46090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

polyester and polypropylene fibers and tow 

(HTSUS 5501.10, 5501.20, 5501.40, 5503.20, 

5503.40). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

August 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: lllllllllllllll

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–21616 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ10 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; Blasting 

and Dredging Operations by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

Marine Corps in the U.S. Marine Corps 

Slipway at the Blount Island Facility, 

Duval County, FL 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (ACOE) and U.S. Marine 

Corps (USMC) for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to blasting and 

dredging operations in the USMC 

slipway at the Blount Island facility 

(MCSF-BI Slipway) in Duval County, 

FL. NMFS has reviewed the application, 

including all supporting documents, 

and determined that it is adequate and 

complete. Pursuant to the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is requesting comments on its proposal 

to issue an IHA to ACOE and USMC to 

incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, marine mammals 

during the specified activities within 

the specified geographic region. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 8, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910–3225. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XQ10 @noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e-mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e-mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10–megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.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. 

A copy of the application containing 

a list of the references used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may be viewed, by appointment, 

during regular business hours, at the 

aforementioned address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–713–2289, ext. 172. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

(16 U.S.C. 1361 (a)(5)(D)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals 

for periods not more than one year 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 if the 

taking is limited to harassment, a notice 

of a proposed authorization is provided 

to the public for review. 

An authorization to take small 

numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment shall be granted if NMFS 

finds that the taking will have a 

negligible impact on the species or 

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses 

(where relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth to achieve the least practicable 

adverse impact. NMFS has defined 

‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 

as ’’ * * * an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by 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]. 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45– 

day time limit for NMFS review of an 

application followed by a publication in 

the Federal Register and other relevant 

media proposed authorizations for the 

incidental harassment of marine 

mammals. The publication of the 

proposed authorization initiates a 30– 

day public comment period. Within 45 

days of the close of the comment period, 

NMFS must either issue or deny 

issuance of the authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On January 16, 2009, NMFS received 

a letter from the ACOE and USMC, 

requesting an IHA. The requested IHA 

would authorize the take, by Level B 

(behavioral) harassment, of small 

numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) incidental to 

blasting and dredging operations in the 

MCSF-BI Slipway. Proposed activities 

will include the removal of concrete 

sill/cemented rock by blasting and 

advanced maintenance dredging. The 

ACOE proposed to use blasting to 

fracture (‘‘pre-treat’’) an existing 

concrete sill and cemented rock in the 

slipway, then completely remove the 

pre-treated sill and cemented rock by 

dredging, and dredge the entire slipway 

from its current depth of -37 ft mean 

low low water (MLLW) to -47 ft MLLW. 

The dredging will likely be completed 

using a mechanical dredge (i.e., 

clamshell or backhoe), cutterhead 

dredge, and blasting. The dredging will 

remove approximately 750,000 cubic 

yards of material from the slipway. 

Material removed from the dredging 

will be placed in Dayson Island Dredge 

Material Management Area located at 

Little Marsh Island. Concrete from the 

sill will be removed to an offsite 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46091 

location. The blasting is proposed to 

take place during winter 2009–2010 

(between November and March) in 

Duval County, Florida. Additional 

information on the blasting and 

dredging project is contained in the 

application, which is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Description of the Proposed Specified 

Activities 

The purpose of the blasting and 

dredging project is to remove a 430 foot 

(ft) (131 m) long, 32 ft (9.8 m) wide and 

14 ft (4.3 m) thick rebar reinforced 

concrete sill and conduct advance 

maintenance dredging to a maximum 

depth of -47 ft (14.3 m) MLLW in the 

MCSF-BI Slipway. These areas require 

blasting because they are too dense to 

dredge. To achieve the removal of the 

concrete sill and rock in the MCSF-BI 

Slipway, pre-treatment will be required. 

The ACOE has used two criteria to 

determine which areas are most likely to 

need blasting for the MCSF-BI Slipway: 

(1) areas documented by core borings to 

contain hard massive rock; and (2) 

concrete sill that is too hard to dredge 

without pre-treatment. Based on 

evaluations of the core boring logs, and 

as-built information for the sill provided 

by the MCSF-BI, the following is an 

evaluation of the proposed blasting 

requirements for the current project. 

Areas currently identified as having the 

hardest rock and most likely in need of 

blasting prior to dredging include the 

concrete sill and the mouth of the 

slipway. Additional core borings were 

collected in October, 2008. The results 

of recent core borings have identified an 

area of 875,000 ft2 of cemented rock 

within the proposed dredging template 

in addition to the concrete sill. The 

cemented rock is highly dense and 

likely in need of blasting prior to 

dredging. Based on evaluations of the 

core boring logs, and as-built 

information for the sill provided by 

MCSF-BI, the blasting requirements for 

the current project would include 

removal of existing sill and 130,000 

cubic yards (cy) cemented sedimentary 

rock. The pre-treatment of the cemented 

rock would need to occur between 

Station 22+00 to Station 43+00 of the 

existing channel baseline. The concrete 

sill is located approximately at Station 

7+00 (see Figure 1 of ACOE’s 

application). 

The focus of the proposed blasting 

work at the MCSF-BI Slipway would be 

to pre-treat the concrete sill and any 

hard rock prior to removal by a dredge 

utilizing confined blasting, meaning the 

shots would be ‘‘confined’’ in the rock. 

In confined blasting, each charge is 

placed in a hole drilled in the rock 

approximately 5 to 10 ft (m) deep; 

depending on how much rock/concrete 

needs to be broken and the intended 

project depth. The hole is then capped 

with an inert material, such as crushed 

rock. This process is referred to as 

‘‘stemming the hole.’’ Stemming is the 

process is the process of filling each 

borehole with crushed rock after the 

explosive charge has been placed. 

Stemming reduces the strength of the 

outward pressure wave produced by 

blasts. The ACOE has used this 

technique previously at the Port of 

Miami in 2005. NMFS issued an IHA for 

that operation on April 19, 2005. For the 

Port of Miami expansion that used 

blasting as a pre-treatment technique, 

the stemming material was angular 

crushed rock. The optimum size of 

stemming material is material that has 

an average diameter of approximately 

0.05 times the diameter of the blasthole. Material must be angular to 

perform properly (Konya, 2003). For the 

MCSF-BI Slipway project, the 

geotechnical branch of the Jacksonville 

District, will prepare project specific 

specifications. Each borehole would be 

drilled 5 to 10 ft into the sill or 

cemented rock depending on substrate 

density, and holes would be at least 8 

ft apart. In the Miami Harbor project, the 

following requirements were in the 

specifications regarding stemming 

material: 

1.22.9.20 Stemming 

All blastholes shall be stemmed. The 

Blaster or Blasting Specialist shall 

determine the thickness of stemming 

using blasting industry conventional 

stemming calculations. The minimum 

stemming shall be 2 ft (0.6 m) thick. 

Stemming shall be placed in the blast 

hole in a zone encompassed by 

competent rock. Measures shall be taken 

to prevent bridging of explosive 

materials and stemming within the hole. 

Stemming shall be clean, angular to subangular, hard stone chips without fines 

having an approximate diameter of 1/2 

inch to 3/8 inch. A barrier shall be 

placed between the stemming and 

explosive product, if necessary, to 

prevent the stemming from setting into 

the explosive product. Anything 

contradicting the effectiveness of 

stemming shall not extend through the 

stemming. 

It is expected that the specifications 

for any construction utilizing the 

blasting at Blount Island would have 

similar stemming requirements as those 

that were used for the Miami Harbor 

project. The length of stemming material 

would vary based on the length of the 

hole drilled, however minimum lengths 

would be included in the project 

specific specifications. Studies have 

shown that stemmed blasts have up to 

a 60 to 90 percent decrease in the 

strength of the pressure wave released, 

compared to open water blasts of the 

same charge weight (Nedwell and 

Thandavamoorthy, 1992; Hempen et al., 

2005; Hempen et al., 2007). However, 

unlike open water blasts, very little 

documentation exists on the effects that 

confined blasting can have on marine 

animals near the blast (Keevin et al., 

1999). 

The size of each charge would be 

determined during an on-site test blast 

program. At this time the ACOE cannot 

provide detailed charge weights until 

after the Contractor has been selected 

and they assess the types of equipment 

necessary for use, as well as the specific 

drill pattern. Each charge would be 

limited to the lowest poundage that can 

adequately fracture the rock and other 

material. A close drill pattern could 

mean more holes with less explosives, 

while a wider pattern could mean fewer 

holes with more explosives. The 

equipment to remove the cracked rock 

(i.e., cutterhead dredge) could vary 

based on cutterhead size and 

horsepower the larger the head and 

horsepower, the less pre-treatment that 

is needed for blasting. The explosives 

would be used to remove thick rebar 

and concrete. 

The test blast program would be 

conducted immediately before full-scale 

blasting begins to determine the 

smallest effective charge size. The same 

conservation protocols for full-scale 

blasting would be used for the test blast 

program. The test blast program begins 

with a range of small individual charges 

and progresses up to the maximum 

charge size necessary to effectively pretreat the substrate. The final test event 

simulates the conditions anticipated 

during full-scale blasts including charge 

size, overlying water depth, charge 

configuration, charge separation, 

initiation methods, and loading 

conditions. Once the test blast program 

is completed, a regression analysis 

would be used to develop a complete 

blast plan for the entire project. The test 

blast program is considered part of the 

action. 

Additional details regarding the 

proposed blasting and dredging project 

can be found in the ACOE and USMC’s 

IHA application and Draft 

Environmental Assessment Removal of 

Concrete Sill and Advance Maintenance 

Dredging of Marine Corps Slipway, U.S. 

Marine Corps Support Facility Blount 

Island, Jacksonville, Duval County, 

Florida (Draft EA). The Draft EA can 

also be found online at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental.htm#applications 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

Proposed Dates, Duration, and Location 

of Specified Activity 

The ACOE expects to award the 

contract for construction in August, 

2009; provide the Notice to Proceed to 

the selected contractor in October 2009, 

which would result in blasting between 

November, 2009 and March, 2010, and 

is expected to take up to two months. 

The project is located in a pre-existing 

military boat basin (latitude 30.3883 N, 

longitude 81.5137 W) in Jacksonville, 

Duval County, Florida, at the MCSF-BI 

located on Blount Island along the St. 

Johns River (Figures 2 and 3 of ACOE’s 

application). The project site is 10 

nautical miles west of the St. Johns 

River outlet. Blount Island was created 

as a byproduct of ACOE’s post-World 

War II dredging operations in the St. 

Johns River. The Draft EA provides a 

detailed explanation of project location 

as well as project implementation. 

Description of Marine Mammals and 

Habitat Affected in the Activity Area 

Several cetacean species and a single 

species of sirenian are known to or 

could occur in the Duval County study 

area and off the Southeast Atlantic 

coastline (see Table 1 below). Species 

listed as Endangered under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), includes 

the humpback, sei, fin, blue, North 

Atlantic right, sperm whale, and Florida 

manatee. The marine mammals that 

occur in the proposed blasting area 

belong to three taxonomic groups: 

mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes 

(toothed whales), and sirenians (the 

manatee). Table 1 below outlines the 

cetacean species and their habitat in the 

region of the proposed project area. 

TABLE 1—THE HABITAT AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE PROPOSED STUDY AREA IN

THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OFF THE U.S. SOUTHEAST COAST

Species Habitat ESA1

Mysticetes 

Nort Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalena glacialis) Coastal and shelf EN 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) Pelagic and banks EN 

Bryde’s whale 

(Balenoptera brydei) Pelagic and coastal NL 

Minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Shelf, coastal, and 

pelagic 

NL 

Blue whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus) Pelagic and coastal EN 

Sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis) Primarily offshore, 

pelagic 

EN 

Fin whale 

(Balaenoptera physalus) Slope, mostly pelagic EN 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale 

(Physeter macrocephalus) Pelagic, deep seas EN 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris) Pelagic NL 

Gervais’ beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon europaeus) Pelagic NL 

True’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon mirus) Pelagic NL 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris) Pelagic NL 

Dwarf sperm whale 

(Kogia sima) Offshore, pelagic NL 

Pygmy sperm whale 

(Kogia breviceps) Offshore, pelagic NL 

Killer whale 

(Orcinus orca) Widely distributed NL 

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) Inshore and offshore NL 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46093 

TABLE 1—THE HABITAT AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS INHABITING THE PROPOSED STUDY AREA IN

THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OFF THE U.S. SOUTHEAST COAST—Continued 

Species Habitat ESA1

False killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens) Pelagic NL 

Mellon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra) Pelagic NL 

Pygmy killer whale 

(Fertesa attentuata) Pelagic NL 

Risso’s dolphin 

(Grampus griseus) Pelagic, shelf NL 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus) Offshore, inshore, 

coastal, estuaries 

NL 

Rough toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis) Pelagic NL 

Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei) Pelagic NL 

Striped dolphin 

(Stenella coeruleoalba) Pelagic NL 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata) Pelagic NL 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stella frontalis) Coastal to pelagic NL 

Spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris) Mostly pelagic NL 

Clymene dolphin 

(Stenella clymene) Pelagic NL 

Sirenians 

West Indian (Florida) manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) Coastal, rivers and 

estuaries 

EN 

1 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed 

The two species of marine mammals 

that are known to commonly occur in 

close proximity to the blasting area of 

the St. Johns River and Blount Island are 

the West Indian (Florida) manatee and 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. 

Florida Manatee 

The West Indian manatee in Florida 

and U.S. waters is managed under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is listed 

as Endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). They primarily 

inhabit coastal and inshore waters. 

Manatee occurrences are extremely rare 

during winter months (December, 

January, and February) in typical years 

because of the cold water temperatures 

in the waterway and lack of warm water 

refuge sites nearby. To minimize 

potential involvement with manatees 

from underwater explosions, the 

optimal timeframe to utilize explosives 

is during the winter months of the year. 

The USFWS considers this timeframe 

‘‘the manatee construction window’’ for 

utilizing explosives. 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are 

distributed worldwide in tropical and 

temperate waters, and in U.S. waters 

occur in multiple complex stocks along 

the U.S. Atlantic coast. According to the 

2008 NOAA stock assessment report of 

Western North Atlantic Coastal 

Morphotype Stocks, the coastal 

morphotype of bottlenose dolphins is 

continuously distributed along the 

Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New 

York around the Florida peninsula and 

along the Gulf of Mexico coast. On the 

Atlantic coast, Scott et al. (1988) 

hypothesized a single coastal migratory 

stock ranging seasonally from as far 

north as Long Island, to as far south as 

central Florida, citing stranding patterns 

during a high mortality event in 1987 to 

1988 and observed density patterns. 

More recent studies demonstrate that 

the single coastal migratory stock 

hypothesis is incorrect, and there is 

instead a complex mosaic of stocks 

(NMFS, 2001; McLellan et al., 2003; 

NMFS, 2008). The coastal morphotype 

is morphologically and genetically 

distinct from the larger, more robust 

morphotype primarily occupying 

habitats further offshore (Hoelzel et al., 

1998; Mead & Potter, 1995). The primary 

habitat of the coastal morphotype of 

bottlenose dolphins extends from 

Florida to New Jersey during summer 

months and in waters less than 66 ft (20 

m) deep, including estuarine and 

inshore waters (NMFS, 2008). 

There are multiple lines of evidence 

supporting demographic separation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

between bottlenose dolphins residing 

within estuaries along the Atlantic 

coast. There are relatively few published 

studies demonstrating that these 

resident animals are genetically distinct 

from animals in nearby coastal waters; 

however a study conducted near 

Jacksonville, Florida demonstrated 

significant genetic differences between 

animals in nearshore coastal waters and 

estuarine waters (Caldwell, 2001; 

NMFS, 2008). Long-term, year-round, 

multi-generational resident 

communities of dolphins have been 

recognized in embayments and coastal 

areas of the Gulf of Mexico (Wells et al., 

1987, 1996; Scott et al., 1990; Weller, 

1998; Wells, 2003), and it is not 

surprising to find similar patterns along 

the Atlantic coast (NMFS, 2008). 

Given the observed patterns of 

residency across multiple estuaries 

along the Atlantic coast and the 

evidence of demographically distinct 

estuarine stocks in the Gulf of Mexico, 

it is highly likely that there is 

demographic separation between 

bottlenose dolphins residing within 

estuaries and those in nearshore coastal 

waters. However, the degree of spatial 

overlap between these populations 

remains unclear. Photo-identification 

studies within estuaries demonstrate 

seasonal immigration and emigration 

and the presence of transient animals. In 

addition, the degree of movement of 

resident estuarine animals into coastal 

waters on seasonal or shorter times 

scales is poorly understood. However, 

in the 2008 stock assessment report 

analysis, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting 

primarily estuarine habitats are 

considered distinct from those 

inhabiting coastal habitats (NMFS, 

2008). 

These complex stock segments of 

coastal bottlenose dolphins are based on 

a combination of geographical, 

ecological, and genetic research. 

However, because the data of structure 

of stocks is complex, coastal and 

continental shelf stocks may overlap, 

the exact structure of these stocks 

continues to be revised as research is 

completed. Analytical results of the 

overall genetic variation and satellite 

telemetry studies indicate a minimum of 

two migrating coastal stocks (Northern 

Migratory and Southern Migratory 

coastal stocks) as well as evidence for 

coastal resident stocks of coastal 

bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast. The 2008 NOAA stock 

assessment report identifies seven 

prospective stocks of coastal 

morphotype bottlenose dolphins 

inhabiting nearshore coastal waters 

along the Atlantic coast. 

Abundance estimates for bottlenose 

dolphins in each stock were calculated 

using line transect methods and 

distance analysis (Buckland et al., 2001; 

NMFS, 2008). For the Central Florida, 

Northern Florida, Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Southern North Carolina 

stocks, the mean of the summer 2002 

and 2004 abundance estimates provided 

the best estimate of abundance. During 

winter months, these stocks overlap 

spatially with either the Southern 

Migratory or Northern Migratory stocks. 

There is apparent inter-annual variation 

in the abundance estimates and 

observed spatial distribution of 

bottlenose dolphins in this region that 

may indicate movements of animals in 

response to environmental variability 

(NMFS, 2008). 

The proposed action would occur 

inshore and, therefore, has the potential 

to affect the coastal stocks. From genetic 

analysis, the bottlenose dolphin 

population around Duval County, 

Florida consists of part of the 

prospective Northern Florida stock. This 

stock may also include demographically 

distinct coastal and resident estuarine 

populations that are defined by seasonal 

migratory and transient movements 

throughout large home ranges. The 

movement along the southern portion of 

the Atlantic coast is poorly understood 

and is currently under study. The 

resident estuarine stocks are likely 

demographically distinct from coastal 

stocks. The estimated population for the 

prospective Northern Florida stock is 

approximately 2,502 to 3,064 animals. 

The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is not 

listed as Threatened or Endangered 

under the ESA, and one or more of the 

coastal migratory stocks may be 

depleted, therefore all stocks retain the 

depleted designation and are considered 

strategic under the MMPA. 

Dr. Quinton White of Jacksonville 

University states dolphins are 

commonly seen in the vicinity of the 

Dames Point Bridge west and upriver of 

Blount Island (White, pers. comm.). The 

ACOE MCSF-BI Slipway project site is 

in the Northern Florida management 

unit for Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 

coastal morphotypes. Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins are known to occur 

in the project area at or within a few 

hundred feet of the project several times 

a week. Dolphins, when present near 

the project site, usually occur in groups 

of two or three. Bottlenose dolphin 

occurrence in the Jacksonville area is 

year-round, however significant 

seasonal variation exists. 

Dr. Martha Jane Caldwell (2001) 

completed research on the coastal and 

inshore bottlenose dolphin populations 

of the St. Johns River in the vicinity of 

Blount Island. Caldwell determined that 

there are two resident inshore 

populations of Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins in the St. Johns River, the 

Intracoastal South/St. Johns River 

population (also referred to as the 

Southern community) and the 

Intracoastal North population (also 

referred to as the Northern community). 

The Southern community inhabits the 

waters east (seaward) of the MCSF-BI 

Slipway facility, based on Caldwell’s 

assessment (see Figure 4 of ACOE and 

USMC’s application). The estimated size 

of the Southern community is 145 

animals and 191 animals in the St. 

Johns River proper. There was 

significant overlap between these two 

groups, and Caldwell classified them as 

one Community the Southern 

Community. Using the maximum 

number of animals between the two 

groups, the ACOE will adopt a 

population size of 191 animals in the 

Southern Community. 

Based on photo-identification and 

behavioral data, Caldwell (2001) 

identified three behaviorally 

differentiated bottlenose dolphin 

communities in the Jacksonville, Florida 

area. These three distinct communities 

have been called Northern, Southern, 

and Coastal. The Northern community 

has year-round residency and random 

social affiliations, with a mean group 

size of five individuals. The Southern 

community has seasonal residency and 

non-random social affiliations, with a 

mean group size of 22 individuals. The 

Coastal community has no residency 

and random social affiliations, with a 

mean group size of 17 individuals. The 

social structure on a small geographic 

scale of these three distinct populations 

varies based on significant genetic 

differentiation and behavior. Although 

the three Jacksonville area communities 

use contiguous habitats, the Northern 

and Southern communities are 

primarily inshore, and the Coastal 

community generally uses the coastal 

waters of the Jacksonville area from the 

beach to 1.9 miles (3 km) offshore 

(Caldwell, 2001). The Southern and 

Coastal communities have partially 

overlapping ranges, while the Northern 

and Southern community’s ranges may 

generally be separated by the St. John’s 

River. Also, the Southern and Coastal 

communities are behaviorally and 

genetically differentiated from the 

Northern community (Caldwell, 2001). 

In Florida and other states along the 

U.S. East Coast, bottlenose dolphin 

abundance and density is often 

correlated with water temperature and 

season. Significantly fewer dolphins 

were observed during the winter season 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46095 

when water temperature falls below 16 

degrees Celsius (Caldwell, 2001). 

NMFS anticipates that no bottlenose 

dolphins will be injured, seriously 

injured, or killed during the three 

proposed blasting events. The specific 

objective of the ACOE’s Mitigation Plan 

or Protected Species Watch Plan is to 

ensure that no dolphins (or manatees) 

and other protected species are in the 

area and could be impacted by the blast 

detonations. Because of the 

circumstances and the proposed 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

discussed herein this document, NMFS 

believes it highly unlikely that the 

proposed activities would result in 

injury (Level A harassment), serious 

injury, or mortality of bottlenose 

dolphins, however, they may 

temporarily avoid the area where the 

proposed explosive demolition will 

occur. The ACOE has requested the 

incidental take of 191 bottlenose 

dolphin for the duration of the proposed 

action. The estimated abundance of the 

prospective Northern Florida stock is 

approximately 2,502 to 3,064 animals. 

There is not currently a stock 

assessment available concerning the 

status of bottlenose dolphins in the 

inshore and nearshore waters off of 

Florida. NMFS has determined that the 

number of requested incidental takes for 

the proposed action are small relative to 

the stock population estimate of 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. 

Further information on the biology 

and local distribution of these species 

and others in the region can be found in 

ACOE’s application, which is available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES), and the 

NMFS Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment Reports, which are available 

online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/ 

Potential Effects of Activities on Marine 

Mammals 

In general, potential impacts to 

marine mammals from explosive 

detonations could include both lethal 

and non-lethal injury (Level A 

harassment), as well as Level B 

harassment. In the absence of 

monitoring and mitigation, marine 

mammals may be killed or injured as a 

result of an explosive detonation due to 

the response of air cavities in the body, 

such as the lungs and bubbles in the 

intestines. Effects are likely to be most 

severe in near surface waters where the 

reflected shock wave creates a region of 

negative pressure called ‘‘cavitation.’’ 

A second potential possible cause of 

mortality is the onset of extensive lung 

hemorrhage. Extensive lung hemorrhage 

is considered debilitating and 

potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by 

lung hemorrhage is likely to be the 

major cause of marine mammal death 

from underwater shock waves. The 

estimated range for the onset of 

extensive lung hemorrhage to marine 

mammals varies depending upon the 

animal’s weight, with the smallest 

mammals having the greatest potential 

hazard range. 

NMFS’ criteria for determining nonlethal injury (Level A harassment) from 

explosives are the peak pressure that 

will result in: (1) the onset of slight lung 

hemorrhage, or (2) a 50 percent 

probability level for a rupture of the 

tympanic membrane (TM). These are 

injuries from which animals would be 

expected to recover on their own. 

NMFS has established dual criteria for 

what constitutes Level B harassment: (1) 

An energy based temporary threshold 

shift (TTS) received sound levels 182 dB 

re 1 μPa2–s cumulative energy flux in 

any 1/3 octave band above 100 Hz for 

odontocetes (derived from experiments 

with bottlenose dolphins (Ridgway et 

al., 1997; Schlundt et al., 2000); and (2) 

12 psi peak pressure cited by Ketten 

(1995) as associated with a safe outer 

limit for minimal, recoverable auditory 

trauma (i.e., TTS). The Level B 

harassment zone, therefore, is the 

distance from the mortality, serious 

injury, injury (Level A harassment) zone 

to the radius where neither of these 

criterion is exceeded. 

The primary potential impact to the 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins occurring 

in the Blount Island action area from the 

proposed detonations is Level B 

harassment incidental to noise 

generated by explosives. In the absence 

of any monitoring or mitigation 

measures, there is a very small chance 

that a marine mammal could be injured 

or killed when exposed to the energy 

generated from an explosive force on the 

sea floor. However, NMFS believes the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures will preclude this possibility 

in the case of this particular activity. 

Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A 

harassment) are defined in this 

proposed IHA as TM rupture and the 

onset of slight lung injury. The 

threshold for Level A harassment 

corresponds to a 50 percent rate of TM 

rupture, which can be stated in terms of 

an energy flux density (EFD) value of 

205 dB re 1 μPa2s. TM rupture is wellcorrelated with permanent hearing 

impairment (Ketten, 1998) indicates a 

30 percent incidence of permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) at the same 

threshold). The farthest distance from 

the source at which an animal is 

exposed to the EFD level for the Level 

A harassment threshold is unknown at 

this time. 

Level B (non-injurious) harassment 

includes temporary (auditory) threshold 

shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of 

hearing sensitivity. One criterion used 

for TTS is 182 dB re 1 μPa2 s maximum 

EFD level in any 1/3- octave band above 

100 Hz for toothed whales (e.g., 

dolphins). A second criterion, 23 psi, 

has recently been established by NMFS 

to provide a more conservative range of 

TTS when the explosive or animals 

approaches the sea surface, in which 

case explosive energy is reduced, but 

the peak pressure is not. The distance 

for 23 psi has not been determined at 

this time, however, NMFS will apply 

the more conservative of these two 

distances. 

Level B harassment also includes 

behavioral modifications resulting from 

repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to 

the same animals (usually resident) over 

a relatively short period of times. 

Threshold criteria for this particular 

type of harassment are currently still 

being considered. One recommendation 

is a level of 6 dB below TTS (see 69 FR 

21816, April 22, 2004), which would be 

176 dB re 1 μPa2s. Due, however, to the 

infrequency of detonations, the 

relatively short overall time period of 

the project, and the continuous 

movement of marine mammals in the St. 

Johns River, NMFS believes that 

behavioral modification from repeated 

exposures to the same animals is 

unlikely. 

The ACOE is unable to determine if 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in the area 

utilize the MCSF-BI Slipway, however 

they do transit up and down the St. 

Johns River, past the slipway, and have 

been documented at the Dames Point 

Bridge west of the MCSF-BI Slipway, 

thus their presence in the waters 

adjacent to the slipway is expected. The 

slipway is a man-made, dead-end slip 

with concrete walls and a rock and sand 

bottom. The bottom of the river adjacent 

to the slip is rock and sand. The ACOE 

acknowledges that while the MCSF-BI 

Slipway may not be suitable habitat for 

dolphins in the St. Johns River, it is 

likely that animals may traverse the St. 

Johns River to North Biscayne Bay or 

offshore via the main port channel. 

North Atlantic right whales are highly 

unlikely to occur in the MCSF-BI 

Slipway area, as they would need to 

enter the river and swim 10 miles up the 

river to be found adjacent to the 

slipway. 

Possible Effects of Activities on Marine 

Mammal Habitat 

The ACOE expects no loss or 

modification of habitat for the 

populations of marine mammals in the 

St. Johns River located adjacent to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

MCSF-BI Slipway. All of the material 

dredged from the Blount Island facility 

has been placed in the Dayson Island 

DMMA. The bottom of the basin in the 

MCSF-BI Slipway mostly consists of 

silts and clays, with some sand. There 

are no mangroves seagrasses, or corals 

in the basin. 

The ambient noise level of an area 

like MCSF-BI includes sounds from 

both natural (wind, waves, birds, etc.) 

and artificial (vehicle and ship engines, 

maintenance activities, etc.) sources. 

The strength/extent (or magnitude) and 

frequency of sound levels vary over the 

course of the day, throughout the week, 

and can be affected by weather 

conditions. 

Noise generated by dredges is low 

frequency in nature. This low frequency 

noise tends to carry long distances in 

water, but is attenuated the further away 

you are from the source. Currently, 

periodic maintenance dredging occurs 

in the dredging project area, as often as 

every two years for the NAVSTA 

Mayport entrance channel and turning 

basin. Deepening of the Jacksonville 

Harbor has involved some blasting 

upriver from the Jacksonville Harbor Bar 

Cut 3 Federal navigation channel. 

Underwater noise as it relates to marine 

mammals is discussed in Sections 3.6 

and 4.6 of the ACOE’s Draft EA. Sound 

exposure levels measured for equipment 

similar to clamshell equipment used in 

the past to dredge the NAVSTA Mayport 

turning basin range between 75 and 88 

dBA at 50 ft (15 m) distance from the 

dredging equipment (NMFS, 2007). The 

ACOE and USMC expect the effects on 

marine mammal habitat to be minimal. 

NMFS anticipates that the action will 

result in no impacts to marine mammal 

habitat beyond rendering the areas 

immediately around the MCSF-BI 

Slipway less desirable shortly after each 

blasting event and during dredging 

operations. The impacts will be 

localized and instantaneous. Impacts to 

marine mammal, invertebrate, and fish 

species are not expected to be 

detrimental. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization under Section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse 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. 

The ACOE and MSCF-BI plan to 

remove a sill consisting of 875,000 ft2

(81,290 m2) of reinforced concrete and 

130,000 cy of hard rock from the MSCFBI Slipway using the same confined 

blasting technique as utilized at the Port 

of Miami project in 2005 and reviewed 

in Jordan et al. (2007) and Hempen et 

al. (2007) (see application). Danger, 

safety, and monitoring radii would be 

base on the delay weights of an 

unconfined charge, however for this 

project, all charges would be confined 

in the rock/concrete. 

Radii calculations: 

Danger Zone radius = 260 (lbs/delay)1⁄3

Safety Zone radius (two times the size 

of the Danger Zone) = 520 (lbs/delay)1⁄3

Watch Zone radius (three times the size 

of the Danger Zone) = 3 [260 (lbs/ 

delay)1⁄3] 

These zones are considered 

conservative because they are based on 

unconfined blasts in open water. Openwater detonations produce both higher 

amplitude and higher frequency shock 

waves than contained detonations; thus, 

stemming charges results in reduced 

pressures and lower aquatic organism 

mortality than the same explosive 

charge weight detonated in open water. 

These same calculations were approved 

by NMFS for use during the Miami 

Harbor Project. A take by Level B 

harassment could occur if a marine 

mammal is exposed to blasting outside 

the Danger Zone and inside the Safety 

Zone. 

In the MCSF-BI Slipway where 

blasting is required to obtain channel 

design depth, marine mammal 

protection measures shall be employed, 

before, during, and after each blast. The 

following standard conditions will be 

incorporated into the project 

specifications to reduce the risk of 

impacts to protected species to the 

lowest level practicable within the 

project area: 

(1) Establishing a Danger, Safety, and 

Watch Zone for confined blasting based 

on the maximum weight of explosives 

detonated. For each explosive charge 

placed, detonation will not occur if a 

marine mammal is known to be (or 

based on previous sightings, may be) 

within a circular area around the 

detonation site with the following 

radius: 

R = 260(W)1⁄3

Where: 

R = radius of the Danger Zone in ft 

W = weight of the explosive charge in 

lbs (tetryl or TNT) 

(2) Confining the explosives in the 

borehole with drill patterns restricted to 

a minimum of 8 ft (2.4 m) separation 

from any other loaded borehole; 

(3) Restricting the hours of detonation 

from two hours after sunrise to one hour 

before sunset to ensure adequate 

observation of marine mammals in the 

project area; 

(4) Staggering the detonation for each 

explosive hole in order to spread the 

explosive’s total overpressure over time; 

(5) Capping or stemming the 

boreholes containing explosives with 

angular rock or crushed stone (sized 1/ 

20 to 1/8 of the borehole diameter) to a 

minimum 0of 12 inches in depth in 

order to reduce the outward potential of 

the blast, thereby reducing the change of 

injuring a marine mammal; 

(6) Matching, the extent possible, the 

energy needed in the ‘‘work effort’’ of 

the borehole to the rock mass to 

minimize excess energy vented into the 

water column; 

(7) A protected species watch (as 

described in Jordan et al., 2007) will be 

conducted by no less than six NMFSqualified observers from a small 

watercraft,, aircraft and/or elevated 

platform on the explosives barge, 

beginning at least 60 min before and 

continuing for at least 30 min after the 

time of each detonation, in a circular 

area at least three times the radius of the 

above described Danger Zone (this is 

called the Watch Zone), to ensure that 

there are no marine mammals in the 

proximity of the action area at the time 

of detonation; 

(8) Any marine mammal(s) in the 

Danger Zone or the Safety Zone shall 

not be forced to move out of those zones 

by human intervention. Detonation shall 

not occur until the animal(s) move(s) 

out of the Danger Zone and/or the Safety 

Zone on its own volition. 

(9) In the event a marine mammal is 

injured, seriously injured, or killed 

during blasting, the Contractor shall 

immediately notify the Contracting 

Officer as well as the following 

agencies: 

a. Florida Marine Patrol ‘‘Marine 

Mammal Stranding Hotline’’ 1–800– 

342–5367; 

b. NMFS Regional Office at 727–570– 

5312; and 

c. USFWS Vero Beach Office at 772– 

562–3909; and 

(10) Conducting blasts during time 

periods of the year when there are low 

marine mammal abundance densities. 

In the MCSF-BI Slipway or any area 

where explosives are required to remove 

materials, marine mammal protection 

measures will be employed by the 

ACOE and USMC. For each explosive 

charge, the ACOE would ensure that a 

detonation will not occur if a marine 

mammal is sighted by a dedicated 

biologically-trained observer within the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 46097 

Danger Zone, a circular area around the 

detonation site. 

Although the area inside the Safety 

Zone is considered to be an area for 

potential injury, the ACOE, USMC, and 

NMFS believe that because all explosive 

charges will be stemmed (placed in 

drilled hole and tamped with rock), the 

areas for potential mortality and injury 

will be significantly smaller than this 

area and, therefore, it is unlikely that 

even non-serious injury would occur if 

as is believed to be the case, monitoring 

and mitigating this zone will be 

effective. Since bottlenose dolphins are 

commonly found on the surface of the 

water, implementation of a mitigation 

and monitoring program is expected by 

NMFS to be effective. 

Avoiding periods when marine 

mammals are in the blasting zone is 

another mitigation measure to protect 

marine mammals from underwater 

explosions. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implanting 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present. 

The ACOE would implement a 

Protected Species Watch Plan. The 

Protected Species Watch Plan is based 

on the required Danger, Safety, and 

Watch zones and optimal observation 

locations. Each zone is a concentric 

circle whose radius is drawn from the 

center of the blast array. Buoys would 

demarcate zones where affects are 

possible. The Protected Species Watch 

Plan would consist of six observers 

which include at least one aerial 

observer, two boat-based observers, and 

two observers stationed at other 

locations (likely on the barge used to 

drill boreholes). The sixth observer 

would be placed in the most optimal 

observation location (boat, barge, or 

aircraft) on a day-by-day basis 

depending on the location of the blast 

and the placement of the dredging 

equipment. Observers would have the 

authority to halt the event if a protected 

species is observed inside a restricted 

area. This process would help to insure 

complete coverage of the three zones as 

well as any critical areas. The Protected 

Species Watch Plan would begin at least 

one hour prior to each blast and 

continue for 30 min after each blast. 

All observers would be equipped with 

marine-band VHF radios, maps of the 

blast zone, polarized sunglasses, and 

appropriate data sheets. In addition to 

the observation gear, all required 

personal protective equipment (hard 

hat, steel toed boots, life vest) would be 

worn by observers at all times with the 

exception of the aerial observer. 

Watch hours would be restricted to 

between two hours after sunrise and one 

hour before sunset. The watch would 

begin at least one hour prior to the 

scheduled blast and would continue 

throughout the blast. Watch would then 

continue for at least 30 minutes postblast, at which time any animals that 

were seen prior to the blast are visually 

re-located whenever possible. 

If an animal is spotted inside the 

Danger Zone or Safety Zone and not resighted, no blasting would be 

authorized until at least 30 minutes has 

elapsed since the last sighting of that 

animal. 

Proposed monitoring requirements in 

relation to ACOE and USMC’s blasting 

activities would include observations 

made by the applicant and their 

associates. Information recorded would 

include species counts, numbers of 

observed disturbances, and descriptions 

of the disturbance behaviors before, 

during and after blasting activities. 

Observations of unusual behaviors, 

numbers, or distributions of marine 

mammals in the activity area to NMFS 

and USFWS so that any potential 

follow-up observations can be 

conducted by the appropriate personnel. 

In addition, observations of tag-bearing 

marine mammal, sea turtles, and fish 

carcasses as well as any rare or unusual 

species of marine mammals and fish 

would be reported to NMFS and 

USFWS. 

If at any time injury or death of any 

marine mammal occurs that may be a 

result of the proposed blasting activities, 

the ACOE and USMC would suspend 

activities and contact NMFS 

immediately to determine how best to 

proceed to ensure that another injury, 

serious injury, or death does not occur 

and to ensure that the applicant remains 

in compliance with the MMPA. 

Several mitigation measures to reduce 

the potential for harassment from 

explosive demolition activities would 

be (or are proposed to be implemented) 

implemented as part of the blasting and 

dredging activities. The potential risk of 

injury, serious injury, or mortality 

would be avoided with the following 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures. Monitoring of the test area 

will continue throughout the activity 

until the last detonation is complete. 

The activity would be postponed if: 

(1) Any marine mammal is visually 

detected within the Danger Zone or 

Safety Zone. The delay would continue 

until the animal(s) that caused the 

postponement is confirmed to be 

outside the Danger Zone (visually 

observed swimming out of the range and 

not likely to return). 

(2) Any marine mammal is detected in 

the Danger Zone and subsequently is 

not seen again. The activity would not 

continue until the last verified location 

is outside the Danger Zone and the 

animal is moving away from the activity 

area, or the animal has not been seen for 

at least 30 minutes within the Danger 

Zone. 

(3) Large schools of fish are observed 

in the water within the Danger Zone or 

Safety Zone. The delay would continue 

until large schools are confirmed to be 

outside the Safety Zone. 

In the event of a postponement, preactivity monitoring would continue as 

long as weather and daylight hours 

allow. If a charge failed to explode, 

mitigation measures would continue 

while operations personnel attempted to 

recognize and solve the problem, i.e., 

detonate the charge. 

Post-activity monitoring is designed 

to determine the effectiveness of preactivity monitoring and mitigation by 

reporting any sightings of dead or 

injured marine mammals. Postdetonation monitoring, concentrating on 

the area down current of the test site, 

would commence immediately 

following each detonation and continue 

for at least one hour after the last 

detonation. The monitoring team would 

document and report to the appropriate 

organization the marine mammals killed 

or injured during the activity and, if 

practicable, recover and examine any 

dead animals. The species, number, 

location, and behavior of any animals 

observed by the team would be 

documented and reported to the project 

leader. 

West Indian manatees, which are 

federally listed as Endangered under the 

ESA and managed by the USFWS, are 

not expected in the St. John’s River 

during the time periods when the 

activities would be conducted. 

However, if manatees are sighted during 

the activities, the ACOE would follow 

similar mitigation and monitoring 

procedures in place for bottlenose 

dolphins to avoid impacts, suspending 

activities in any areas manatees are 

occupying. 

The ACOE and USMC plan to 

coordinate monitoring with the 

appropriate Federal and state resource 

agencies, and will provide copies of all 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46098 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Notices 

relevant monitoring reports prepared by 

their contractors. After completion of all 

detonation and dredging events, the 

ACOE and USMC would submit a 

summary report to regulatory agencies. 

This report would contain the observer’s 

logs, provide the names of the observers, 

and their positions during the event, the 

number and location of marine 

mammals sighted during the monitoring 

period, the behavior observations of the 

marine mammals, and the actions that 

were taken when the animals were 

observed in the project area. 

The ACOE would notify NMFS and 

the Regional Office prior to initiation of 

each explosive demolition session. Any 

takes of marine mammals other than 

those authorized by the IHA, as well as 

any injuries or deaths of marine 

mammals, will be reported to the 

Southeast Regional Administrator, 

within 24 hours. A draft final report 

must be submitted to NMFS within 90 

days after the conclusion of the blasting 

activities. The report would include a 

summary of the information gathered 

pursuant to the monitoring 

requirements set forth in the IHA, 

including dates and times of 

detonations as well as pre- and postblasting monitoring observations. A 

final report must be submitted to the 

Regional Administrator within 30 days 

after receiving comments from NMFS on 

the draft final report. If no comments are 

received from NMFS, the draft final 

report would be considered to be the 

final report. 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Determination 

50 CFR 216.103 states that ‘‘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.’’ 

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, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that the 

ACOE and USMC would result in the 

incidental take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only, and that the total 

taking from the blasting and dredging 

activities would have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

of marine mammals. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There is no subsistence hunting for 

marine mammals in the waters off of the 

coast of Florida that implicates MMPA 

Section 101(a)(5)(D). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

For the reasons already described in 

this Federal Register notice, NMFS has 

determined that the described proposed 

blasting activities and the 

accompanying IHA may have the 

potential to adversely affect species 

under NMFS jurisdiction and protected 

by the ESA. The ACOE and USMC 

requested a Section 7 consultation 

pursuant to the ESA with NMFS’ 

Southeast Regional Office. Since ESAlisted species are not expected to be 

adversely affected by the proposed 

activities provided the described 

protected species avoidance measures 

for the use of explosives are 

implemented, a Letter of Concurrence 

was prepared by the NMFS Southeast 

Regional Office on July 22, 2009. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The ACOE has prepared a ‘‘Draft EA 

Removal of Concrete Sill and Advance 

Maintenance Dredging of Marine Corps 

Slipway, U.S. Marine Corps Support 

Facility Blount Island, Jacksonville, 

Duval County, Florida,’’ which analyzed 

the project’s purpose and need, 

alternatives, affected environment, and 

environmental effects for the proposed 

action. The EA evaluates whether to 

remove the concrete sill in the MCSFBI Slipway and conduct advance 

maintenance dredging from -37 to -47 ft 

MLLW, as well as alternatives to 

accomplish the MCSF-BI Slipway goal. 

NMFS will review the ACOE and 

USMC’s EA and the public comments 

received and subsequently either adopt 

it or conduct a separate NEPA analysis, 

as necessary, prior to making a 

determination on the issuance of the 

IHA. A copy of the Draft EA is available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

Preliminary Determinations 

Based on ACOE and USMC’s 

application, as well as the analysis 

contained herein, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

impact of the described blasting and 

dredging project will result, at most, in 

a temporary modification in behavior by 

small numbers of Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphin, in the form of temporarily 

vacating the MCSF-BI Slipway area to 

avoid blasting and dredging activities 

and potential for minor visual and 

acoustic disturbance from dredging and 

detonations. The effect of the blasting 

and dredging project is expected to be 

limited to short-term and localized TTSrelated behavioral changes. 

Due to the infrequency, short timeframe, and localized nature of these 

activities, the number of marine 

mammals, relative to the stock 

population size, potentially taken by 

harassment is small. In addition, no take 

by injury, serious injury, or death is 

anticipated, and take by Level B 

harassment will be at the lowest level 

practicable due to incorporation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures mentioned previously in this 

document. NMFS has further 

preliminarily determined that the 

anticipated takes will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species or stock 

of marine mammals. No injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, and/or 

mortality is expected or authorized for 

marine mammals. The provision 

requiring that the activity not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the affected species or 

stock for subsistence uses does not 

apply to this proposed action as there 

are no subsistence users within the 

geographic area of the proposed project. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to the ACOE for the harassment 

of small numbers (based on populations 

of the species and stock) of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin incidental to blasting 

and dredging operations, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Information Solicited 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments and information 

concerning this proposed project and 

NMFS’ preliminary determination of 

issuing an IHA (see ADDRESSES). 

Concurrent with the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is 

forwarding copies of this application to 

the Marine Mammal Commission and 

its Committee of Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: September 1, 2009. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21601 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES