[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89436-89446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XE395


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Port of Kalama Expansion Project on 
the Lower Columbia River

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(IHA).

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Port of 
Kalama (POK) for an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by 
Level B harassment, incidental to in-water construction activities 
associated with the Port of Kalama Expansion Project.

DATES: Effective September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the final Authorization, POK's 
application and the environmental assessment (EA) may be obtained by 
writing to the address specified below, telephoning the contact listed 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet 
at: http://www.NOAA Fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.html. 
Documents cited in this notice may also be

[[Page 89437]]

requested by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Youngkin, Office of Protected 
Resources, NOAA Fisheries, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NOAA 
Fisheries finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the 
species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NOAA Fisheries has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that 
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, 
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates 
of recruitment or survival.''
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On September 28, 2015, NOAA Fisheries received an application from 
the Port of Kalama (POK) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to 
the construction of a new pier. On December 10, 2015, a final revised 
version of the application was submitted and NOAA Fisheries determined 
that the application was adequate and complete. NMFS published a notice 
making preliminary determinations and proposing an IHA on March 21, 
2016 (81 FR 15064). The notice initiated a 30-day comment period. At 
the end of the 30-day comment period, POK notified NMFS that work would 
be postponed until the 2017 season. NMFS reviewed the initial 
application and EA and has determined that there are no substantial 
changes to the specified activities that would require reinitiating the 
process.
    The POK proposes to construct the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and 
Export Facility, including a new marine terminal and dredging of a 
berth extension, for the export of methanol. The proposed action also 
includes the installation of engineered log jams, restoration of 
riparian wetlands, and the removal of existing wood piles in a side 
channel as mitigation activities. The proposed activity is expected to 
occur during the 2017-2018 in-water work season for ESA listed fish 
species (September 1 through January 31). This IHA covers from 
September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2018, to allow for adjustments to the 
schedule in-water work based on logistics, weather, and contractor 
needs. It is possible that the work would require a second season, at 
which time the applicant will seek another IHA covering the second 
season. The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are 
likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Impact pile driving and 
vibratory pile driving. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of 
individuals of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), Steller sea lions 
(Eumetopias jubatus), and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) 
is anticipated to result from the specified activity.

Description of the Specified Activity

    A detailed description of the project construction activities is 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 
15064, March 21, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to 
the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not 
provided here. Please refer to the referenced Federal Register notice 
for the description of the specific activity.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of preliminary determinations and proposed IHA for POK's 
in-water construction activities was published in the Federal Register 
on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 15064). During the 30-day public comment 
period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission). The comments are posted online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.html. Following 
are the substantive comments and NMFS's responses:
    Comment 1: The Commission concurs with NMFS's preliminary findings 
and recommends that NMFS issue the requested IHA, subject to inclusion 
of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has 
issued the IHA to the Port of Kalama.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Marine mammal species that have been observed within the region of 
activity consist of the harbor seal, California sea lion, and Steller 
sea lion. Pinnipeds follow prey species into freshwater up to, 
primarily, the Bonneville Dam (RM 146) in the Columbia River, but also 
to Willamette Falls in the Willamette River (RM 26). None of the 
species of marine mammal that occur in the project area are listed 
under the ESA or is considered depleted or strategic under the MMPA. 
See Table 1, below.

                          Table 1--Marine Mammal Species Addressed in This IHA Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
-------------------------------------------------------   ESA listing status                  Stock
          Common name               Scientific name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal...................  Phoca vitulina; ssp.    Not Listed............  OR/WA Coast Stock.
                                 richardsi.
California Sea Lion...........  Zalophus californianus  Not Listed............  US Stock.
Steller Sea Lion..............  Eumatopius jubatus....  Not Listed............  Eastern DPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 89438]]

    The sea lion species use this portion of the river primarily for 
transiting to and from Bonneville Dam, which concentrates adult 
salmonids and sturgeon returning to natal streams, providing for 
increased foraging efficiency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
has conducted surface observations to evaluate the seasonal presence, 
abundance, and predation activities of pinnipeds in the Bonneville Dam 
tailrace each year since 2002. This monitoring program was initiated in 
response to concerns over the potential impact of pinniped predation on 
adult salmonids passing Bonneville Dam in the spring. An active sea 
lion hazing, trapping, and permanent removal program was in place below 
the dam from 2008 through 2013.
    Pinnipeds remain in upstream locations for a couple of days or 
longer, feeding heavily on salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, although 
the occurrence of harbor seals near Bonneville Dam is much lower than 
sea lions (Stansell et al., 2013). Sea lions congregate at Bonneville 
Dam during the peaks of salmon return, from March through May each 
year, and a few California sea lions have been observed feeding on 
salmonids in the area below Willamette Falls during the spring adult 
fish migration.
    There are no pinniped haul-out sites in the area of potential 
effects from the proposed project. The nearest haul-out sites, shared 
by harbor seals and California sea lions, are near the Cowlitz River/
Carroll Slough confluence with the Columbia River, approximately 3.5 
miles downriver from the proposed project (Jeffries et al., 2000). The 
nearest known haul-out for Steller sea lions is a rock formation (Phoca 
Rock) near RM 132 and the jetty (RM 0) near the mouth of the Columbia 
River. There are no pinniped rookeries located in or near the region of 
activity.
    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the 
project's in-water construction activities were provided in the Federal 
Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016). 
Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these 
species/stocks. Therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. 
Please refer to the referenced Federal Register notice for these 
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts.

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

    In-water construction activities associated with the POK project 
such as impact and vibratory pile driving components of the specified 
activity have the potential to result in impacts to marine mammals and 
their habitat in the project area. The Federal Register notice for the 
proposed IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016) included a detailed 
discussion of the behavioral and acoustic effects on marine mammals. 
Therefore, that information is not repeated here. Please refer to the 
referenced Federal Register notice for that information. No take by 
injury, serious injury, or death is anticipated as a result of the 
construction activities.

Mitigation Measures

    In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must prescribe, where 
applicable, the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses (where relevant).
    On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for 
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing 
(Guidance). This new guidance established new thresholds for predicting 
auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. In 
the Federal Register Notice (81 FR 51694), NMFS explained the approach 
it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need 
to consider this new best available science with the fact that some 
applicants have already committed time and resources to the development 
of analyses based on our previous guidance and have constraints that 
preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as where the 
action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that Notice, we 
included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most 
appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: The 
scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed; 
when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the 
analysis; and the degree to which the guidance is expected to affect 
our analysis.
    In this case, POK submitted an adequate and complete application in 
a timely manner and indicated that they would need to receive an IHA 
(if issued) by September 1, 2016. After the close of the public comment 
period for the Proposed IHA, POK informed NMFS that they would postpone 
construction activities until September, 2017. Therefore, although the 
action had substantially progressed through the decision-making 
pipeline, there was enough time to allow for re-evaluation under the 
new Guidance prior to when the IHA was needed. POK's original analysis 
considered the potential for Level A take (auditory injury (PTS)), but 
ultimately concluded that no Level A takes would occur due to 
mitigation monitoring and the implementation of shut down procedures if 
any marine mammals entered or approached the Level A harassment zone. 
POK utilized the alternative methodology provided by NMFS in the new 
Guidance to evaluate how it may affect the analysis. Based on the new 
Guidance, likely injury zones would increase in size for the two 
hearing groups that may be present in the project area. POK provided 
NMFS with an updated Monitoring Plan (available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.html), which 
increased the mitigation monitoring thresholds to avoid Level A 
harassment. More detail on the previously identified and updated 
mitigation monitoring zones is provided below.

Mitigation Monitoring

    Initial monitoring zones were based on a practical spreading loss 
model and data found in Illingworth and Rodkin (2007). A minimum 
distance of 10 m was used for all shutdown zones, even if actual or 
initial calculated distances are less. A maximum distance of in-water 
line of sight is used for all disturbance zones for vibratory pile 
driving, even if actual or calculated values are greater. To provide 
the best estimate of transmission loss at a specific range, the data 
were estimated using a practical spreading loss model.

[[Page 89439]]



 Table 2--Distance to Initial Shutdown and Disturbance Monitoring Zones for In-water Sound in the Columbia River
                                               From Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Distance to monitoring zones (m) \1\
          Pile type             Hammer type   ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 190 dB \2\      160 dB \2\                120 dB \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24in Concrete pile..........  Impact.........              10             117  N/A.
18in Steel pipe pile........  Vibratory......              10             N/A  Line of Sight, (max 5.7km).
18in Steel pipe pile........  Impact.........              18           1,848  NA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Monitoring zones based on a practical spreading loss model and data from Illingworth and Rodkin (2007). A
  minimum distance of 10 m is used for all shutdown zones, even if actual or initial calculated distances are
  less.
\2\ All values unweighted and relative to 1 [micro]Pa.

    Among other changes, the new Guidance established a dual metric for 
analysis: A peak (PK) sound pressure level (SPL) for impulsive sounds 
(e.g., impact pile driving) and a cumulative sound exposure level 
(SELcum) for both impulsive and non-impulsive (e.g., 
vibratory pile driving). Table 3 provides a summary of the thresholds 
established in the new Guidance for phocids and otariids (pinnipeds), 
which are anticipated to be located in the action area. As shown in 
Table 3, the thresholds established for phocids are lower than those 
established for otariids, so the updated analysis was based on the 
phocid pinniped thresholds.

                    Table 3--New Acoustic Thresholds
                            [From NMFS 2016]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Acoustic thresholds (received levels)
                               -----------------------------------------
         Hearing group                                    Non-impulsive
                                   Impulsive sounds          sounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phocid pinnipeds (underwater).  Lpk, flat: 218 dB;      LEPW, 24hr: 201
                                 LEPW, 24hr: 185 dB.     dB.
Otariid pinnipeds (underwater)  Lpk, flat: 232 dB;      LEOW, 24hr: 219
                                 LEOW, 24hr: 203 dB.     dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
  and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1
  [micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
  American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
  peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
  weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
  the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
  pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
  level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
  weighting function (PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended
  accumulation period is 24 hours (NMFS 2016).

    The new guidance does not affect the thresholds for behavioral 
disturbance (Level B harassment), and would not affect the extent of 
Level B harassment requested by POK. Therefore, the analysis of Level B 
harassment in the original application and Proposed Rule remains valid 
and is not discussed further. In addition, the peak sound pressure 
thresholds (218 dB for phocids and 232 dB for otariids) would not be 
exceeded during any project activities. The greatest single strike peak 
sound pressure levels would be generated during impact installation of 
steel piles and these sound levels would not exceed 207 dB (CALTRANS 
2012). As noted in POK's application and Proposed Rule, it is 
anticipated that all steel piles will be driven with a vibratory 
hammer, and that it will not be necessary to impact drive or impact 
proof any of the steel piles. However, impact driving of steel piles is 
analyzed as a precaution in the event that this is required. As peak 
sound pressure thresholds would not be exceeded for either phocids or 
otariids, there is no further discussion of peak sound pressure levels.
    Distances for which the Level A (PTS) threshold for cumulative 
sound pressure exposure could be exceeded are provided in Table 4, 
below.

   Table 4--New Level A Isopleths (Distances) Using NMFS New Technical
                                Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Level A (PTS)         Isopleth
            Activity                   threshold          (distance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact-driving concrete piles...  185 dB SELcum.....  40 m (131 ft).
Impact-driving steel piles......  185 dB SELcum.....  252 m (828 ft).
Vibratory-driving steel piles...  201 dB SELcum.....  16.5 m (54 ft).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    POK has updated the marine mammal monitoring plan to revise the 
Level A injury protection zone to fully cover the Level A isopleths for 
potential injury from cumulative sound pressure exposure, as 
established under the new Guidance. This modification to the monitoring 
plan would ensure that Level A takes of marine mammals would be avoided 
in a similar manner as presented in the Proposed Rule (i.e., shut down 
procedures would be implemented if any marine mammals approach or enter 
the Level A harassment zone). Therefore, our analysis remains the same 
as presented in the Proposed Rule.
    In order to accomplish appropriate monitoring for mitigation 
purposes, POK will have an observer stationed on each active impact 
pile driving location to closely monitor the shutdown zone as well as 
the surrounding area. In

[[Page 89440]]

addition, POK will post two shore-based observers (one upstream of the 
project, and another downstream of the project area; see application), 
whose primary responsibility would be to record pinnipeds in the 
disturbance zone and to alert barge-based observers to the presence of 
pinnipeds in the disturbance zone, thus creating a redundant alert 
system for prevention of injurious interaction as well as increasing 
the probability of detecting pinnipeds in the disturbance zone. POK 
estimates that shore-based observers would be able to scan 
approximately 800 m (upstream and downstream) from the available 
observation posts; therefore, shore-based observers would be capable of 
monitoring the agreed-upon disturbance zone.
    As described, at least three observers will be on duty during pile 
vibratory driving activity for the first two days, and thereafter on 
every third day to allow for estimation of Level B takes. The first 
observer will be positioned on a work platform or barge where the 
entire 10 m shutdown zone is clearly visible, with the shore-based 
observers positioned to observe the disturbance zone from the bank of 
the river. Protocols will be implemented to ensure that coordinated 
communication of sightings occurs between observers in a timely manner.
    In summary:
     POK will implement shutdown zones around all pile driving 
that encompasses the Level A harassment zones as defined in Table 4, 
above to avoid Level A take of marine mammals. These shutdown zones 
provides a buffer for the Level A harassment threshold but would also 
further avoid the risk of direct interaction between marine mammals and 
the equipment.
     POK will have a redundant monitoring system, in which one 
observer would be stationed at the area of active pile driving, while 
two observers would be shore-based, as required to provide complete 
observational coverage of the reduced disturbance zone for each pile 
driving site. The former will be capable of providing comprehensive 
monitoring of the proposed shutdown zones. This observer's first 
priority will be shutdown zone monitoring in prevention of injurious 
interaction, with a secondary priority of counting takes by Level B 
harassment in the disturbance zone. The additional shore-based 
observers will be able to monitor the same distances, but their primary 
responsibility will be counting of takes in the disturbance zone and 
communication with barge-based observers to alert them to pinniped 
presence in the action area.
     The shutdown and disturbance zones will be monitored 
throughout the time required to drive a pile. If a marine mammal is 
observed within the disturbance zone, a take will be recorded and 
behaviors documented. However, that pile segment will be completed 
without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown 
zone, at which point all pile driving activities will be halted.
     Soft start procedures shall be implemented at the start of 
each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of 
impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer. Soft 
start procedures require that the contractor provides an initial set of 
three strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting 
period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets.
     If steel piles require impact installation or proofing, a 
bubble curtain will be used for sound attenuation
    The following measures will apply to visual monitoring:
     If the shutdown zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting 
conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the entire 
shutdown zone is visible. Work that has been initiated appropriately in 
conditions of good visibility may continue during poor visibility.
     The shutdown zone will be monitored for the presence of 
pinnipeds before, during, and after any pile driving activity. The 
shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes prior to initiating the 
start of pile driving, during the activity, and for 30 minutes after 
activities have ceased. If pinnipeds are present within the shutdown 
zone prior to pile driving, the start of pile driving will be delayed 
until the animals leave the shutdown zone of their own volition, or 
until 15 minutes elapse without re-sighting the animal(s).
     Monitoring will be conducted using binoculars. When 
possible, digital video or still cameras will also be used to document 
the behavior and response of pinnipeds to construction activities or 
other disturbances.
     Each observer will have a radio or cell phone for contact 
with other monitors or work crews. Observers will implement shut-down 
or delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shut-down to the 
hammer operator.
     A GPS unit or electric range finder will be used for 
determining the observation location and distance to pinnipeds, boats, 
and construction equipment.
    Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers. In order to be 
considered qualified, observers must meet the following criteria:
     Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) 
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface 
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars 
may be necessary to correctly identify the target. Advanced education 
in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy, or related 
fields (bachelor's degree or higher is required).
     Experience and ability to conduct field observations and 
collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic 
experience).
     Experience or training in the field identification of 
pinnipeds, including the identification of behaviors.
     Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the 
construction operation to provide for personal safety during 
observations.
     Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of 
observations including but not limited to the number and species of 
pinnipeds observed; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction 
activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from 
construction sound of pinnipeds observed within a defined shutdown 
zone; and pinniped behavior.
     Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with 
project personnel to provide real-time information on pinnipeds 
observed in the area as necessary.

Other Mitigation and Best Management Practices

    In addition, NOAA Fisheries and POK, together with other relevant 
regulatory agencies, have developed a number of mitigation measures 
designed to protect fish through prevention or minimization of 
turbidity and disturbance and introduction of contaminants, among other 
things. These measures have been prescribed under the authority of 
statutes other than the MMPA, and are not a part of this proposed 
rulemaking. However, because these measures minimize impacts to 
pinniped prey species (either directly or indirectly, by minimizing 
impacts to prey species' habitat), they are summarized briefly here. 
Additional detail about these measures may be found in POK's 
application. Timing restrictions will be used to avoid in-water work 
when ESA-listed fish are most likely to be present.
    POK will work to ensure minimum degradation of water quality in the

[[Page 89441]]

project area, and requires compliance with Surface Water Quality 
Standards for Washington. In addition, the contractor will prepare a 
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan prior to 
beginning construction. The SPCC Plan will identify the appropriate 
spill containment materials; as well as the method of implementation. 
All equipment to be used for construction activities will be cleaned 
and inspected prior to arriving at the project site, to ensure no 
potentially hazardous materials are exposed, no leaks are present, and 
the equipment is functioning properly. Equipment that will be used 
below OHW will be identified; daily inspection and cleanup procedures 
will insure that identified equipment is free of all external 
petroleum-based products. Should a leak be detected on heavy equipment 
used for the project, the equipment must be immediately removed from 
the area and not used again until adequately repaired.
    The contractor will also be required to prepare and implement a 
Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan and a Source Control 
Plan for project activities requiring clearing, vegetation removal, 
grading, ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The 
BMPs in the plans would be used to control sediments from all 
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.

Conclusions for Effectiveness of Mitigation

    NOAA Fisheries has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed 
mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the 
context of ensuring that NOAA Fisheries prescribes the means of 
affecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine 
mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of 
potential measures included consideration of the following factors in 
relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    While the Level A harassment zone for impact hammering of steel 
piers would be fairly large (252 m), we feel confident that all Level A 
zones would be able to be monitored to effectively implement shut down 
procedures to avoid Level A takes for the following reasons:
     The applicant has past experience with monitoring much 
larger areas from previous projects in other areas on the same river;
     The largest Level A harassment zone (252 m) is associated 
with impact hammering of steel piers; however, steel piers are 
anticipated to be driven with a vibratory hammer and impact hammering 
is only included as a precaution in the event that vibratory hammering 
is unable to be completed. Therefore, if impact hammering of steel 
piers were to be conducted, it would be for a very short duration and 
on a very few occasions. Additionally, if impact hammering of steel 
piers were to be conducted, bubble curtains would be utilized to 
attenuate sound and reduce the Level A harassment zone;
     Level A harassment zones associated with impact hammering 
of concrete piers and vibratory hammering of steel piers (40 m and 16.5 
m, respectively) would be easily monitored for shut down procedures/
avoidance of Level A takes;
     Even without the use of bubble curtains, the Level A 
harassment zone for impact hammering of steel piers would encompass 
approximately half of the width of the river in the action area, which 
allows for approximately half of the width of the river in the action 
area for marine mammals to avoid the Level A harassment zone, which we 
would expect them to do;
     Other mitigation measures (e.g., monitoring prior to 
starting, or restarting, construction activities and the use of soft-
start procedures for impact pile driving) would ensure that marine 
mammals are able to avoid injury; therefore, only temporary short-term 
Level B harassment of marine mammals is anticipated.
    Based on our evaluation, NOAA Fisheries has determined that the 
mitigation measures proposed from both NOAA Fisheries and POK provide 
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine 
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Reporting

    Discussion of reporting requirements were unintentionally omitted 
from the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA. Therefore, the 
following sections on reporting requirements include language that was 
not part of the proposed IHA notification, but represents standard 
reporting requirements for NMFS IHAs.
    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) for an 
activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NOAA Fisheries 
must, where applicable, set forth ``requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking''. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that would result in increased knowledge of 
the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of 
marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action 
area.
    POK will submit a draft summary report of marine mammal 
observations and construction activities to the NMFS West Coast 
Regional Office and the Headquarters Office of Protected Resources 90 
days after expiration of the current Authorization. A final report must 
be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS 
on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 
days after submittal of the draft report, the draft report would be 
considered the final report. This report will summarize the information 
gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the IHA, 
including dates and times of operations and all marine mammal sightings 
(dates, times, locations, species, behavior observations [activity, and 
any changes in activity observed including causes if known], associated 
construction activities, and weather conditions.
    While the IHA does not authorize injury (i.e., Level A harassment), 
serious injury, or mortality, should anyone associated with the project 
observe an injured or dead marine mammal, the incident (regardless of 
cause) will be reported to NMFS as soon as practicable. The report 
should include species or description of the animal, condition of the 
animal, location, time first found, observed behaviors (if alive) and 
photo or video footage, if available.

Reporting Prohibited Take

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited in this IHA, 
such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, 
POK shall immediately cease the specified activity and immediately 
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or 
by email to [email protected]. The report must contain the 
following information: (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/

[[Page 89442]]

longitude) of the incident; (ii) The type of activity involved; (iii) 
Description of the circumstances during and leading up to the incident; 
(iv) Description of marine mammal observations (including species 
identification/descriptions of animal(s) involved) and construction 
activities/status of all sound sources used in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident; (v) The fate of the animal(s), and photographic or video 
footage of the animal, if available.
    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with POK to 
determine the action necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. POK may not resume its 
activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 
Injury/Death

    In the event that POK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal 
during its in-water construction activities in this IHA, and the cause 
of the injury or death is unknown and/or the death is relatively recent 
(i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described 
below), POK will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to [email protected], and the 
NMFS West Coast Regional Office and/or the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator at (206) 526-6550. The report must include the 
same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with POK to 
determine whether modification of the construction activities is 
appropriate.

Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Not Related to Construction 
Activities

    In the event that POK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal 
and it is determined that the injury or death is not associated with or 
related to the activities authorized in this IHA (e.g., previously 
wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or 
scavenger damage), POK shall report the incident to the Chief of the 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to [email protected], and the 
NMFS West Coast Regional Office and/or the West Coast Regional 
Stranding Coordinator at (206) 526-6550 within 24 hours of the 
discovery. POK shall provide photographs or video footage, if 
available, or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to 
NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of 
the incident.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Take by Level B harassment only is 
anticipated as a result of POK's proposed project. Take of marine 
mammals is anticipated to be associated with the installation of piles 
via impact and vibratory methods (including installation and removal of 
temporary piles). The following activities are not anticipated to 
result in takes of marine mammals: Dredging; Removal of 157 wood piles 
from a former trestle in the freshwater intertidal backwater area; and 
ELJ construction. No take by injury, serious injury, or death is 
anticipated, nor is any such take authorized.

               Table 5--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Criterion
  Non-explosive sound criterion       definition           Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).....  Permanent           see Table 3 above.
                                   Threshold Shift
                                   (PTS).
Level B Harassment..............  Behavioral          160 dB re 1
                                   Disruption (for     microPa-m (rms).
                                   impulse noises).
Level B Harassment..............  Behavioral          120 dB re 1
                                   Disruption (for     microPa-m (rms).
                                   continuous,
                                   noise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The area of potential Level B harassment varies with the activity 
being conducted. For impact pile driving that will be used for the 
concrete piles, the area of potential harassment extends 117m from the 
pile driving activity. For vibratory pile driving associated with the 
installation of steel pipe piles, the zone of potential harassment 
extends in a line of sight from the pile driving activities to the 
nearest shoreline, covering an area of approximately 1800 acres of 
riverine habitat (Figure 1). Because there are no haul outs, feeding 
areas, or other important habitat areas for marine mammals in the 
action area, it is anticipated that take exposures will result 
primarily from animals transiting from downstream areas to upstream 
feeding areas.
    Assumptions regarding numbers of pinnipeds and number of round 
trips per individual per year in the Region of Activity are based on 
information from ongoing pinniped research and management activities 
conducted in response to concern over California sea lion predation on 
fish populations concentrated below Bonneville Dam. An intensive 
monitoring program has been conducted in the Bonneville Dam tailrace 
since 2002, using surface observations to evaluate seasonal presence, 
abundance, and predation activities of pinnipeds. Minimum estimates of 
the number of pinnipeds present in the tailrace from 2002 through 2014 
are presented in Table 4.

                Table 3--Minimum Estimated Total Numbers of Pinnipeds Present at Bonneville Dam on an Annual Basis From 2002 Through 2013
                                                                 [Stansell et al., 2013]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Species                      2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seals................................        1        2        2        1        3        2        2        2        2        1        0        0
California sea lions........................       30      104       99       81       72       71       82       54       89       54       39       56
Steller sea lions...........................        0        3        3        4       11        9       39       26       75       89       73       80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 89443]]

Harbor Seals

    There is no documented breeding or pupping activity in the action 
area (Jeffries 1985), and only adult males and females are anticipated 
to be present in the action area. There is no current data estimating 
abundance of harbor seals either locally or for the Oregon-Washington 
coastal stock (Carretta et al., 2014). In this case, we must rely on 
estimates provided in the application that are believed to provide a 
conservative estimate of the number of harbor seals potentially 
affected by the proposed action. The conservative estimate of harbor 
seals likely to be present in the action area when construction 
activities are occurring is up to 10 animals per day based on local 
anecdotal reports (lacking local observational data), with the animals 
primarily transiting between the mouth of the Columbia River and the 
Cowlitz or Kalama Rivers. Because harbor seals occur in the action area 
throughout the year, and in-water construction activities are expected 
to take up to 153 days, it is possible that harbor seals could be 
exposed above the Level B harassment threshold up to 1,530 times, 
although some of these exposures would likely be exposures of the same 
individual across multiple days so the number of individual harbor 
seals taken is likely lower. We believe that this estimate is doubly 
conservative, because the majority of pile driving work will be impact 
pile driving of concrete piles. Impact pile driving of concrete piles 
has a much smaller area of potential harassment (a radius of 117m from 
pile driving) than vibratory pile driving, and this area covers only 
approximately 1/6th of the channel width of the Columbia River, 
indicating a large portion of the river will be passable by pinnipeds 
without experiencing take in the form of harassment during most pile 
driving activities.

California Sea Lions

    California sea lions are the most frequently observed pinnipeds 
upstream of the project site. California sea lions do not breed or bear 
their young near the Columbia River watershed, with the nearest 
breeding grounds off the coast of southern California (Caretta et al., 
2014). There are no documented haulouts within the action area, so the 
only California sea lions expected to be present in the action area are 
adult males and females traveling to and from dams upstream of the 
project location.
    Historically (prior to 2008), California sea lions were the most 
frequently observed pinniped species at Bonneville Dam (Stansell et 
al., 2013). However, between 2008 and 2014, the number of California 
sea lions observed at the dam declined. Then, in 2015, an estimated 190 
individually branded California sea lions were recorded, which was in 
contrast to the 56 unique individuals identified in 2013. Typically the 
run time for California sea lions has begun later in the year than the 
run for Steller sea lions. The first California sea lion observed at 
the dam in 2015 was observed on February 9. For this reason, the bulk 
of the California sea lion run would be expected to occur outside of 
the pile driving window. However, a number of factors could cause the 
run to appear earlier or later. In addition, any estimate of 
anticipated run size must take into account the increased California 
sea lion presence at the dam in 2015. For this reason, to make a 
conservative assessment, the anticipated take estimate is based on the 
average daily abundance of up to 12 pinnipeds per day reported at the 
dam in 2015. Using this number, it is estimated that up to 372 
California sea lions could be exposed to Level B harassment in the 
2016-2017 work window. However, this is a very conservative estimate 
and the actual number could be less. Additionally, the majority of pile 
driving work will be impact pile driving of concrete piles. Impact pile 
driving of concrete piles has a much smaller area of potential 
harassment (a radius of 117m from pile driving) than vibratory pile 
driving, and this area covers only approximately 1/6th of the channel 
width of the Columbia River, indicating a large portion of the river 
will be passable by pinnipeds without experiencing take in the form of 
harassment during most pile driving activities. Thus we would expect 
that less than \1/3\ of the transits would occur during the project's 
in-water work window based on avoiding peak transit periods, and that 
some proportion of those transits would occur in unaffected areas of 
the Columbia River during impact pile driving activities.

Steller Sea Lions

    Steller sea lions do not breed or bear their young near the 
Columbia River watershed, with the nearest breeding grounds on the 
marine coast of Oregon (Stansell et al., 2013). There are no documented 
haulouts within the action area, so the only Steller sea lions expected 
to be present in the action area are adult males and females traveling 
to and from dams upstream of the project location.
    Prior to 2002, Steller sea lions were sighted infrequently at 
Bonneville Dam, with fewer than 10 individuals recorded in most years. 
However, since 2008, the number of Steller sea lions documented at the 
dam has increased steadily. In 2010, 75 individual Steller sea lions 
were identified, at an average rate of less than 12.6 individuals per 
day (between January 1 and May 31). In 2015 an average of 12 pinnipeds 
were observed at the dam per day in January (van der Leeuw, 2015). 
While no specific data exists regarding the number of trips up and down 
the river each individual sea lion makes, it is assumed that on average 
each individual makes one round trip during the spring migration. All 
pile driving will occur between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017, 
which will avoid the April and May peak of the run. Steller sea lion 
presence at the dam in January and February represents approximately 
one third of the total run in a given year (Stansell et al., 2013). 
Using these numbers, it has been estimated that up to 12 individual 
Steller sea lions per day could be exposed to Level B harassment. This 
represents up to 372 individual takes of Steller sea lions in the 2016-
2017 work window. However, this is a conservative estimate, and the 
actual number of takes could be less. Additionally, the majority of 
pile driving work will be impact pile driving of concrete piles. Impact 
pile driving of concrete piles has a much smaller area of potential 
harassment (a radius of 117m from pile driving) than vibratory pile 
driving, and this area covers only approximately 1/6th of the channel 
width of the Columbia River, indicating a large portion of the river 
will be passable by pinnipeds without experiencing take in the form of 
harassment during most pile driving activities. Thus we would expect 
that less than \1/3\ of the transits would occur during the project's 
in-water work window based on avoiding peak transit periods, and that 
some proportion of those transits would occur in unaffected areas of 
the Columbia River during impact pile driving activities.

Analysis and Determinations

Negligible Impact

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

[[Page 89444]]

considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'', NOAA Fisheries must consider other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the 
context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, 
migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A 
harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and the status 
of the species. To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses 
applies to all three species of pinnipeds (harbor seals, California sea 
lions, and Steller sea lions), given that the anticipated effects of 
this project on these species are expected to be relatively similar in 
nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the 
impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that 
would lead to a different analysis for any species, else species-
specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
    Incidental take, in the form of Level B harassment only, is likely 
to occur primarily as a result of pinniped exposure to elevated levels 
of sound caused by impact and vibratory installation and removal of 
pipe and sheet pile and steel casings. No take by injury, serious 
injury, or death is anticipated and is not authorized. By incorporating 
the proposed mitigation measures, including pinniped monitoring and 
shut-down procedures described previously, harassment to individual 
pinnipeds from the proposed activities is expected to be limited to 
temporary behavioral impacts. POK assumes that all individuals 
travelling past the project area would be exposed each time they pass 
the area and that all exposures would cause disturbance. NOAA Fisheries 
agrees that this represents a worst-case scenario and is therefore 
sufficiently precautionary. There are no pinniped haul-outs or 
rookeries located within or near the Region of Activity.
    The shutdown zone monitoring proposed as mitigation, and the small 
size of the zones in which injury may occur, makes any potential injury 
of pinnipeds extremely unlikely, and therefore discountable. Because 
pinniped exposures would be limited to the period they are transiting 
the disturbance zone, with potential repeat exposures (on return to the 
mouth of the Columbia River) separated by days to weeks, the 
probability of experiencing TTS is also considered unlikely.
    In addition, it is unlikely that pinnipeds exposed to elevated 
sound levels would temporarily avoid traveling through the affected 
area, as they are highly motivated to travel through the action area in 
pursuit of foraging opportunities upriver. Sea lions have shown 
increasing habituation in recent years to various hazing techniques 
used to deter the animals from foraging in the Bonneville tailrace 
area, including acoustic deterrent devices, boat chasing, and above-
water pyrotechnics (Stansell et al., 2013). Many of the individuals 
that travel to the tailrace area return in subsequent years (Stansell 
et al., 2013). Therefore, it is likely that pinnipeds would continue to 
pass through the action area even when sound levels are above 
disturbance thresholds.
    Although pinnipeds are unlikely to be deterred from passing through 
the area, even temporarily, they may respond to the underwater sound by 
passing through the area more quickly, or they may experience stress as 
they pass through the area. Sea lions already move quickly through the 
lower river on their way to foraging grounds below Bonneville Dam 
(transit speeds of 4.6 km/hr in the upstream direction and 8.8 km/hr in 
the downstream direction (Brown et al., 2010). Any increase in transit 
speed is therefore likely to be slight. Another possible effect is that 
the underwater sound would evoke a stress response in the exposed 
individuals, regardless of transit speed. However, the period of time 
during which an individual would be exposed to sound levels that might 
cause stress is short given their likely speed of travel through the 
affected areas. In addition, there would be few repeat exposures for 
individual animals. Thus, it is unlikely that the potential increased 
stress would have a significant effect on individuals or any effect on 
the population as a whole.
    Therefore, NOAA Fisheries finds it unlikely that the amount of 
anticipated disturbance would significantly change pinnipeds' use of 
the lower Columbia River or significantly change the amount of time 
they would otherwise spend in the foraging areas below Bonneville Dam. 
Pinniped usage of the Bonneville Dam foraging area, which results in 
transit of the action area, is a relatively recent learned behavior 
resulting from human modification (i.e. fish accumulation at the base 
of the dam). Even in the unanticipated event that either change was 
significant and animals were displaced from foraging areas in the lower 
Columbia River, there are alternative foraging areas available to the 
affected individuals. NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any effects on 
haul-out behavior because there are no proximate haul-outs within the 
areas affected by elevated sound levels. All other effects of the 
proposed action are at most expected to have a discountable or 
insignificant effect on pinnipeds, including an insignificant reduction 
in the quantity and quality of prey otherwise available.
    Any adverse effects to prey species would occur on a temporary 
basis during project construction. Given the large numbers of fish in 
the Columbia River, the short-term nature of effects to fish 
populations, and extensive BMPs and minimization measures to protect 
fish during construction, as well as conservation and habitat 
mitigation measures that would continue into the future, the project is 
not expected to have significant effects on the distribution or 
abundance of potential prey species in the long term. Therefore, these 
temporary impacts are expected to have a negligible impact on habitat 
for pinniped prey species.
    A detailed description of potential impacts to individual pinnipeds 
was provided previously in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 
IHA (81 FR 15064, March 21, 2016). The following sections put into 
context what those effects mean to the respective populations or stocks 
of each of the pinniped species potentially affected.

Harbor Seal

    The Oregon/Washington coastal stock of harbor seals consisted of 
about 24,732 animals in 1999 (Carretta et al., 2014). As described 
previously, both the Washington and Oregon portions of this stock have 
reached carrying capacity and are no longer increasing, and the stock 
is believed to be within its optimum sustained population level 
(Jeffries et al., 2003; Brown et al., 2005). The estimated take of up 
to 1,530 individuals (though likely somewhat fewer, as the estimate 
really indicates instances of take and some individuals are likely 
taken more than once across the 153-day period) by Level B harassment 
is small relative to a stable population of approximately 24.732 (6.2 
percent), and is not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or 
survival of the stock.

California Sea Lion

    The U.S. stock of California sea lions had a minimum estimated 
population of 153,337 in the 2013 Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et 
al., 2014). The estimated take of 372 individuals by Level B harassment 
is small relative to a population of approximately 153,337 (0.2 
percent), and is not expected to impact annual rates of recruitment or 
survival of the stock.

[[Page 89445]]

Steller Sea Lion

    The total population of the eastern DPS of Steller sea lions had a 
minimum estimated population of 59,968 animals with an overall annual 
rate of increase of 4 percent throughout most of the range (Oregon to 
southeastern Alaska) since the 1970s (Allen and Angliss, 2015). In 
2006, the NOAA Fisheries Steller sea lion recovery team proposed 
removal of the eastern stock from listing under the ESA based on its 
annual rate of increase, and the population was delisted in 2013 
(though still considered depleted under the MMPA). The total estimated 
take of 372 individuals per year is small compared to a population of 
approximately 59,968 (0.6 percent) and is not expected to impact annual 
rates of recruitment or survival of the stock.

Summary

    The anticipated behavioral harassment is not expected to impact 
recruitment or survival of the any affected pinniped species. The Level 
B harassment experienced is expected to be of short duration, with 1-2 
exposures per individual separated by days to weeks, with each exposure 
resulting in minimal behavioral effects (increased transit speed or 
avoidance). For all species, because the type of incidental harassment 
is not expected to actually remove individuals from the population or 
decrease significantly their ability to feed or breed, this amount of 
incidental harassment is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the 
stock.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NOAA Fisheries finds that POK's proposed activities would 
have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    Using the estimated take described previously, the species with the 
greatest proportion of affected population is harbor seals (Table 5), 
with an estimated 6.2% of the population potentially experiencing take 
from the proposed action. California sea lions population will 
experience 0.2% exposure, and Steller sea lions an approximate exposure 
rate of 0.6%. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely 
effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, 
and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and 
monitoring measures, NOAA Fisheries finds that small numbers of marine 
mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected 
species or stocks.

           Table 4--Estimated Take To Be Authorized and Proportion of Population Potentially Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Percentage of
                                       Estimated take   Abundance of         stock
                                         by Level B         stock         potentially        Population trend
                                         harassment                        affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal..........................           1,530          24,732               6.2  Stable/Carrying
                                                                                          Capacity.
California Sea Lion..................             372         153,337               0.2  Stable.
Steller Sea Lion.....................             372          59,968               0.6  Increasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries has determined that the total 
taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking 
for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    No species of marine mammal listed under the ESA are expected to be 
affected by these activities. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries has determined 
that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NOAA Fisheries prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) considered 
comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that process. 
NMFS prepared and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 
determining that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was 
not required. The FONSI was signed on October 24, 2016, prior to the 
issuance of the IHA for POK's construction activities. The EA and 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been posted at the 
foregoing internet site.

Authorization

    NOAA Fisheries has issued an IHA to Port of Kalama for constructing 
the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and Export Facility on the Columbia 
River during the 2016-2017 in-water work season, provided the 
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
are incorporated.

    Dated: December 7, 2016.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

[[Page 89446]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12DE16.028

[FR Doc. 2016-29748 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P