements of rms and SEL measurements often 
tending to decrease with increasing range (Greene 1997). Peak sound 
pressure is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure measurable in the 
water at a specified distance from the source, and is represented in 
the same units as the rms sound pressure. Another common metric is 
peak-to-peak sound pressure (p-p), which is the algebraic difference 
between the peak positive and peak negative sound pressures. Peak-to-
peak pressure is typically approximately 6 dB higher than peak pressure 
(Southall et al. 2007).
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a 
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either 
directed in a beam or beams (as for the sources considered here) or may 
radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources). The compressions 
and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes 
in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as 
hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al. 1995), and the sound level of 
a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by 
known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g. 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g. sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
(e.g. vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources 
contribute to ambient sound, including the following (Richardson et al. 
1995):

--Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water 
surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced 
bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally 
occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz 
(Mitson1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with 
increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes important 
near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from 
shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during 
heavy surf conditions.
--Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface 
can become an important component of total sound at frequencies above 
500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times.
--Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient 
sound levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for 
biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.
--Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient sound related to human activity 
include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, 
oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, 
explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically 
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate 
rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the 
activity of interest (e.g. a passing vessel) is sometimes termed 
background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.

    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through 
the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al. 1995). The result is that, depending 
on the source type and its intensity, sound from the specified activity 
may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could form a 
distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals. Details of source 
types are described in the following text.
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction 
between these two sound types is important because they have differing 
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to 
hearing (e.g. Ward 1997 in Southall et al. 2007). Please see Southall 
et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
    Pulsed sound sources (e.g. explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 
impact pile

[[Page 15075]]

driving) produce signals that are brief (typically considered to be 
less than one second), broadband, atonal transients and occur either as 
isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds are all 
characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure to a 
maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical 
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or 
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous. Some of 
these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but 
without the essential properties of pulses (e.g. rapid rise time). 
Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced by vessels, 
aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 
pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as those used by the U.S. 
Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be 
greatly extended in a highly reverberant environment.
    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):

--Phocid pinnipeds in-water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz; and
--Otariid pinnipeds in-water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.

    As mentioned previously in this document, 3 marine mammal pinniped 
species are likely to occur in the proposed project area. The affected 
pinniped species will be considered as a functional group using the 
greatest range of hearing characteristics (75Hz to 100kHz) for the 
purpose of analyzing the effects of exposure to sound on marine 
mammals.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
pile driving and dredging components of the specified activity, 
including mitigation may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this 
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of 
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how 
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section and the ``Monitoring and Mitigation'' section to 
draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on 
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

Acoustic Impacts

    Marine mammals transiting the project location when construction 
activities are occurring may be exposed to increased sound energy 
levels that could result in take by Level B harassment. No take by 
Level A harassment, injury, or mortality is expected from the project. 
POK's in-water construction and demolition activities (e.g. pile 
driving and removal) introduce sound into the marine environment, and 
have the potential to have adverse impacts on marine mammals. The 
potential effects of sound from the proposed activities associated with 
the POK project may include one or more of the following: Tolerance; 
masking of natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; non-auditory 
physical effects; and temporary or permanent hearing impairment 
(Richardson et al. 1995). However, for reasons discussed later in this 
document, it is unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or 
permanent hearing impairment resulting from these activities. As 
outlined in previous NOAA Fisheries documents, the effects of sound on 
marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows 
(based on Richardson et al. 1995):

--The sound may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal 
(i.e. lower than the prevailing ambient sound level, the hearing 
threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both);
--The sound may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt 
behavioral response;
--The sound may elicit reactions of varying degrees and variable 
relevance to the well-being of the marine mammal; these can range from 
temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such as 
vacating an area until the stimulus ceases, but potentially for longer 
periods of time;
--Upon repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing 
responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the 
latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in 
characteristics and unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with 
situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
--Any anthropogenic sound that is strong enough to be heard has the 
potential to result in masking, or reduce the ability of a marine 
mammal to hear biological sounds at similar frequencies, including 
calls from conspecifics and underwater environmental sounds such as 
surf sound;
--If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding, 
breeding, or some other biologically important purpose even though 
there is chronic exposure to sound, it is possible that there could be 
sound-induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative 
effects on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and
--Very strong sounds have the potential to cause a temporary or 
permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity, also referred to as 
threshold shift. In terrestrial mammals, and presumably marine mammals, 
received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold 
for there to be any temporary threshold shift (TTS). For transient 
sounds, the sound level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to 
the duration of the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher 
for there to be risk of permanent hearing impairment (PTS). In 
addition, intense acoustic or explosive events may cause trauma to 
tissues associated with organs vital for hearing, sound production, 
respiration and other functions. This trauma may include minor to 
severe hemorrhage.

Tolerance

    Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industrial 
activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water 
at

[[Page 15076]]

distances of many kilometers. However, other studies have shown that 
marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show 
no apparent response to industrial activities of various types (Miller 
et al. 2005). This is often true even in cases when the sounds must be 
readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and 
the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen 
whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 
to react behaviorally to underwater sound from sources such as airgun 
pulses or vessels under some conditions, at other times, mammals of all 
three types have shown no overt reactions. In general, pinnipeds seem 
to be more tolerant of exposure to some types of underwater sound than 
are baleen whales. Richardson et al. (1995) found that vessel sound 
does not seem to strongly affect pinnipeds that are already in the 
water. Richardson et al. (1995) went on to explain that seals on haul-
outs sometimes respond strongly to the presence of vessels and at other 
times appear to show considerable tolerance of vessels.

Masking

    Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest to an animal by 
other sounds, typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are 
highly dependent on sound, and their ability to recognize sound signals 
amid other sound is important in communication and detection of both 
predators and prey. Background ambient sound may interfere with or mask 
the ability of an animal to detect a sound signal even when that signal 
is above its absolute hearing threshold. Even in the absence of 
anthropogenic sound, the marine environment is often loud. Natural 
ambient sound includes contributions from wind, waves, precipitation, 
other animals, and (at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal sound 
resulting from molecular agitation (Richardson et al. 1995).
    Background sound may also include anthropogenic sound, and masking 
of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels 
of background sound. Conversely, if the background level of underwater 
sound is high (e.g. on a day with strong wind and high waves), an 
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would 
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. 
Ambient sound is highly variable on continental shelves. This results 
in a high degree of variability in the range at which marine mammals 
can detect anthropogenic sounds.
    Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the 
introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment 
at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and 
frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is 
exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, 
this would reduce the size of the area around that whale within which 
it can hear the calls of another whale. The components of background 
noise that are similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily 
determine the degree of masking of that signal. In general, little is 
known about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of 
sounds from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In 
the absence of specific information about the importance of detecting 
these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of 
masking on marine mammals (Richardson et al. 1995). In general, masking 
effects are expected to be less severe when sounds are transient than 
when they are continuous. Masking is typically of greater concern for 
those marine mammals that utilize low frequency communications, such as 
baleen whales and, as such, is not likely to occur for pinnipeds in the 
region of activity.

Disturbance

    Behavioral disturbance is one of the primary potential impacts of 
anthropogenic sound on marine mammals. Disturbance can result in a 
variety of effects, such as subtle or dramatic changes in behavior or 
displacement, but the degree to which disturbance causes such effects 
may be highly dependent upon the context in which the stimulus occurs. 
For example, an animal that is feeding may be less prone to disturbance 
from a given stimulus than one that is not. For many species and 
situations, there is no detailed information about reactions to sound.
    Behavioral reactions of marine mammals to sound are difficult to 
predict because they are dependent on numerous factors, including 
species, maturity, experience, activity, reproductive state, time of 
day, and weather. If a marine mammal does react to an underwater sound 
by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of 
that change may not be important to the individual, the stock, or the 
species as a whole. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals 
from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, 
impacts on the animals could be important. In general, pinnipeds seem 
more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially 
disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be 
less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. 
Pinniped responses to underwater sound from some types of industrial 
activities such as seismic exploration appear to be temporary and 
localized (Harris et al. 2001; Reiser et al. 2009).
    Because the few available studies show wide variation in response 
to underwater and airborne sound, it is difficult to quantify exactly 
how pile driving sound would affect pinnipeds. The literature shows 
that elevated underwater sound levels could prompt a range of effects, 
including no obvious visible response, or behavioral responses that may 
include annoyance and increased alertness, visual orientation towards 
the sound, investigation of the sound, change in movement pattern or 
direction, habituation, alteration of feeding and social interaction, 
or temporary or permanent avoidance of the area affected by sound. 
Minor behavioral responses do not necessarily cause long-term effects 
to the individuals involved. Severe responses include panic, immediate 
movement away from the sound, and stampeding, which could potentially 
lead to injury or mortality (Southall et al. 2007). Stampeding is not 
expected to occur because there are no haulouts that will be affected 
by the proposed action.
    Southall et al. (2007) reviewed literature describing responses of 
pinnipeds to non-pulsed sound in water and reported that the limited 
data suggest exposures between approximately 90 and 140 dB generally do 
not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in pinnipeds, while 
higher levels of pulsed sound, ranging between 150 and 180 dB, will 
prompt avoidance of an area. It is important to note that among these 
studies, there are some apparent differences in responses between field 
and laboratory conditions. In contrast to the mid-frequency 
odontocetes, captive pinnipeds responded more strongly at lower levels 
than did animals in the field. Again, contextual issues are the likely 
cause of this difference. For airborne sound, Southall et al. (2007) 
note there are extremely limited data suggesting very minor, if any, 
observable behavioral responses by pinnipeds exposed to airborne pulses 
of 60 to 80 dB; however, given the paucity of data on the subject, we 
cannot rule out the possibility that avoidance of

[[Page 15077]]

sound in the region of activity could occur.
    In their comprehensive review of available literature, Southall et 
al. (2007) noted that quantitative studies on behavioral reactions of 
pinnipeds to underwater sound are rare. A subset of only three studies 
observed the response of pinnipeds to multiple pulses of underwater 
sound (a category of sound types that includes impact pile driving), 
and were also deemed by the authors as having results that are both 
measurable and representative. However, a number of studies not used by 
Southall et al. (2007) provide additional information, both 
quantitative and anecdotal, regarding the reactions of pinnipeds to 
multiple pulses of underwater sound.

--Harris et al. (2001) observed the response of ringed, bearded 
(Erignathus barbatus), and spotted seals (Phoca largha) to underwater 
operation of a single air gun and an eleven-gun array. Received 
exposure levels were 160 to 200 dB. Results fit into two categories. In 
some instances, seals exhibited no response to sound. However, the 
study noted significantly fewer seals during operation of the full 
array in some instances. Additionally, the study noted some avoidance 
of the area within 150 m of the source during full array operations.
--Blackwell et al. (2004) is the only cited study directly related to 
pile driving. The study observed ringed seals during impact 
installation of steel pipe pile. Received underwater SPLs were measured 
at 151 dB at 63 m. The seals exhibited either no response or only brief 
orientation response (defined as ``investigation or visual 
orientation''). It should be noted that the observations were made 
after pile driving was already in progress. Therefore, it is possible 
that the low-level response was due to prior habituation.
--Miller et al. (2005) observed responses of ringed and bearded seals 
to a seismic air gun array. Received underwater sound levels were 
estimated at 160 to 200 dB. There were fewer seals present close to the 
sound source during air gun operations in the first year, but in the 
second year the seals showed no avoidance. In some instances, seals 
were present in very close range of the sound. The authors concluded 
that there was ``no observable behavioral response'' to seismic air gun 
operations.
--During a Caltrans installation demonstration project for retrofit 
work on the East Span of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge, 
California, sea lions responded to pile driving by swimming rapidly out 
of the area, regardless of the size of the pile-driving hammer or the 
presence of sound attenuation devices (74 FR 63724; December 4, 2009).
--Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed harbor seal reactions to acoustic 
harassment devices (AHDs) with source level of 172 dB deployed around 
aquaculture sites. Seals were generally unresponsive to sounds from the 
AHDs. During two specific events, individuals came within 141 and 144 
ft (43 and 44 m) of active AHDs and failed to demonstrate any 
measurable behavioral response; estimated received levels based on the 
measures given were approximately 120 to 130 dB.
--Costa et al. (2003) measured received sound levels from an Acoustic 
Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) program sound source off northern 
California using acoustic data loggers placed on translocated elephant 
seals. Subjects were captured on land, transported to sea, instrumented 
with archival acoustic tags, and released such that their transit would 
lead them near an active ATOC source (at 0.6 mi depth [939 m]; 75-Hz 
signal with 37.5-Hz bandwidth; 195 dB maximum source level, ramped up 
from 165 dB over 20 min) on their return to a haul-out site. Received 
exposure levels of the ATOC source for experimental subjects averaged 
128 dB (range 118 to 137) in the 60- to 90-Hz band. None of the 
instrumented animals terminated dives or radically altered behavior 
upon exposure, but some statistically significant changes in diving 
parameters were documented in nine individuals. Translocated northern 
elephant seals exposed to this particular non-pulse source began to 
demonstrate subtle behavioral changes at exposure to received levels of 
approximately 120 to 140 dB.

    Several available studies provide information on the reactions of 
pinnipeds to non-pulsed underwater sound. Kastelein et al. (2006) 
exposed nine captive harbor seals in an approximately 82 x 98 ft (25 x 
30 m) enclosure to non-pulse sounds used in underwater data 
communication systems (similar to acoustic modems). Test signals were 
frequency modulated tones, sweeps, and bands of sound with fundamental 
frequencies between 8 and 16 kHz; 128 to 130 3 dB source 
levels; 1- to 2-s duration (60-80 percent duty cycle); or 100 percent 
duty cycle. They recorded seal positions and the mean number of 
individual surfacing behaviors during control periods (no exposure), 
before exposure, and in 15-min experimental sessions (n = 7 exposures 
for each sound type). Seals generally swam away from each source at 
received levels of approximately 107 dB, avoiding it by approximately 
16 ft (5 m), although they did not haul out of the water or change 
surfacing behavior. Seal reactions did not appear to wane over repeated 
exposure (i.e. there was no obvious habituation), and the colony of 
seals generally returned to baseline conditions following exposure. The 
seals were not reinforced with food for remaining in the sound field.
    Ship and boat sound do not seem to have strong effects on seals in 
the water, but the data are limited. When in the water, seals appear to 
be much less apprehensive about approaching vessels. Gray seals 
(Halichoerus grypus) have been known to approach and follow fishing 
vessels in an effort to steal catch or the bait from traps. In 
contrast, seals hauled out on land often are quite responsive to nearby 
vessels. Terhune (1985) reported that northwest Atlantic harbor seals 
were extremely vigilant when hauled out and were wary of approaching 
(but less so passing) boats. Suryan and Harvey (1999) reported that 
Pacific harbor seals commonly left the shore when powerboat operators 
approached to observe the seals. Those seals detected a powerboat at a 
mean distance of 866 ft (264 m), and seals left the haul-out site when 
boats approached to within 472 ft (144 m).
    Southall et al. (2007) also compiled known studies of behavioral 
responses of marine mammals to airborne sound, noting that studies of 
pinniped response to airborne pulsed sounds are exceedingly rare. The 
authors deemed only one study as having quantifiable results.
    Blackwell et al. (2004) studied the response of ringed seals within 
500 m of impact driving of steel pipe pile. Received levels of airborne 
sound were measured at 93 dB at a distance of 63 m. Seals had either no 
response or limited response to pile driving. Reactions were described 
as ``indifferent'' or ``curious.''
    Efforts to deter pinniped predation on salmonids below Bonneville 
Dam began in 2005, and have used Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), 
boat chasing, above-water pyrotechnics (cracker shells, screamer shells 
or rockets), rubber bullets, rubber buckshot, and beanbags (Stansell et 
al. 2013). Review of deterrence activities by the West Coast Pinniped 
Program noted ``USACE observations from 2002 to 2008

[[Page 15078]]

indicated that increasing numbers of California sea lions were foraging 
on salmon at Bonneville Dam each year, salmon predation rates 
increased, and the deterrence efforts were having little effect on 
preventing predation'' (Scordino 2010). In the USACE status report 
through May 28, 2010, boat hazing was reported to have limited, local, 
short term impact in reducing predation in the tailrace, primarily from 
Steller sea lions. ODFW and the WDFW reported that sea lion presence 
did not appear to be significantly influenced by boat-based activities 
and several `new' sea lions (initially unbranded or unknown from 
natural markings) continued to forage in the observation area in spite 
of shore- and boat-based hazing. They suggested that hazing was not 
effective at deterring naive sea lions if there were large numbers of 
experienced sea lions foraging in the area (Brown et al. 2010). 
Observations on the effect of ADDs, which were installed at main 
fishway entrances in 2007, noted that pinnipeds were observed swimming 
and eating fish within 20 ft (6 m) of some of the devices with no 
deterrent effect observed (Tackley et al. 2008; Stansell et al. 2013). 
Many of the animals returned to the area below the dam despite hazing 
efforts (Stansell et al. 2013). Relocation efforts to Astoria and the 
Oregon coast were implemented in 2007; however, all but one of fourteen 
relocated animals returned to Bonneville Dam within days (Scordino 
2010).
    No information on in-water sound levels of hazing activities at 
Bonneville Dam has been published other than that ADDs produce 
underwater sound levels of 205 dB in the 15 kHz range (Stansell et al. 
2013). Durations of boat-based hazing events were reported at less than 
30 minutes for most of the 521 boat-based events in 2009, but ranged up 
to 90 minutes (Brown et al. 2009). Durations of boat-based hazing 
events were not reported for 2010. However, 280 events occurred over 44 
days during a five-month period using a total of 4,921 cracker shells, 
777 seal bombs, and 97 rubber buckshot rounds (Brown et al. 2010). 
Based on knowledge of in-water sound from construction activities, the 
POK project believes that sound levels from in-water construction and 
demolition activities that pinnipeds would be potentially exposed to 
are not as high as those produced by hazing techniques.
    In addition, sea lions are expected to quickly traverse through and 
not remain in the project area. Tagging studies of California sea lions 
indicate that they pass hydrophones upriver and downriver of the POK 
project site quickly. Wright et al. (2010) reported minimum upstream 
and downstream transit times between the Astoria haul-out and 
Bonneville Dam (river distance approximately 20 km) were 1.9 and 1 day, 
respectively, based on fourteen trips by eleven sea lions. The transit 
speed was calculated to be 4.6 km/hr in the upstream direction and 8.8 
km/hr in the downstream direction. Data from the six individuals 
acoustically tagged in 2009 show that they made a combined total of 
eleven upriver or downriver trips quickly through the POK project site 
to or from Bonneville Dam and Astoria (Brown et al. 2009). Data from 
four acoustically tagged California sea lions in 2010 also indicate 
that the animals move though the area below Bonneville Dam down to the 
receivers located below the POK project site rapidly both in the 
upriver or downriver directions (Wright et al. 2010). Although the data 
apply to California sea lions, Steller sea lions and harbor seals 
similarly have no incentive to stay near the POK project area, in 
contrast with a strong incentive to quickly reach optimal foraging 
grounds at the Bonneville Dam, and are thus expected to also pass the 
project area quickly. Therefore, pinnipeds are not expected to be 
exposed to significant duration of construction sound.
    It is possible that deterrence of passage through the project area 
could be a concern. However, given the 750-m width of the Columbia, 
with no activity occurring on the opposite bank in the project area, 
passage should not be hindered. Vibratory installation of steel 
casings, pipe piles, and sheet piles are calculated to exceed 
behavioral disturbance thresholds at large distances; thus, the entire 
width of the channel would be affected by sound above the disturbance 
threshold. However, because these sound levels are lower than those 
produced by ADDs at Bonneville Dam--which have shown only limited 
efficacy in deterring pinnipeds--and because pinnipeds transiting the 
region of activity will be highly motivated to complete transit, 
deterrence of passage is not anticipated to occur.

Vessel Operations

    Various types of vessels, including barges, tug boats, and small 
craft, would be present in the region of activity at various times. 
Vessel traffic would continually traverse the in-water POK project area 
in transit to port facilities upstream of the project location. Such 
vessels already use the region of activity in moderately high numbers; 
therefore, the vessels to be used in the region of activity do not 
represent a new sound source, only a potential increase in the 
frequency and duration of these sound source types.
    There are very few controlled tests or repeatable observations 
related to the reactions of pinnipeds to vessel noise. However, 
Richardson et al. (1995) reviewed the literature on reactions of 
pinnipeds to vessels, concluding overall that pinnipeds showed high 
tolerance to vessel noise. One study showed that, in water, sea lions 
tolerated frequent approach of vessels at close range. Because the 
region of activity is heavily traveled by commercial and recreational 
craft, it seems likely that pinnipeds that transit the region of 
activity are already habituated to vessel noise, thus the additional 
vessels that would occur as a result of POK project activities would 
likely not have an additional effect on these pinnipeds. Therefore, POK 
project vessel noise in the region of activity is unlikely to rise to 
the level of Level B harassment.

Dredging

    The proposed project includes up to 126,000 CY of dredging to 
provide adequate berth depth for the new marine terminal. Noise 
measurements of dredging activities are rare in the literature, but 
dredging is considered to be a low-impact activity for marine mammals, 
producing non-pulsed sound and being substantially quieter in terms of 
acoustic energy output than sources such as seismic airguns and impact 
pile driving. Noise produced by dredging operations has been compared 
to that produced by a commercial vessel travelling at modest speed 
(Robinson et al., 2011), of which there is high volume in the lower 
Columbia River (see Vessel Operations, above). Further discussion of 
dredging sound production may be found in the literature (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995, Nedwell et al., 2008, Parvin et al., 2008, 
Ainslie et al., 2009). Generally, the effects of dredging on marine 
mammals are not expected to rise to the level of a take. Therefore, 
this project component will not be discussed further.

Physical Disturbance

    Vessels, in-water structures, and over-water structures have the 
potential to cause physical disturbance to pinnipeds, although in-water 
and over-water structures would cover no more than 20 percent of the 
entire channel width at one time. As previously mentioned, various 
types of vessels already use the region of activity in high numbers. 
Tug boats and barges are slow moving and follow a predictable course. 
Pinnipeds would be able to easily avoid these vessels while transiting 
through

[[Page 15079]]

the region of activity, and are likely already habituated to the 
presence of numerous vessels, as the lower Columbia River receives high 
levels of commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Therefore, vessel 
strikes are extremely unlikely and, thus, discountable. Potential 
encounters would likely be limited to brief, sporadic behavioral 
disturbance, if any at all. Such disturbances are not likely to result 
in a risk of Level B harassment of pinnipeds transiting the region of 
activity.

Hearing Impairment and Other Physiological Effects

    Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when 
marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds. Non-auditory 
physiological effects might also occur in marine mammals exposed to 
strong underwater sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological 
effects or injuries that may occur in mammals close to a strong sound 
source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and 
other types of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine 
mammal species (i.e. beaked whales) may be especially susceptible to 
injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds, 
particularly at higher frequencies. Non-auditory physiological effects 
are not anticipated to occur as a result of POK activities. The 
following subsections discuss the possibilities of TTS and PTS.

TTS

    TTS, reversible hearing loss caused by fatigue of hair cells and 
supporting structures in the inner ear, is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter 
1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound 
must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or 
hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or 
somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both 
terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the 
sound ends.
    NOAA Fisheries considers TTS to be a form of Level B harassment 
rather than injury, as it consists of fatigue to auditory structures 
rather than damage to them. Pinnipeds have demonstrated complete 
recovery from TTS after multiple exposures to intense sound, as 
described in the studies below (Kastak et al. 1999, 2005). The NOAA 
Fisheries-established 190-dB rms SPLcriterion is not considered to be 
the level above which TTS might occur. Rather, it is the received level 
above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists 
convened by NOAA Fisheries before TTS measurements for marine mammals 
became available, one could not be certain that there would be no 
injurious effects (e.g., PTS), auditory or otherwise, to pinnipeds. 
Therefore, exposure to sound levels above 190 dB rms does not 
necessarily mean that an animal has been injured, but rather that it 
may have occurred and we cannot rule it out.
    Human non-impulsive sound exposure guidelines are based on 
exposures of equal energy (the same sound exposure level [SEL]; SEL is 
reported here in dB re: 1 [micro]Pa\2\-s/re: 20 [micro]Pa\2\-s for in-
water and in-air sound, respectively) producing equal amounts of 
hearing impairment regardless of how the sound energy is distributed in 
time (NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous marine mammal TTS studies 
have also generally supported this equal energy relationship (Southall 
et al. 2007). Two newer studies, two by Mooney et al. (2009a,b) on a 
single bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) either exposed to 
playbacks of U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar or octave-band sound 
(4-8 kHz) and one by Kastak et al. (2007) on a single California sea 
lion exposed to airborne octave-band sound (centered at 2.5 kHz), 
concluded that for all sound exposure situations, the equal energy 
relationship may not be the best indicator to predict TTS onset levels. 
Generally, with sound exposures of equal energy, those that were 
quieter (lower SPL) with longer duration were found to induce TTS onset 
more than those of louder (higher SPL) and shorter duration. Given the 
available data, the received level of a single seismic pulse (with no 
frequency weighting) might need to be approximately 186 dB SEL in order 
to produce brief, mild TTS.
    In free-ranging pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure 
to brief pulses (single or multiple) of underwater sound have not been 
measured. However, systematic TTS studies on captive pinnipeds have 
been conducted (e.g. Kastak et al. 1999, 2005, 2007; Schusterman et al. 
2000; Finneran et al. 2003; Southall et al. 2007). Specific studies are 
detailed here:

--Finneran et al. (2003) studied responses of two individual California 
sea lions. The sea lions were exposed to single pulses of underwater 
sound, and experienced no detectable TTS at received sound level of 183 
dB peak (163 dB SEL).

    There were three studies conducted on pinniped TTS responses to 
non-pulsed underwater sound. All of these studies were performed in the 
same lab and on the same test subjects, and, therefore, the results may 
not be applicable to all pinnipeds or in field settings.

--Kastak and Schusterman (1996) studied the response of harbor seals to 
non-pulsed construction sound, reporting TTS of about 8 dB. The seal 
was exposed to broadband construction sound for 6 days, averaging 6 to 
7 hours of intermittent exposure per day, with SPLs from just 
approximately 90 to 105 dB.
--Kastak et al. (1999) reported TTS of approximately 4-5 dB in three 
species of pinnipeds (harbor seal, California sea lion, and northern 
elephant seal) after underwater exposure for approximately 20 minutes 
to sound with frequencies ranging from 100-2,000 Hz at received levels 
60-75 dB above hearing threshold. This approach allowed similar 
effective exposure conditions to each of the subjects, but resulted in 
variable absolute exposure values depending on subject and test 
frequency. Recovery to near baseline levels was reported within 24 
hours of sound exposure.
--Kastak et al. (2005) followed up on their previous work, exposing the 
same test subjects to higher levels of sound for longer durations. The 
animals were exposed to octave-band sound for up to 50 minutes of net 
exposure. The study reported that the harbor seal experienced TTS of 6 
dB after a 25-minute exposure to 2.5 kHz of octave-band sound at 152 dB 
(183 dB SEL). The California sea lion demonstrated onset of TTS after 
exposure to 174 dB and 206 dB SEL.

    Southall et al. (2007) reported one study on TTS in pinnipeds 
resulting from airborne pulsed sound, while two studies examined TTS in 
pinnipeds resulting from airborne non-pulsed sound:

--Kastak et al. (2004) used the same test subjects as in Kastak et al. 
2005, exposing the animals to non-pulsed sound (2.5 kHz octave-band 
sound) for 25 minutes. The harbor seal demonstrated 6 dB of TTS after 
exposure to 99 dB (131 dB SEL). The California sea lion demonstrated 
onset of TTS at 122 dB and 154 dB SEL.
--Kastak et al. (2007) studied the same California sea lion as in 
Kastak et al. 2004 above, exposing this individual to 192 exposures of 
2.5 kHz octave-band sound at levels ranging from 94 to 133 dB for 1.5 
to 50 min of net exposure duration. The test subject experienced up to 
30 dB of TTS. TTS onset occurred at 159 dB SEL. Recovery times ranged 
from several minutes to 3 days.


[[Page 15080]]


    The sound level necessary to cause TTS in pinnipeds depends on 
exposure duration; with longer exposure, the level necessary to elicit 
TTS is reduced (Schusterman et al. 2000; Kastak et al. 2005, 2007). For 
very short exposures (e.g. to a single sound pulse), the level 
necessary to cause TTS is very high (Finneran et al. 2003). Impact pile 
driving associated with POK would produce maximum estimated underwater 
pulsed sound levels estimated at 185 dB peak and 163 dB SEL (24-inch 
octagonal concrete piles, Illinworth and Rodkin 2007). Summarizing 
existing data, Southall et al. (2007) assume that pulses of underwater 
sound result in the onset of TTS in pinnipeds when received levels 
reach 212 dB peak or 171 dB SEL, and interim NOAA Fisheries guidance 
indicates the potential for Level A harassment of pinnipeds at received 
levels of 190dB rms. TTS is not likely to occur based on estimated 
source levels from the POK project.
    Impact pile driving would produce initial airborne sound levels of 
approximately 110 dB peak at the source (WSDOT 2014), as compared to 
the level suggested by Southall et al. (2007) of 143 dB peak for onset 
of TTS in pinnipeds from multiple pulses of airborne sound. It is not 
expected that airborne sound levels would induce TTS in individual 
pinnipeds.
    Although underwater sound levels produced by the POK project may 
exceed levels produced in studies that have induced TTS in pinnipeds up 
to 4 feet from pile driving activities, this extremely small radius of 
potential effects combined with marine mammal monitoring and a 15m shut 
down zone make the likelihood of pinnipeds in the area experience 
hearing loss extremely unlikely.

PTS

    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear. In some cases, there can be total or partial deafness, whereas 
in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in 
specific frequency ranges.
    There is no specific evidence that exposure to underwater 
industrial sounds can cause PTS in any marine mammal (Southall et al. 
2007). However, given the possibility that marine mammals might incur 
TTS, there has been further speculation about the possibility that some 
individuals occurring very close to industrial activities might incur 
PTS. Richardson et al. (1995) hypothesized that PTS caused by prolonged 
exposure to continuous anthropogenic sound is unlikely to occur in 
marine mammals, at least for sounds with source levels up to 
approximately 200 dB. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 
not indicative of permanent auditory damage in terrestrial mammals. 
Studies of relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds in marine 
mammals are limited; however, existing data appear to show similarity 
to those found for humans and other terrestrial mammals, for which 
there is a large body of data. PTS might occur at a received sound 
level at least several decibels above that inducing mild TTS.
    Southall et al. (2007) propose that sound levels inducing 40 dB of 
TTS may result in onset of PTS in marine mammals. The authors present 
this threshold with precaution, as there are no specific studies to 
support it. Because direct studies on marine mammals are lacking, the 
authors base these recommendations on studies performed on other 
mammals. Additionally, the authors assume that multiple pulses of 
underwater sound result in the onset of PTS in pinnipeds when levels 
reach 218 dB peak or 186 dB SEL. In air, sound levels are assumed to 
cause PTS in pinnipeds at 149 dB peak or 144 dB SEL (Southall et al. 
2007). Sound levels this high are not expected to occur as a result of 
the proposed activities.
    The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section 
of the document do not take into consideration the proposed monitoring 
and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the 
Monitoring and Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 
sections). It is highly unlikely that marine mammals would receive 
sounds strong enough (and over a sufficient duration) to cause PTS (or 
even TTS) during the proposed POK activities. When taking the 
mitigation measures proposed for inclusion in the regulations into 
consideration, it is highly unlikely that any type of hearing 
impairment would occur as a result of POK's proposed activities.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The action are for the proposed project does not contain any 
important habitat for the three marine mammal species that may occur 
there; there are no rookeries, haulouts, or breeding grounds that will 
be affected by the proposed action. Construction activities would 
likely impact pinniped habitat in the Columbia River used primarily as 
a migration corridor and opportunistic feeding activity by producing 
temporary disturbances, primarily through elevated levels of underwater 
sound, reduced water quality, and physical habitat alteration 
associated with the structural footprint of the new marine terminal. 
Other potential temporary changes are passage obstruction and changes 
in prey species distribution during construction. Permanent changes to 
habitat would be produced primarily through the presence of the new 
marine terminal in Columbia River.
    The underwater sounds would occur as short-term pulses (i.e. 
minutes to hours), separated by virtually instantaneous and complete 
recovery periods. These disturbances are likely to occur up to 120 days 
during the available in-water work window throughout daylight hours. 
Water quality impairment would also occur during construction, most 
likely due to dredging. Physical habitat alteration due to the addition 
of in-water and over-water structures would also occur intermittently 
during construction, and would remain as the final, as-built project 
footprint for the design life of POK.
    Elevated levels of sound may be considered to affect the in-water 
habitat of pinnipeds via impacts to prey species or through passage 
obstruction (discussed later). However, due to the timing of the in-
water work, these effects on pinniped habitat would be temporary and 
limited in duration. Very few harbor seals are likely to be present in 
any case, and any pinnipeds that do encounter increased sound levels 
would primarily be transiting the action area in route to or from 
foraging below Bonneville Dam where fish concentrate or at the 
confluence of the Cowlitz River, and thus unlikely to forage in the 
action area in anything other than an opportunistic manner. The direct 
loss of habitat available during construction due to sound impacts is 
expected to be minimal.

Impacts to Prey Species

    Fish are the primary dietary component of pinnipeds in the region 
of activity. The Columbia River provides migration and foraging habitat 
for sturgeon and lamprey, migration and spawning habitat for eulachon, 
and migration habitat for juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead, as 
well as some limited rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and steelhead.
    Impact pile driving would produce a variety of underwater sound 
levels. Underwater sound caused by vibratory installation would be less 
than impact driving (Illinworth and Rodkin 2007). Literature relating 
to the impacts of sound on marine fish species can be divided into 
categories which describe

[[Page 15081]]

the following: (1) Pathological effects; (2) physiological effects; and 
(3) behavioral effects. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-
lethal physical damage to fish; physiological effects include primary 
and secondary stress responses; and behavioral effects include changes 
in exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral changes might be a direct 
reaction to a detected sound or a result of anthropogenic sound masking 
natural sounds that the fish normally detect and to which they respond. 
The three types of effects are often interrelated in complex ways. For 
example, some physiological and behavioral effects could potentially 
lead ultimately to the pathological effect of mortality. Hastings and 
Popper (2005) reviewed what is known about the effects of sound on fish 
and identified studies needed to address areas of uncertainty relative 
to measurement of sound and the responses of fish.
    Underwater sound pressure waves can injure or kill fish. Fish with 
swim bladders, including salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, are 
particularly sensitive to underwater impulsive sounds with a sharp 
sound pressure peak occurring in a short interval of time (Hastings and 
Popper 2005). As the pressure wave passes through a fish, the swim 
bladder is rapidly squeezed due to the high pressure, and then rapidly 
expanded as the underpressure component of the wave passes through the 
fish. The pneumatic pounding may rupture capillaries in the internal 
organs. Although eulachon lack a swim bladder, they are also 
susceptible to general pressure wave injuries including hemorrhage and 
rupture of internal organs, as described above, and damage to the 
auditory system. Direct take can cause instantaneous death, latent 
death within minutes after exposure, or can occur several days later. 
Indirect take can occur because of reduced fitness of a fish, making it 
susceptible to predation, disease, starvation, or inability to complete 
its life cycle. Effects to prey species are summarized here and are 
outlined in more detail in NOAA Fisheries' biological opinion.
    There are no physical barriers to fish passage within the region of 
activity, nor are there fish passage barriers between the region of 
activity and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project would not involve 
the creation of permanent physical barriers; thus, long-term changes in 
pinniped prey species distribution are not expected to occur.
    Nevertheless, impact pile-driving would likely create a temporary 
migration barrier to all life stages of fish using the Columbia River, 
although this would be localized and mitigated by the in-water work 
window designed to minimize impacts to fish species. Impacts to fish 
species distribution would be temporary during in-water work and 
hydroacoustic impacts from impact pile driving would only occur during 
the day and only during the in-water work window established for this 
activity in conjunction with ODFW, WDFW, and NOAA Fisheries. The 
overall effect to the prey base for pinnipeds is anticipated to be 
insignificant.
    Prey may also be affected by turbidity, contaminated sediments, or 
other contaminants in the water column. The POK project involves 
several activities that could potentially generate turbidity in the 
Columbia River, including pile installation, pile removal, and 
dredging. Any measurable increase in turbidity is not anticipated to 
measurably exceed levels caused by normal increases associated with 
normal high flow events. Turbidity is not expected to cause mortality 
to fish species in the region of activity, and effects would probably 
be limited to temporary avoidance of the discrete areas of elevated 
turbidity (anticipated to be no more than 300 ft [91 m] from the 
source) for approximately 8-10 hours at a time, or effects such as 
abrasion to gills and alteration in feeding and migration behavior for 
fish close to the activity. Therefore, turbidity would likely have only 
insignificant effects to fish and, thus, insignificant effects on 
pinnipeds.
    The POK project has already determined that the project location 
does not have elevated concentrations of contaminants and is fully 
suited to any beneficial reuse (as described above), and therefore 
effects to water quality from resuspended contaminants are not 
anticipated from the proposed action.

Physical Loss of Prey Species Habitat

    The project would lead to approximately 44,943 ft\2\ of additional 
new, permanent, overwater coverage, and the loss of 1,079 ft\2\ of 
benthic habitat from new piles in the Columbia River. Removal of the 
existing Columbia River piles would permanently restore about 123 ft\2\ 
(557 m\2\) of shallow-water habitat Physical loss of shallow-water 
habitat is of particular concern for rearing of subyearling migrant 
salmonids. In theory, in-water structures that completely block the 
nearshore may force these juveniles to swim into deeper-water habitats 
to circumvent them. Deep-water areas represent lower quality habitat 
because predation rates are higher there. Studies show that predators 
such as walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), northern pike-minnow 
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), and other predatory fish occur in 
deepwater habitat for at least part of the year (Pribyl et al. 2004). 
In the case of the POK project, in-water portions of the structures 
would not pose a complete blockage to nearshore movement anywhere in 
the region of activity. Although these structures would cover potential 
rearing and nearshore migration areas, the habitat is not rare and is 
not of particularly high quality. Juveniles would still be able to use 
the abundant shallow-water habitat available for miles in either 
direction. Neither the permanent nor the temporary structures would 
necessarily force juveniles into deeper water, and therefore pose no 
definite added risk of predation.
    To the limited extent that the proposed actions do increase risk of 
predation, pinnipeds may accrue minor benefits. Alterations to adult 
eulachon and salmon behavior may make them more vulnerable to 
predation. Changes in cover that congregate fish or cause them to slow 
or pause migration would likely attract pinnipeds, which may then 
forage opportunistically. While individual pinnipeds are likely to take 
advantage of such conditions, it is not expected to increase overall 
predation rates across the run. Aggregating features would be small in 
comparison to the channel, and ample similar opportunities exist 
throughout the lower Columbia River.
    Physical loss of shallow-water habitat would have only negligible 
effects on foraging, migration, and holding of salmonids that are of 
the yearling age class or older. These life functions are not dependent 
on shallow-water habitat for these age classes. Furthermore, the lost 
habitat is not of particularly high quality. There is abundant similar 
habitat immediately adjacent along the shorelines of the Columbia 
River. The lost habitat represents only a small fraction of the 
remaining habitat available for miles in either direction. There would 
still be many acres of habitat for yearling or older age-classes of 
salmonids foraging, migrating, and holding in the region of activity. 
Physical loss of shallow-water habitat would have only negligible 
effects on eulachon and green sturgeon for the same reason. Thus, the 
effects to these elements of pinniped habitat would be minimal.
    In addition, compensatory mitigation for direct permanent habitat 
loss to jurisdictional waters from permanent pier placement would occur 
in accordance with requirements set by USACE, Washington Department of 
Ecology, and WDFW. To meet these requirements, POK is proposing to

[[Page 15082]]

restore habitat in the 1.41 acres of riparian habitat near the project 
location through native plantings and invasive species control. 
Additionally, POK will install eight ELJs that will improve habitat for 
salmonids and eulachon. Therefore, permanent habitat loss is expected 
to have a negligible impact to habitat for pinniped prey species due to 
offsetting mitigation.
    Due to the small size of the impact relative to the remaining 
habitat available, and the permanent benefits from habitat restoration, 
permanent physical habitat loss is likely to be insignificant to fish 
and, thus, to the habitat and foraging opportunities of pinnipeds.

Mitigation

Mitigation Monitoring Protocols

    Initial monitoring zones are based on a practical spreading loss 
model and data found in Illinworth and Rodkin (2007). A minimum 
distance of 10 m is 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.

 Table 2--Distance to Initial Shutdown and Disturbance Monitoring Zones for In-Water Sound in the Columbia River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Distance to monitoring zones (m) \1\
          Pile type             Hammer type   ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 190 dB \2\      160 dB \2\                120 dB \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-in Concrete pile.........  Impact.........              10             117  N/A.
18-in Steel pipe pile.......  Vibratory......              10             N/A  Line of Sight, (max 5.7km).
18-in Steel pipe pile.......  Impact.........              18             736  NA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Monitoring zones based on a practical spreading loss model and data from Illinworth 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 [mu]Pa.

    In order to accomplish appropriate monitoring for mitigation 
purposes, POK would have an observer stationed on each active pile 
driving location to closely monitor the shutdown zone as well as the 
surrounding area. In addition, POK would 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 would be on duty during all 
pile vibratory driving/removal activity. The first observer would 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 
would be implemented to ensure that coordinated communication of 
sightings occurs between observers in a timely manner.
    In summary:

--POK would implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around all 
pile driving activity (or 18m in the case that impact pile driving is 
required for steel piles). The 10-m shutdown zone provides a buffer for 
the 190-dB threshold but is also intended to further avoid the risk of 
direct interaction between marine mammals and the equipment.
--POK would 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/removal site. The former would be capable of providing 
comprehensive monitoring of the proposed shutdown zones. This 
observer's first priority would 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 would be able to monitor the same 
distances, but their primary responsibility would 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 would be monitored throughout the 
time required to drive a pile. If a marine mammal is observed within 
the disturbance zone, a take would be recorded and behaviors 
documented. However, that pile segment would be completed without 
cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at 
which point all pile driving activities would be halted.

    The following measures would apply to visual monitoring:

--If the shutdown zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, 
pile driving would 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 would be monitored for the presence of pinnipeds 
before, during, and after any pile driving activity. The shutdown zone 
would be monitored for 30 minutes prior to initiating the start of pile 
driving. If pinnipeds are present within the shutdown zone prior to 
pile driving, the start of pile driving would 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 would be conducted using binoculars. When possible, 
digital video or still cameras would also be used to document the 
behavior and response of pinnipeds to construction activities or other 
disturbances.
--Each observer would have a radio or cell phone for contact with other 
monitors or work crews. Observers would implement shut-down or delay 
procedures when applicable by

[[Page 15083]]

calling for the shut-down to the hammer operator.
--A GPS unit or electric range finder would be used for determining the 
observation location and distance to pinnipeds, boats, and construction 
equipment.

    Monitoring would 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.

Disturbance Zones

    For all pile driving and removal activities, a disturbance zone 
would be established. Disturbance zones are typically defined as the 
area in which SPLs equal or exceed 160 or 120 dB rms (for impact and 
vibratory pile driving, respectively). However, when the size of a 
disturbance zone is sufficiently large as to make monitoring of the 
entire area impracticable (as in the case of the 120-dB zone here), the 
disturbance zone may be defined as some area that may reasonably be 
monitored. Here, the disturbance zone is defined for monitoring 
purposes as an area are the waters within line of sight of project 
activities, with a maximum line of sight distance based on local 
geography of approximately 5.7 km. Disturbance zones provide utility 
for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e. shutdown zone 
monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to 
the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables PSOs to be 
aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project 
area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential 
shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone 
monitoring is for documenting incidents of Level B harassment; 
disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see 
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Shutdown Zones

    For all pile driving, a shutdown zone (defined as, at minimum, the 
area in which SPLs equal or exceed 190 dB rms) of 10 m from impact 
driving of concrete piles and vibratory pile driving, and 18 m for 
impact pile driving of steel piles, would be established. The purpose 
of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of 
activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in 
anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing 
injury, serious injury, or death of marine mammals. Although practical 
spreading loss model indicates that radial distances to the 190-dB 
threshold would be less than 10m for impact pile driving of concrete 
piles and vibratory pile driving, shutdown zones would conservatively 
be set at a minimum 10 m. This precautionary measure is intended to 
further reduce any possibility of injury to marine mammals by 
incorporating a buffer to the 190-dB threshold within the shutdown 
area.

Shutdown

    Pile driving would occur from September 1 through January 31. The 
shutdown zone would also be monitored throughout the time required to 
drive a pile. If a pinniped is observed approaching or entering the 
shutdown zone, piling operations would be discontinued until the animal 
has moved outside of the shutdown zone. Pile driving would resume only 
after the animal is determined to have moved outside the shutdown zone 
by a qualified observer or after 15 minutes have elapsed since the last 
sighting of the animal within the shutdown zone.

Pile Driving Best Management Practices

    For pile driving, the applicant will implement the following best 
management practices:

--If steel piles require impact installation or proofing, a bubble 
curtain will be used for sound attenuation;
--If steel piles require impact installation or proofing, the 
contractor will be required to use soft start procedures. 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;
--Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's pile 
driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for 
a period of thirty minutes or longer;
--Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted during all pile driving as 
described in Appendix B of the application.

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 would be used to avoid in-water work when ESA-
listed fish are most likely to be present. Fish entrapment would be 
minimized by containing and isolating in-water work to the extent 
possible, through the use of drilled shaft casings and cofferdams. The 
contractor would provide a qualified fishery biologist to conduct and 
supervise fish capture and release activity to minimize risk of injury 
to fish. All pumps must employ fish screen that meet certain 
specifications in order to avoid entrainment of fish. A qualified 
biologist would be present during all impact pile driving operations to 
observe and report any indications of dead, injured, or distressed 
fishes, including direct observations of these

[[Page 15084]]

fishes or increases in bird foraging activity.
    POK would work to ensure minimum degradation of water quality in 
the project area, and requires compliance with Surface Water Quality 
Standards for Washington. In addition, the contractor would prepare a 
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to 
beginning construction. The SPCC Plan would identify the appropriate 
spill containment materials; as well as the method of implementation. 
All equipment to be used for construction activities would 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 would be used 
below OHW would be identified; daily inspection and cleanup procedures 
would 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 would 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 
effecting 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.

    Based on our evaluation, NOAA Fisheries has preliminarily 
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. The proposed rule comment period will afford the 
public an opportunity to submit recommendations, views, and/or concerns 
regarding this action and the proposed mitigation measures.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    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 proposed a marine mammal monitoring plan in their application 
(see Appendix B of POK's application). The plan may be modified or 
supplemented based on comments or new information received from the 
public during the public comment period. All methods identified herein 
have been developed through coordination between NOAA Fisheries and the 
design and environmental teams at POK. The methods are based on the 
parties' professional judgment supported by their collective knowledge 
of pinniped behavior, site conditions, and proposed project activities. 
Because pinniped monitoring has not previously been conducted at this 
site, aspects of these methods may warrant modification. Any 
modifications to this protocol would be coordinated with NOAA 
Fisheries. A summary of the plan, as well as the proposed reporting 
requirements, is contained here.
    The intent of the monitoring plan is to:

--Comply with the requirements of the MMPA as well as the ESA section 7 
consultation;
--Avoid injury to pinnipeds through visual monitoring of identified 
shutdown zones and shut-down of activities when animals enter or 
approach those zones; and
--To the extent possible, record the number, species, and behavior of 
pinnipeds in disturbance zones for pile driving and removal activities.

    As described previously, monitoring for pinnipeds would be 
conducted in specific zones established to avoid or minimize effects of 
elevated levels of sound created by the specified activities. Shutdown 
zones would not be less than 10 m, while initial disturbance zones 
would be based on site-specific data.

Visual Monitoring

    The established shutdown and disturbance zones would be monitored 
by qualified marine mammal observers for mitigation purposes, as well 
as to document marine mammal behavior and incidents of Level B 
harassment, as described here. POK's marine mammal monitoring plan (see 
Appendix B of POK's application) would be implemented, requiring 
collection of sighting data for each pinniped observed during the 
proposed activities for which monitoring is required, including impact 
installation of concrete pile or vibratory installation of steel pipe. 
A qualified biologist(s) would be present on site at all times during 
impact pile driving or vibratory installation or removal piles.

Disturbance Zone Monitoring

    Disturbance zones, described previously in Monitoring and 
Mitigation section, are defined in Table 2 for underwater sound. 
Monitoring zones for Level B harassment from airborne sound would be 
96m for harbor seals and 38m for sea lions (corresponding to the 
anticipated extent of airborne sound reaching 90 and 100 dB, 
respectively) during impact pile driving, and 83m and 17m 
(respectively) during vibratory pile driving.
    The size of the disturbance zone for in-water monitoring for 
vibratory pile installation or extraction would be the full line of 
sight from pile driving activities in both the upstream and downstream 
directions. Monitoring for impact pile driving of concrete piles will 
extend 117m from the pile driving, and will require only a single 
monitor at the project location.
    The monitoring biologists would document all pinnipeds observed in 
the monitoring area. Data collection would include a count of all 
pinnipeds observed by species, sex, age class, their location within 
the zone, and their reaction (if any) to construction activities, 
including direction of movement, and type of construction that is 
occurring, time that pile driving begins and ends, any acoustic or 
visual disturbance, and time of the observation. Environmental 
conditions

[[Page 15085]]

such as wind speed, wind direction, visibility, and temperature would 
also be recorded. No monitoring would be conducted during inclement 
weather that creates potentially hazardous conditions, as determined by 
the biologist, nor would monitoring be conducted when visibility is 
significantly limited, such as during heavy rain or fog. During these 
times of inclement weather, in-water work that may produce sound levels 
in excess of 190 dB rms would be halted; these activities would not 
commence until monitoring has started for the day.
    All monitoring personnel must have appropriate qualifications as 
identified previously; with qualifications to be certified by POK (see 
Monitoring and Mitigation). These qualifications include education and 
experience identifying pinnipeds in the Columbia River and the ability 
to understand and document pinniped behavior. All monitoring personnel 
would meet at least once for a training session sponsored by POK. 
Topics would include: Implementation of the protocol, identifying 
marine mammals, and reporting requirements.
    All monitoring personnel would be provided a copy of the LOA and 
final biological opinion for the project. Monitoring personnel must 
read and understand the contents of the LOA and biological opinion as 
they relate to coordination, communication, and identifying and 
reporting incidental harassment of pinnipeds.

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 and 
removal of piles via impact and vibratory methods. Dredging is not 
anticipated to result in take of marine mammals. No take by injury, 
serious injury, or death is anticipated.

               Table 3--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Non-explosive sound
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition        Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).  Permanent Threshold   180 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Shift (PTS) (Any      m (cetaceans)/190
                               level above that      dB re 1 microPa-m
                               which is known to     (pinnipeds) root
                               cause TTS).           mean square (rms).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            160 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       m (rms).
                               impulse noises).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            120 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       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 4--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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 120 days, it is possible that harbor seals could be 
exposed above the Level B harassment threshold up to 1200 times,

[[Page 15086]]

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.
    For California sea lions, we use the maximum observed abundance at 
the Bonneville Dam since monitoring began in 2002 (Table 4) as our 
starting point. With a maximum observed number of California sea lions 
being 104 in 2003, we assume that each sea lion would transit the 
action area twice, once on the way to the dam on once returning from 
the dam, resulting in 208 transits per year. With the project in-water 
activities occurring for up to 120 days, we then assume that no more 
than \1/3\ of the sea lion run would be exposed for the duration of the 
project, resulting in up to an estimated 70 take exposures. This 
provides a conservative estimate because sea lion abundance upstream of 
the project area occurs March through April (Stansell et al. 2013), 
which the in-water work window of September 1 through January 31 avoid. 
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.
    For Steller sea lions, we use the maximum observed abundance at the 
Bonneville Dam since monitoring began in 2002 (Table 4) as our starting 
point. With a maximum observed number of Steller sea lions being 89 in 
2011, we assume that each sea lion would transit the action area twice, 
once on the way to the dam on once returning from the dam. To account 
for a slight trend of increasing numbers of Steller sea lions being 
observed each year, we assume up to 100 individuals may pass the 
project site during the year which this authorization is active, 
providing an estimate of 200 transits per year. With the project in-
water activities occurring for up to 120 days, we then then assume that 
no more than \1/3\ of the sea lion run would be exposed for the 
duration of the project, resulting in up to an estimated 68 take 
exposures. This provides a conservative estimate because sea lion 
abundance upstream of the project area occurs March through April 
(Stansell et al. 2013), which the in-water work window of September 1 
through January 31 avoid. 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 Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not 
enough information on which to base an impact determination. In 
addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that 
might be ``taken'', 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 or would be 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.

[[Page 15087]]

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. All project 
activities would be conducted using the BMPs and minimization measures, 
which are described in detail in NOAA Fisheries' biological opinion, 
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, on the effects of the POK project on 
ESA-listed species. 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 this document. 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 
1200 individuals (though likely somewhat fewer, as the estimate really 
indicates instances of take and some individuals are likely taken more 
than once across the 120-day period) by Level B harassment is small 
relative to a stable population of approximately 25,000 (4.8 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 and may be at 
carrying capacity, although more data are needed to verify that 
determination (Carretta et al. 2014). The estimated take of 70 
individuals by Level B harassment is small relative to a population of 
approximately 153,337 (>0.1 percent), and is not expected to impact 
annual rates of recruitment or survival of the stock.

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 68 individuals per year is small compared to a population of 
approximately 59,968 (0.1 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

[[Page 15088]]

specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NOAA Fisheries preliminarily 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 4.8% of the population potentially experiencing take 
from the proposed action. California sea lions population will 
experience less than 0.1% exposure, and Steller sea lions an 
approximate exposure rate of 0.1%. 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 preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will 
be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

       Table 5--Estimated Take Proposed 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..................            1200          24,732             4.8  Stable/Carrying Capacity.
California Sea Lion..........              70         153,337            >0.1  Stable.
Steller Sea Lion.............              68          59,968             0.1  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 is also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) 
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 
will consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of 
that process. The EA will be posted at the foregoing internet site once 
it is finalized.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NOAA Fisheries 
proposes to issue 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. 
The proposed IHA language is provided next.

Draft Proposed Authorization

    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).

Incidental Harassment Authorization

    We hereby authorize the Port of Kalama (POK), 110 West Marine 
Drive, Kalama, WA 98625, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) ((16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 
216.107, to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 
construction of the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility on 
the Columbia River during the 2016-2017 in-water construction season. A 
copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of all contractors 
and protected species observers operating under the authority of this 
Incidental Harassment Authorization.

1. Effective Dates

    This authorization is valid from September 1, 2016 through August 
31, 2017.

2. Specified Geographic Region

    This Authorization is valid only for specified activities 
associated with the POK's construction activities as specified in POK's 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) application in the 
following specified geographic area:

--The Columbia River, approximately river mile 72, from Latitude 
46.0482, Longitude -122.8755, to the nearest shore by line of sight 
from project activities as specified in the application, an area 
consisting of approximately 1800 acres of tidally influenced riverine 
habitat.

3. Species Authorized and Level of Take

    This authorization limits the incidental taking of marine mammals, 
by Level B harassment only, to the following species: Harbor seal 
(Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and 
Steller sea lion (Eumatopius jubatus). The taking by injury, serious 
injury, or death of any species of marine mammal is prohibited and may 
result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this 
authorization.

4. Cooperation

    We require the holder of this Authorization to cooperate with the 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
any other Federal, state, or local agency monitoring the impacts of the 
proposed activity on marine mammals.

5. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements

    We require the holder of this Authorization to implement the 
following mitigation and monitoring requirements when conducting the 
specified activities to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on 
affected marine mammal species or stocks:

Visual Observers

    Utilized one, NOAA Fisheries qualified Protected Species Visual 
Observer (observer) to watch for and monitor marine mammals near the 
proposed in-water construction during all in-water pile driving, three 
observers for any impact pile driving of steel piles,

[[Page 15089]]

and three observers for the first two days, and thereafter every third 
day during in-water vibratory pile driving and removal to allow for 
estimation of the number of take exposures.

Exclusion Zones

    Establish and maintain a 190-dB exclusion zone for pinnipeds during 
all impact and vibratory pile driving activities (10 m for impact of 
concrete piles and all vibratory pile driving, and 18m in the event 
that impact pile driving is required for steel piles). The exclusion 
zone must be monitored and be free of marine mammals for at least 15 
minutes before pile driving activities can commence.

Recording Visual Detections

    Visual observers must record the following information when they 
have sighted a marine mammal:

--Species, age/size/sex (if determinable), behavior when first sighted 
and after initial sighting, heading, distance, and changes in behavior 
in response to construction activities.

Shutdown Proceedures

    Immediately suspend pile driving activities if a visual observer 
detects a marine mammal within, or entering the exclusion zone (10m 
exclusion zone for all pile driving activity, and 18m exclusion zone 
for impact pile driving of steel piles). Pile driving activities will 
not be resumed until the exclusion zone has been observed as being 
mammal free for at least 15 minutes.

6. Reporting Requirements

    This Authorization requires the holder to submit a draft report on 
all activities and monitoring results to the Office of Protected 
Resources, NOAA Fisheries, within 90 day s of completion of in-water 
construction activities. This report must contain and summarize the 
following information:

--Dates, times, weather, and visibility conditions during all 
construction associated in-water work and marine mammal sightings;
--Species, number, location, distance from activity, behavior of any 
observed marine mammals, and any required shutdowns throughout all 
monitoring activities;
--An estimate of the number, by species, of marine mammals with 
exposures to sound energy levels greater than, or equal to, 160 dB for 
impact pile driving and 120 dB for vibratory pile driving.

    Additionally, the Port of Kalama must submit a final report to the 
Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NOAA Fisheries, within 30 days after receiving comments from 
us on the draft report. If we decide the draft report needs no 
comments, we will consider the draft report to be the final report.

7. Reporting Prohibited Take

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the 
authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
the Port of Kalama shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the take to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email. The report must include the following 
information:

--Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
--Name and type of vessel involved;
--Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
--Description of the incident;
--Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
--Water depth;
--Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort 
sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
--Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
--Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
--Fate of the animal(s); and
--Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is 
available).

    The Port of Kalama shall not resume its activities until we are 
able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We shall work 
with the Port of Kalama to determine what is necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The 
Port of Kalama may not resume their activities until notified by us via 
letter, email, or telephone.

8. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 
Death

    In the event that the Port of Kalama discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause 
of the injury or death is unknown, and the death is relatively recent 
(i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in 
the next paragraph), the Port of Kalama will immediately report the 
incident to the Chieve, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email. 
The report must include the same information identified in the 
paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NOAA 
Fisheries reviews the circumstances of the incident. NOAA Fisheries 
would work with the Port of Kalama to determine whether modifications 
in the activities are appropriate.

9. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Unrelated to the 
Activities

    In the event that the Port of Kalama discovers and injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or 
death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the Port of Kalama would report 
the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email, 
within 24 hours of the discovery. The Port of Kalama would provide 
photographs or video footage or other documentation of the animal 
sighting to NOAA Fisheries.

Request for Public Comments

    NOAA Fisheries requests comment on our analysis, the draft 
authorization, and any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for 
the Port of Kalama's construction of Kalama Marine Manufacturing and 
Export Facility. Please include with your comments any supporting data 
or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Port of 
Kalama's request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: March 9, 2016.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-06252 Filed 3-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P