[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46090-46098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21601]


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

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 East-West 
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

[[Page 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 ft\2\ 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 blast-hole. 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 sub-angular, 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 pre-treat 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

[[Page 46092]]

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                   ESA\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nort Atlantic right whale                                                            Coastal and shelf       EN
(Eubalena glacialis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale                                                      Pelagic and banks                        EN
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryde's whale                                                     Pelagic and coastal                        NL
(Balenoptera brydei)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke whale                                                       Shelf, coastal, and                        NL
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata)                                                  pelagic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale                                                        Pelagic and coastal                        EN
(Balaenoptera musculus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sei whale                                                         Primarily offshore,                        EN
(Balaenoptera borealis)                                                       pelagic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale                                                       Slope, mostly pelagic                        EN
(Balaenoptera physalus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale                                                        Pelagic, deep seas                        EN
(Physeter macrocephalus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale                                                         Pelagic                        NL
(Ziphius cavirostris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gervais' beaked whale                                                         Pelagic                        NL
(Mesoplodon europaeus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True's beaked whale                                                           Pelagic                        NL
(Mesoplodon mirus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blainville's beaked whale                                                     Pelagic                        NL
(Mesoplodon densirostris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale                                                   Offshore, pelagic                        NL
(Kogia sima)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale                                                   Offshore, pelagic                        NL
(Kogia breviceps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale                                                       Widely distributed                        NL
(Orcinus orca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-finned pilot whale                                         Inshore and offshore                        NL
(Globicephala macrorhynchus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46093]]

 
False killer whale                                                            Pelagic                        NL
(Pseudorca crassidens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mellon-headed whale                                                           Pelagic                        NL
(Peponocephala electra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy killer whale                                                            Pelagic                        NL
(Fertesa attentuata)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risso's dolphin                                                        Pelagic, shelf                        NL
(Grampus griseus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin                                                 Offshore, inshore,                        NL
(Tursiops truncatus)                                               coastal, estuaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough toothed dolphin                                                         Pelagic                        NL
(Steno bredanensis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser's dolphin                                                              Pelagic                        NL
(Lagenodelphis hosei)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped dolphin                                                               Pelagic                        NL
(Stenella coeruleoalba)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pantropical spotted dolphin                                                   Pelagic                        NL
(Stenella attenuata)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin                                                             Coastal to pelagic      NL
(Stella frontalis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spinner dolphin                                                        Mostly pelagic                        NL
(Stenella longirostris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clymene dolphin                                                               Pelagic                        NL
(Stenella clymene)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenians
-------------------------------------------------------------
West Indian (Florida) manatee                                                        Coastal, rivers and     EN
(Trichechus manatus latirostris)                                            estuaries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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

[[Page 46094]]

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

[[Page 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 non-lethal 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 microPa\2\-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 microPa\2\s. TM rupture is well-correlated 
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 microPa\2\ 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 microPa\2\s. 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

[[Page 46096]]

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 
ft\2\ (81,290 m\2\) of reinforced concrete and 130,000 cy of hard rock 
from the MSCF-BI 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. Open-water 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 NMFS-qualified 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

[[Page 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 post-blast, 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 re-sighted, 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, pre-activity 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 pre-activity monitoring and mitigation by reporting any sightings of 
dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation 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

[[Page 46098]]

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 post-blasting 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 ESA-listed 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 MCSF-BI 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 TTS-related 
behavioral changes.
    Due to the infrequency, short time-frame, 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