Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq. ), a veterinary biological product must be shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. A field test is generally necessary to satisfy prelicensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS considers the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment. Using the risk analysis and other relevant data, APHIS has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the following unlicensed veterinary biological product:

Requester: ProtaTek International, Inc.

Product: Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Vaccine, Respiratory Form, Modified Live Virus.

Possible Field Test Locations: Iowa, North Carolina, and Texas.

The above-mentioned product is a live chimeric virus constructed from an infectious clone and a field isolate of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus to produce an attenuated vaccine. The vaccine is intended for use in swine, 3 weeks of age or older, as an aid in the reduction of lung lesions caused by porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.

The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Unless substantial issues with adverse environmental impacts are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) based on the EA and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensing.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established as the common international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO was approved by Congress when it enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), which was signed into law on December 8, 1994. The WTO Agreements, which established the WTO, entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531 et seq. ). Section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2578), requires the President to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The designated agency must inform the public by publishing an annual notice in the Federal Register that provides the following information: (1) The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration by the international standard-setting organization; and (2) for each SPS standard specified, a description of the consideration or planned consideration of that standard, a statement of whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of that standard, the agenda for U.S. participation, if any, and the agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to that standard.

“International standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation: (1) Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) regarding food safety; (2) developed under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties) regarding animal health and welfare, and zoonoses; (3) developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in cooperation with the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or (4) established by or developed under any other international organization agreed to by the member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the member countries of the WTO.

The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) informs the public of Codex standard-setting activities, and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO standard-setting activities.

FSIS publishes an annual notice in the Federal Register to inform the public of SPS standard-setting activities for Codex. Codex was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization. It is the major international organization for encouraging international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers.

APHIS is responsible for publishing an annual notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO activities related to international standards for plant and animal health and representing the United States with respect to these standards. Following are descriptions of the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO organizations and the standard-setting agenda for each of these organizations. We have described the agenda that each of these organizations will address at their annual general sessions, including standards that may be presented for adoption or consideration, as well as other initiatives that may be underway at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO.

The agendas for these meetings are subject to change, and the draft standards identified in this notice may not be sufficiently developed and ready for adoption as indicated. Also, while it is the intent of the United States to support adoption of international standards and to participate actively and fully in their development, it should be recognized that the U.S. position on a specific draft standard will depend on the acceptability of the final draft. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of the standard-setting process, we encourage any persons who are interested in the most current details about a specific draft standard or the U.S. position on a particular standard-setting issue, or in providing comments on a specific standard that may be under development, to contact APHIS. Contact information is provided at the beginning of this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The OIE was established in Paris, France, in 1924 with the signing of an international agreement by 28 countries. It is currently composed of 178 Members, each of which is represented by a delegate who, in most cases, is the chief veterinary officer of that country or territory. The WTO has recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health and welfare standards, reporting global animal disease events, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health.

The OIE facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in animals by sharing scientific research among its Members. The major functions of the OIE are to collect and disseminate information on the distribution and occurrence of animal diseases and to ensure that science-based standards govern international trade in animals and animal products. The OIE aims to achieve these through the development and revision of international standards for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the safe international trade of animals and animal products.

The OIE provides annual reports on the global distribution of animal diseases, recognizes the free status of Members for certain diseases, categorizes animal diseases with respect to their international significance, publishes bulletins on global disease status, and provides animal disease control guidelines to Members. Various OIE commissions and working groups undertake the development and preparation of draft standards, which are then circulated to Members for consultation (review and comment). Draft standards are revised accordingly and are then presented to the OIE World Assembly of Delegates (all the Members) during the General Session, which meets annually every May, for review and adoption. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on consensus of the OIE membership.

The next OIE General Session is scheduled for May 25-30, 2014, in Paris, France. Currently, the Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services program is the official U.S. Delegate to the OIE. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services program intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption. Information about OIE draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters may be found on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/oie / or by contacting Dr. Michael David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Over 30 Code chapters were amended, rewritten, or newly proposed and presented for adoption at the General Session. The following Code chapters are of particular interest to the United States:

Title: Employment and Training Program Activity Report.

OMB Number: 0584-0339.

Expiration Date: June 30, 2014.

Type of Request: Extension without revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: 7 CFR 273.7(c)(9) requires State agencies to submit quarterly E&T Program Activity Reports containing monthly figures for participation in the program. FNS uses Form FNS-583, to collect participation data. The information collected on the FNS-583 report includes:

• On the first quarter report, the number of work registrants receiving SNAP as of October 1 of the new fiscal year;

• On each quarterly report, by month, the number of new work registrants; the number of able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) applicants and recipients participating in qualifying components; the number of all other applicants and recipients (including ABAWDs involved in non-qualifying activities) participating in components; and the number of ABAWDs exempt under the State agency's 15 percent exemption allowance;

• On the fourth quarter report, the total number of individuals who participated in each component, which is also sorted by ABAWD and non-ABAWD participants and the number of individuals who participated in the E&T Program during the fiscal year.

7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(D) provides that if a State agency will not expend all of the funds allocated to it for a fiscal year, FNS will reallocate unexpended funds to other State agencies during the fiscal year or the subsequent fiscal year as FNS considers appropriate and equitable. After FNS makes initial E&T allocations, State agencies may request more funds as needed. Typically FNS receives fourteen such requests per year.

The time it takes to prepare these requests is included in the burden. After receiving the State requests, FNS will reallocate unexpended funds as provided above. The following is the estimated burden for E&T reporting including the burden for State agencies to request additional funds.

Frequency: 4.

Affected Public: State Agency.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Number of Responses: 684. (Note this reflects multiple responses within the FNS-583 form; In aggregate, 53 State Agencies submit 1 form each quarter or 212 total responses per year.)

Estimated Time per Response: 31.9363 hours per State agency.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting Burden: 21,844.40 hours.

Frequency: .2641.

Affected Public: State Agency.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Number of Responses: 14.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.00 hour per request.

Estimated Total Annual Reporting Burden: 14 hours.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Number of Records: 212.

Number of Hours per Record: 0.137 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 29.04 hours.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Number of Records: 14.

Number of Hours per Record: 0.137 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden: 1.92 hours.

The following business will be conducted: Vote on Project proposals for 2014 funding. Contact Joni Lubke at 406-363-7100 for a full agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before the meeting. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 24, 2014 to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Joni Lubke at 1801 N. 1st, Hamilton, MT 59840 or by email to jmlubke@fs.fed.us or via facsimile to 406-363-7159. A summary of the meeting will be posted at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/secure_rural_schools.nsf/Web_Agendas?OpenView&Count=1000&RestrictToCategory=Ravalli+County within 21 days of the meeting.

The Census Bureau plans to request clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of data concerning the HVS. The current clearance expires June 30, 2014.

Collection of the HVS in conjunction with the CPS began in 1956, and serves a broad array of data users. We conduct the HVS interviews with landlords or other knowledgeable people concerning vacant housing units identified in the monthly CPS sample and meeting certain criteria. The HVS provides the only quarterly statistics on rental vacancy rates and homeownership rates for the United States, the four census regions, the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the 75 largest metropolitan areas (MAs). Private and public sector organizations use these rates extensively to gauge and analyze the housing market with regard to supply, cost, and affordability at various points in time.

In addition, the rental vacancy rate is a component of the index of leading economic indicators published by the Department of Commerce.

Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and congressional staff use these data to advise the executive and legislative branches of government with respect to the number and characteristics of units available for occupancy and the suitability of housing initiatives. Several other government agencies use these data on a continuing basis in calculating consumer expenditures for housing as a component of the gross national product; to project mortgage demands; and to measure the adequacy of the supply of rental and homeowner units. In addition, investment firms use the HVS data to analyze market trends and for economic forecasting.

Field representatives collect this HVS information by personal-visit interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. We collect HVS data concerning units that are vacant and intended for year-round occupancy as determined during the CPS interview. Approximately 7,000 units in the CPS sample meet these criteria each month. All interviews are conducted using computer-assisted interviewing.

OMB Control Number: 0607-0179.

Form Number: HVS-600 (Fact Sheet for the Housing Vacancy Survey), CPS-263 (MIS-1) (L) (Introductory letter explaining the need for the survey and answering frequently asked questions) and BC-1428RV (Brochure—The U.S. Census Bureau Respects Your Privacy and Keeps Your Personal Information Confidential).

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals who have knowledge of the vacant sample unit (e.g., landlord, rental agents, neighbors).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,000 per month.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,317 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

Respondents Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C. 182, and Title 29, U.S.C. 1-9.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On August 1, 2013, the Department initiated a sunset review of these orders, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order on OTR Tires from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order on OTR Tires from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies and, therefore, notified the USITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail should the order be revoked. 2 On January 22, 2014, the USITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on OTR Tires from the PRC would lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 3

The products covered by the scope of these Orders are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road (OTR) and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to: (1) Agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors, 4 combine harvesters, 5 agricultural high clearance sprayers, 6 industrial tractors, 7 log-skidders, 8 agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-loaders;  9 (2) construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks, 10 front end loaders, 11 dozers, 12 lift trucks, straddle carriers, 13 graders, 14 mobile cranes, 15 compactors; and (3) industrial vehicles and equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks. 16 The foregoing list of vehicles and equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. Such vehicles and equipment, and the descriptions contained in the footnotes are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are designed ( e.g., tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the proceeding range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type  17 or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association:

Prefix letter designations:

• P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;

• LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and,

• ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.

Suffix letter designations:

• TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″

• MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;

• HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15″ tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.

• Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;

• LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and

• MC—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.

The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind designed for use on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications. Also excluded from the scope are radial and bias tires of a kind designed for use in mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).

As a result of the determinations by the Department and the USITC that revocation of the AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and net countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD Orders on OTR Tires from the PRC. U.S Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD duty and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of this continuation of the Orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the Orders not later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the continuation.

The five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

On September 24, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated antidumping duty investigations on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and Turkey. 1 The notice of initiation stated that the Department, in accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), would issue its preliminary determination for these investigations, unless postponed, no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. The original signature date for the preliminary determination was February 11, 2014. Subsequently, as explained in a memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013. 2 Accordingly, all deadlines in these investigations were extended by 16 days. Thus, the preliminary determination of these antidumping duty investigations is currently due no later than February 27, 2014.

On January 27, 2014, more than 25 days before the scheduled preliminary determination, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) and its individual members (collectively, “Petitioners”), 3 pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e), made a timely request for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in these investigations. 4 Petitioners noted in their request that this extension will provide additional time for the Department to review respondents' submissions and to request supplemental information, so that the preliminary determinations will reflect the most accurate results possible.

The Department has found no compelling reason to deny the request and, therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 206 days after the date on which it initiated these investigations (the original 140-day period, plus a 50-day postponement, and the 16 days tolled for the shutdown of the Federal Government). Therefore, the new deadline for issuing the preliminary determination is now April 18, 2014.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act.

Background: The CINTAC was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), in response to an identified need for consensus advice from U.S. industry to the U.S. Government regarding the development and administration of programs to expand United States exports of civil nuclear goods and services in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including advice on how U.S. civil nuclear goods and services export policies, programs, and activities will affect the U.S. civil nuclear industry's competitiveness and ability to participate in the international market.

Topics to be considered: The agenda for the February 27, 2014 CINTAC meeting is as follows:

The meeting will be disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 21, 2014 in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 30 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 21, 2014. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 20 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting.

Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on February 21, 2014. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.

Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

In December 2013, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) received a “Notice of Appeal” filed by CBS Outdoor, Inc., pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, Subpart H. The appeal is taken from an objection by the California Coastal Commission to a consistency certification for a highway improvement project partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration.

Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the California Coastal Commission's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Department must find that: (1) the proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.

We encourage the public and interested federal agencies to participate in this appeal by submitting written comments and any relevant materials supporting those comments. All comments received are a part of the public record. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

You may submit a request for a public hearing using one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. In your request, explain why you believe a public hearing would be beneficial. If we determine that a public hearing would aid the decisionmaker, a notice announcing the date, time, and location of the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register . The public and federal agency comment period will also be reopened for a ten-day period following the conclusion of the public hearing to allow for additional input.

NOAA intends to provide access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following Web site: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/fcappealdecisions.html; and during business hours, at the NOAA, Office of General Counsel in the location specified in the ADDRESSES AND DATES section of this notice.

In December 2013, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) received a “Notice of Appeal” filed by CBS Outdoor, Inc., pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, Subpart H. The appeal is taken from an objection by the California Coastal Commission to a consistency certification for a highway improvement project partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration.

Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the California Coastal Commission's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA,” the Department must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the applicable coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the activity is not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.

We encourage the public and interested federal agencies to participate in this appeal by submitting written comments and any relevant materials supporting those comments. All comments received are a part of the public record. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

You may submit a request for a public hearing using one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. In your request, explain why you believe a public hearing would be beneficial. If we determine that a public hearing would aid the decisionmaker, a notice announcing the date, time, and location of the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register . The public and federal agency comment period will also be reopened for a ten-day period following the conclusion of the public hearing to allow for additional input.

NOAA intends to provide access to publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record on the following Web site: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/fcappealdecisions.html; and during business hours, at the NOAA, Office of General Counsel in the location specified in the ADDRESSES AND DATES section of this notice.

The meeting will be open to the public and public comment periods (on-site and via teleconference line) will be scheduled at various times throughout the meeting. These comment periods will be included in the final agenda published before February 21, 2014, on the HSRP Web site listed above. Each individual or group making verbal comments will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Comments will be recorded. Written comments should be submitted to Kathy.Watson@noaa.gov by February 19, 2014. Written comments received after February 19, 2014, will be distributed to the HSRP, but may not be reviewed until the meeting. Public seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Special Accommodations: HSRP public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Watson, HSRP Program Coordinator, National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Coast Survey, NOAA (N/CS), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; Telephone: 301-713-2770 ext. 158, or Email: Kathy.Watson@noaa.gov by February 14, 2014.

Matters To Be Considered: Regional and local stakeholders will present to the HSRP on issues relevant to NOAA's navigation services mission. Broad topic areas to be discussed include: (1) NOAA's navigation services mission to support the U.S. marine transportation system and economy; (2) the use of NOAA's navigation data, products, and services for national and regional preparedness, response, recovery, and resiliency efforts, specifically in relation to Post Tropical Cyclone Sandy and the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013; and (3) the use and need for improvements to NOAA's data, products, and services for navigation safety, improved Federal emergency response, informed local and regional coastal planning, risk reduction strategies for resilient coastal communities; and (4) the use and application of NOAA's charting, geodetic and tide, current and water level information to support pre-storm preparation and post-storm response and recovery.

The HSRP will also hold focused breakout sessions with regional and local stakeholders to further discuss challenges and issues presented during the stakeholder panel presentations, and other issues not previously presented. The breakout sessions will be held on Wednesday, February 26, 2014, with three general themes: (1) Updated nautical charting and consistency in standards; (2) Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping, modeling and resiliency; and (3) integrating Federal emergency response efforts for coastal resiliency.

Members of the public (attending in person) are welcome to participate and register for these sessions by contacting NOAA's Northeast Navigation Manager, LCDR Brent Pounds at email: Brent.Pounds@noaa.gov ; or the HSRP Program Coordinator, Kathy Watson at email: Kathy.Watson@noaa.gov by February 19, 2014. Members of the public, who wish to participate in the breakout session virtually (via teleconference capability), should contact Ashley Chappell at email: Ashley.Chappell@noaa.gov by February 19, 2014.

The breakout sessions provide the public with the opportunity to interact with HSRP members on concerns or issues with NOAA's navigation data, products, and services, and to present options or recommendations for improvement. The HSRP will consider input from these breakout sessions, and from the meeting presentations, to develop its recommendations for submission to the NOAA Acting Administrator for improving NOAA's navigation data, products, and services.

On June 25, 2013, notice was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 38013) that a modification of Permit No. 15661, issued January 24, 2012 (77 FR13097), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested modification has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

Permit No. 15661 authorizes the CNMI to characterize population structure, size class composition, foraging ecology, and migration patterns for green ( Chelonia mydas ) and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) sea turtles in the Northern Mariana Islands. Researchers may count and hand capture sea turtles during vessel surveys. Captured sea turtles may be: Measured, weighed, flipper and passive integrated transponder tagged, temporarily marked, tissue sampled, photographed, and/or satellite tagged and tracked before release. Sea turtle carcasses and parts may be opportunistically salvaged. The modification (-01) authorizes blood and scute sampling of a subset of captured sea turtles for analysis of environmental pollutants. The permit expires January 31, 2017.

Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361(a)(5)(D)) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by United States 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.

Authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat, and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings. 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. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small number of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

On November 15, 2013, NMFS received a letter from the ACOE, 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 confined blasting operations in the Miami Harbor, Port of Miami, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The IHA application was considered adequate and complete on November 26, 2013. NMFS issued an IHA to the ACOE on July 31, 2012 (77 FR 49278, August 15, 2012) for the same activities from March 15, 2013 to March 14, 2014 and the ACOE complied with the mitigation and monitoring requirements in the IHA. The ACOE plans to conduct four components as part of the project in Miami Harbor (see Figure 1 of the ACOE's IHA application for a map and more details). These components are:

(1) Widening of Cut 1 and deepening of Cut 1 and Cut 2;

(2) Adding a turn widener and deepening at the southern intersection of Cut 3 within Fisherman's Channel;

(3) Widening and deepening the Fisher Island Turning Basin; and

(4) Expanding the Federal Channel and Port of Miami berthing areas in Fisherman's Channel and the Lummus Island Turning Basin.

The construction would likely be completed using a combination of mechanical dredge (i.e., a clamshell or backhoe), cutterhead dredge, and rock pre-treatment by confined blasting. The dredging would remove approximately 5,000,000 cubic yards (3,822,774.3 cubic meters [m 3 ]) of material from the harbor. Material removed from the dredging would be placed in Miami Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, or used to construct seagrass and reef mitigation projects.

The confined blasting is planned to take place beginning during the spring of 2014 (March 2014), and is expected to take up to 24 months in Miami, Florida. Additional information on the construction project is contained in the application, which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ). Confined blasting means that the shots would be “confined” in the rock with stemming that prevents the explosive energy from going upward from the hole into the water column, and forces it to go laterally into the surrounding rock. In confined blasting, each charge is placed in a hole drilled in the rock approximately 5 to 10 feet (ft) (1.5 to 3.1 meters [m]) deep; depending on how much rock needs to be broken and the intended project depth. The hole is then capped with an inert material, such as crushed rock. A charge is the total weight of the explosives to be detonated during a blast. This can also be broken down into the weight of the individual delays. This process is referred to as “stemming the hole” (see Figure 6 and 7 of the ACOE's application).

The ACOE proposes to deepen and widen the Federal channels at Miami Harbor, Port of Miami, in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The recommended plan (Alternative 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]) includes four components:

(1) Widen the seaward portion of Cut 1 from 500 to 800 ft (152.4 to 243.8 m) and deepen Cut 1 and Cut 2 from a project depth of −44 to −52 ft (13.4 to 15.9 m);

(2) Add a turn widener at the southern intersection of Cut 3 within Fisherman's Channel and deepen to a project depth of −50 ft (−15.2 m);

(3) Increase the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1,200 to 1,500 ft (365.8 to 457.2 m), truncate the northeast section of the turning basin to minimize seagrass impacts, and deepen from −42 ft (−12.8 m) to a project depth of −50 ft; and

(4) Expand the Federal Channel and Port of Miami berthing areas in Fisherman's Channel and in the eastern end of the Lummus Island Turning Basin (LITB) by 60 ft (18.3 m) to the south for a total of a 160 ft (48.8 m) wide berthing area and would be deepened from −42 ft to a project depth of −50 ft. The Federal Channel would be widened 40 ft (12.2 m) to the south, for a 100 ft (30.5 m) total width increase in Fisherman's Channel. This component (referred to as Component 5 in the ACOE's IHA application) would deepen Fisherman's Channel and the LITB from −42 ft to a project depth of −50 ft. See Figure 1 of ACOE's IHA application for a map of the proposed project's components.

Disposal of the estimated five million cubic yards of dredged material would occur at up to three disposal sites (seagrass mitigation area, offshore artificial reef mitigation areas, and the Miami Offshore Dredged Material Disposal Site). This project was previously evaluated under an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) titled “Miami Harbor Miami-Dade County, Florida Navigation Study, Final General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement,” prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act, and a Record of Decision for the project was signed on May 22, 2006. The original proposed project included six components, two of which (components four and six) have been removed. The EIS provides a detailed explanation of project location as well as all aspects of project implementation. It is also available online for public review at: http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Planning/Branches/Environmental/DOCS/OnLine/Dade/MiamiHarbor/NAV_STUDY_VOL-1_MIAMI.pdf .

To achieve the deepening of the Miami Harbor from the existing depth of −45 ft (−13.7 m) to project depth of −52 ft, pretreatment of some of the rock areas may be required using confined underwater blasting, where standard construction methods are unsuccessful due to the hardness of the rock. The ACOE has used two criteria to determine which areas are most likely to need confined blasting for the Miami Harbor expansion: (1) areas documented by core borings to contain hard and/or massive rock; and (2) areas previously blasted in the harbor during the 2005 confined blasting and dredging project.

The duration of the confined blasting is dependent upon a number of factors including hardness of rock, how close the drill holes are placed, and the type of dredging equipment that would be used to remove the pretreated rock. Without this information, an exact estimate of how many confined “blast days” would be required for the project cannot be determined. The harbor deepening project at Miami Harbor in 2005 to 2006 estimated between 200 to 250 days of confined blasting with one shot per day (a blast day) to pre-treat the rock associated with that project; however, the contractor completed the project in 38 days with 40 confined blasts. A shot, or blast, is an explosion made up of a group of blast holes set in a pattern referred to as a blast array that are detonated all at once or in a staggered manner with delays between them. A blast hole is the hole drilled into the bottom substrate that would be filled with explosives, capped with stemming, and detonated.

The upcoming expansion at Miami Harbor estimates a maximum of 600 blast days for the entire multi-year project footprint. The ACOE estimates a maximum number of 313 blast days for the duration of this IHA (i.e., 365 days in a year minus 52 Sundays [no confined blasting is allowed on Sundays due to local ordinances]). A blast day is defined as one confined blast event/day. A blast event is made up of all the actions during a shot, this includes the Notice of Project Team and Local Authorities, which occurs two hours before the blast is detonated, through the end of the protected species watch, which last 30 minutes after the blast detonation. A typical blast timeline consists of: Notice to Project Team and Local Authorities (T minus 2 hours), protected species watch begins (T minus 1 hour), Notice to Mariners (channel closes, T minus 15 minutes), fish scare (T minus 1 minute), blast detonation, all clear signal (T plus 5 minutes), protected species watch ends (T plus 30 minutes), and delay capsule—if an animal is observed in either the danger or safety zones, the blast is delayed to monitor the animal until it leaves, on its own volition, from both the danger and safety zones (can occur between T minus 1 hour and detonation). There may be more than one confined blast event in a calendar day. While confined blasting events would occur only during daylight hours, typically six days a week. Other operations associated with the action (i.e., dredging activities) would take place 24 hours a day, typically seven days a week. Confined blasting activities normally would not take place on Sundays due to local ordinances. The contractor may drill the blast array (i.e., to physically drill the holes in the substrate to be removed in the pattern designed by the blasting engineer to remove the rock in the manner he/she needs to achieve the needed results) at night and then blast after at least two hours after sunrise (1 hour, plus one hour of monitoring). After detonation of the first explosive array, a second array may be drilled and detonated before the one-hour before sunset prohibition is triggered. An explosive array is the pattern of blast holes drilled into the bottom substrate that would be fractured by the blast detonation.

In May 2013, the ACOE awarded the contract to the Great Lakes Dock and Dredge Company, the firm that completed the previous blasting and dredging at Miami Harbor in 2005 to 2006. The current contract was split into three portions, a base bid, which includes the Outer Entrance Channel (Cuts 1 and 2 in Figure 1) as well as construction of the artificial reefs and seagrass mitigation areas; Option A includes Fisherman's Channel and the Inner Entrance Channel inside the jetties, as well as the Port of Miami's berthing areas and Option B includes the Fisher Island Turning Basin (Cut 3). Although a contractor has been selected, per the contract specifications, the contractor does not have to prepare the contractor-developed confined blasting plan no less than 30 days prior to blasting activities begin. This plan specifically identifies the number of holes that would be drilled, the amount of explosives that would be used for each hole, the number of confined blasts per day (usually no more than two per a day) or the number of days the construction is anticipated to take to complete. Although the blasting plan has not been provided to the ACOE, the contractor has identified a more specific timeframe for the blasting to occur. Blasting in the base bid would be conducted between March and June 2014. Because Options A and B have not been exercised, the blasting in these areas has not been scheduled. The ACOE is required to have all authorizations and permits completed (including the possession of an IHA) prior to the request for proposal and advertising the contract, per the Competition in Contracting Act, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. When possible, the ACOE has made reasonable estimates of the bounds based on previous similar projects that have been conducted by the ACOE here and at other locations. NMFS supports the ACOE's use of the worst-case scenarios to estimate confined blasting activities and associated potential impacts.

Drill holes are small in diameter (typically 2 to 4 in [5.1 to 10.2 cm] in diameter) and only 5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3.1 m) deep, drilling activities take place for a short time duration, with no more than three holes being drilled at the same time (based on the current drill-rigs available in the industry that range from one to three drills). During the 2005 confined blasting event, dolphins were seen near the drill barge during drilling events and the ACOE did not observe avoidance behavior. No measurements associated with noise from drilling small blast holes have been recorded. The ACOE does not expect incidental harassment from drilling operations and is not requesting take associated with this activity. The ACOE is collecting data regarding noise from drilling activities associated with confined blasting activities in an effort to increase the available knowledge concerning confined underwater blasting and all its related component elements.

Although the ACOE does not have a specific contractor-provided confined blasting plan, the ACOE developed plans and specifications for the project that direct the contractor to do certain things in certain ways and are basing these plans and specifications on the previous deepening project in Miami Harbor (construction was conducted in 2005 to 2006).

The previous ACOE project in Miami Harbor required a maximum weight of explosives used in each delay of 376 pounds (lb) (170.6 kilograms [kg]) and the contractors blasted once or twice daily from June 25 to August 25, 2005, for a total of 40 individual blasts in 38 days of confined blasting. The 2005 project, which utilized confined blasting, was limited to Fisherman's Channel and the Dodge-Lummus Island Turning Basin (see Figure 2 of ACOE's IHA application, which shows the confined blasting footprint for the 2005 project), whereas the project described in the ACOE's application includes Fisherman's Channel, Dodge-Lummus Island Turning Basin, Fisher Island Turning Basin, and Inner and Outer Entrance Channel. This larger area would result in more confined blasting for this project than was completed in 2005, as it includes areas not previously blasted in 2005.

A copy of the Federal Register notice of issuance for the IHA from 2003 (68 FR 32016, May 29, 2003), the IHA renewal from 2005 (70 FR 21174, April 25, 2005), and the final biological monitoring report from the ACOE's Miami Harbor Phase II project (completed in 2006) was provided as part of the ACOE's 2012 application (and attached to the current application) and available on NMFS's Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha . For the new construction at Miami Harbor, the ACOE expects the project may take up to two calendar years (March 2014 through June 2015), and the ACOE would seek subsequent renewals of this IHA after issuance, with sufficient time to prevent any delay to the project.

For the proposed deepening at Miami Harbor, the ACOE has consulted with blasting industry experts and believes, based on the rock hardness and composition at Miami Harbor, a maximum charge weight per delay of 450 lbs (204.1 kg) should be expected. The minimum charge weight would be 10 lbs (4.5 kg). A delay is a period of time (in milliseconds) between small detonations that are part of the total charge weight of the entire detonation.

The focus of the confined blasting work at the Miami Harbor is to pre-treat the massive limestone formation that makes up the base of Miami Harbor prior to removal by a dredge utilizing confined blasting, meaning the explosive shots would be “confined” in the rock. Typically, each blast array is set up in a square or rectangle area divided into rows and columns (see Figures 3, 4, and 5 in the ACOE's IHA application). A typical blast array is 10 holes long by 4 holes wide with holes being spaced 40 ft (12.2 m) apart covering an area of 4,000 ft 2 (371.6 m 2 ). Blast arrays near bulkheads can be long-linear feature of one-hole wide by 8 or 10 holes long (see Figure 4 of the IHA application).

In confined blasting, each charge is placed in a hole drilled in the rock approximately 5 to 10 ft (1.5 to 3.0 m) deep; depending on how much rock 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” (see Figure 6 and 7 of ACOE's IHA application; each bag as shown contains approximate volume of material used per discharge). The ACOE used this technique previously at the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005. NMFS issued an IHA for that operation on May 22, 2003 (68 FR 32016, May 29, 2003) and renewed the IHA on April 19, 2005 (70 FR 21174, April 25, 2005).

For the Port of Miami expansion project (Miami Harbor Phase II) that used confined blasting as a pre-treatment technique, the stemming material was angular crushed rock. (Stemming is the process of filling each borehole with crushed rock after the explosive charge has been placed. After the blasting charge has been set, then the chain of explosives within the rock is detonated. A chain of explosives refers to all of the detonations within the blast array, without regard to how many holes are in the array. They would detonate within milliseconds of each other. Stemming reduces the strength of the outward pressure wave produced by blasts.) The optimum size of stemming material is material that has an average diameter of approximately 0.05 times the diameter of the blast-hole. The selected material must be angular to perform properly (Konya, 2003). For the ACOE's project, specifications have been prepared by the geotechnical branch of the Jacksonville District and are the same as those completed during the Miami Harbor Phase II project.

The specifications for any construction utilizing the confined blasting for the deepening of Miami Harbor would have similar stemming requirements as those that were used for the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005 to 2006. The length of stemming material would vary based on the length of the hole drilled, however a minimum of two 2-ft (0.6 m) walls 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 (unconfined) blasts (see Figure 8 of ACOE's IHA application), very little peer-reviewed research exists on the effects that confined blasting can have on marine animals near the blast (Keevin et al., 1999). The visual evidence from a typical confined blast is shown in Figure 9 of ACOE's IHA application.

In confined blasting, the detonation is conveyed from the drill barge to the primer and the charge itself by Primacord and Detaline. These are used to safely fire the blast from a distance to ensure human safety from the blast. The Primacord and Detaline used on this project have a specific grain weight, and they burn like a fuse. They are not electronic. The time delay from activation to detonation of the charge is less than one second.

To estimate the maximum poundage of explosives that may be utilized for this project, the ACOE has reviewed previous confined blasting projects, including San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico in 2000, and Miami Harbor, Florida in 2005. Additional data was also reviewed from the New York Harbor deepening project (ACOE, 2004 and Keevin et al., 2005) and the Wilmington Harbor project (Settle et al., 2002). The San Juan Harbor and 2005 Miami Harbor projects are most similar to the existing project in general environment, hardness/massiveness of rock, and species composition. The San Juan Harbor project's heaviest confined blast event using explosives was 375 lbs (170.1 kg) per delay and in Miami it was 376 lbs (170.6 kg) per delay. Based on discussion with the ACOE's geotechnical engineers, it is expected that the maximum weight of delays for Miami Harbor would be larger since the rock is deeper, and expected to be harder and massive, in comparison to the previous two blasting projects.

Based upon industry standards and ACOE Safety & Health Regulations, the confined blasting program would follow these operating guidelines:

• The weight of explosives to be used in each confined blast would be limited to the lowest poundage of explosives that can adequately break the rock.

• Drill patterns (i.e., holes in the array) are restricted to a minimum of 8 ft (2.4 m) separation from a loaded hole.

• Hours of confined blasting are restricted from two hours after sunrise to one hour before sunset to allow for adequate observation of the project area for marine mammals.

• Selection of explosive products and their practical application method must address vibration and air blast (overpressure) control for protection of existing structures and marine wildlife.

• Loaded blast holes would be individually delayed to reduce the maximum lbs per delay at point detonation, which in turn would reduce the mortality radius.

• The blast design would consider matching the energy in the “work effort” of the borehole to the rock mass or target for minimizing excess energy vented into the water column or hydraulic shock.

• Delay timing adjustments with a minimum of 8 milliseconds (ms) between delay detonations to stagger the blast pressures and prevent cumulative addition of pressures in the water.

Prior to implementing a construction blasting program, a test blast program would be completed. The test blast program would have all the same protective monitoring and mitigation measures in place for protected species as blasting operations for construction purposes. The purpose of the test blast program is to demonstrate and/or confirm the following:

• Drill boat capabilities and production rates;

• Ideal drill pattern for typical boreholes;

• Acceptable rock breakage for excavation;

• Tolerable vibration level emitted;

• Directional vibration; and

• Calibration of the environment.

The test blast program begins with a single range of individually delayed holes and progresses up to the maximum production blast intended for use. The test blast program would take place in the project area and would count toward the pre-treatment of material, since the blasts of the test blast program would be cracking rock. Each test blast is designed to establish limits of vibration and air blast overpressure, with acceptable rock breakage for excavation. The final test event simulates the maximum explosive detonation as to size, overlying water depth, charge configuration, charge separation, initiation methods, and loading conditions anticipated for the typical production blast.

The results of the test blast program would be formatted in a regression analysis with other pertinent information and conclusions reached. This would be the basis for developing a completely engineered procedure for the construction blasting plan.

During the test blast program, the following data would be used to develop a regression analysis:

• Distance;

• Pounds per delay;

• Peak particles velocities (Threshold Limit Value [TVL]);

• Frequencies (TVL);

• Peak vector sum; and

• Air blast, overpressure.

As part of the development of the protected species monitoring and mitigation protocols, which would be incorporated into the plans and specification for the project, ACOE would continue to coordinate with the resource agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to address concerns and potential impacts associated with the use of blasting as a construction technique.

Additional details regarding the proposed confined blasting and dredging project can be found in the ACOE's IHA application and EIS. The EIS can also be found online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications .

At this time the ACOE has not been provided a blasting plan; however, the contractor has identified a more specific timeframe for the blasting to occur within the Port of Miami. Because Options A and B have not been exercised, the blasting in these areas have not been scheduled. As soon as the options are exercised and confined blasting scheduled, ACOE would notify NMFS. The current IHA expires on March 14, 2014. The ACOE's contractor would have begun confined blasting the week prior to this expiration and to ensure no loss of time or slip in the schedule, the ACOE requests the new IHA be issued prior to the expiration of the existing IHA. The ACOE requested that the first IHA be issued by the end of July 2012, with an effective date of March 15, 2013, to allow for the advertisement of the contract for construction in 2012; award the contract and provide the NTP to be selected in 2013 to the selected contractor, resulting in construction work beginning in March 2014. The proposed construction activities are expected to last about to 24 months and at this time, it is possible that confined blasting could take place at any time during construction. The ACOE also notes that multiple IHAs (up to three, at least one additional IHA after 2014 to 2015) would be needed and requested for this project due to the project duration.

The proposed confined blasting activities would be limited to waters shallower than 60 ft (18.3 m) and located entirely on the continental shelf and would not take place seaward of the outer reef. The specified geographic area of the construction would be within the boundaries of the Port of Miami, in Miami, Florida (see Figure 11 of the ACOE's IHA application). The Port of Miami is an island facility consisting of 518 upland acres and is located in the northern portion of Biscayne Bay in South Florida. The City of Miami is located on the west side of the Biscayne Bay; the City of Miami Beach is located on an island on the northeast side of Biscayne Bay, opposite of Miami. Both cities are located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and are connected by several causeways crossing the bay. The Port of Miami is the southernmost major port on the Atlantic Coast. The Port of Miami's landside facilities are located on Dodge-Lummus Island, which has a GPS location 25°46′05″ North 80°09′40″ West. See Figure 11 of the ACOE's IHA application for more information on the location of the project area in the Port of Miami.

Several cetacean species and a single species of sirenian are known to or could occur in the Miami Harbor action 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 ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), sei ( Balaenoptera borealis ), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ), blue ( Balaenoptera musculus ), North Atlantic right ( Eubalaena glacialis ), and sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ) whale, and West Indian (Florida) manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ). The marine mammals that occur in the Atlantic Ocean off the U.S. southeast coast belong to three taxonomic groups: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), and sirenians (the manatee). The West Indian manatee in Florida and U.S. waters is managed under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and therefore is not considered further in this analysis.

Table 1 below outlines the marine mammal species and their habitat in the region of the proposed project area.

The one species of marine mammal under NMFS jurisdiction known to commonly occur in close proximity to the blasting area of the Port of Miami is the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, specifically the stocks living near the Port of Miami within Biscayne Bay (the Biscayne Bay stock) or transiting the outer entrance channel (Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock).

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. The coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphins is continuously distributed along the Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New York, to the Florida peninsula, including inshore waters of the bays, sounds, and estuaries. Except for animals residing within the Southern North Carolina and Northern North Carolina Estuarine Systems (e.g., Waring et al., 2009), estuarine dolphins along the U.S. east coast have not been previously included in stock assessment reports. Several lines of evidence support a distinction between dolphins inhabiting coastal waters near the shore and those present in the inshore waters of the bays, sounds, and estuaries. Photo-ID and genetic studies support the existence of resident estuarine animals in several inshore areas of the southeastern United States (Caldwell, 2001; Gubbins, 2002; Zolman, 2002; Mazzoil et al., 2005; Litz, 2007), and similar patterns have been observed in bays and estuaries along the Gulf of Mexico coast (Well et al., 1987; Balmer et al., 2008). Recent genetic analyses using both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear microsatellite markers found significant differentiation between animals biopsied along the coast and those biopsied within the estuarine systems at the same latitude (NMFS, unpublished data). Similar results have been found off the west coast of Florida (Sellas et al., 2005).

Biscayne Bay is a shallow estuarine system located along the southeast coast of Florida in Miami-Dade County. The Bay is generally shallow (depths less than 5 m [16.4 ft]) and includes a diverse range of benthic communities including seagrass beds, soft coral and sponge communities, and mud flats. The northern portion of Biscayne Bay is surrounded by the cities of Miami and Miami Beach and is therefore heavily influenced by industrial and municipal pollution sources. The water flow in this portion of Biscayne Bay is very restricted due to the construction of dredged islands (Bialczak et al., 2001). In contrast, the central and southern portions of Biscayne Bay are less influenced by development and are better flushed. Water exchange with the Atlantic Ocean occurs through a broad area of grass flats and tidal channels termed the Safety Valve. Biscayne Bay extends south through Card Sound and Barnes Sound, and connects through smaller inlets to Florida Bay.

The Biscayne Bay stock of bottlenose dolphins is bounded by Haulover Inlet to the north and Card Sound Bridge to the south. This range corresponds to the extent of confirmed home ranges of bottlenose dolphins observed residing in Biscayne Bay by a long-term photo-ID study conducted by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (Litz, 2007; SEFSC unpublished data). It is likely that the range of Biscayne Bay dolphins extends past these boundaries; however, there have been few surveys outside of this range. These boundaries are subject to change upon further study of dolphin home ranges within the Biscayne Bay estuarine system and comparison to an extant photo-ID catalog from Florida Bay to the south.

Dolphins residing within estuaries north of this stock along the southeastern coast of Florida are currently not included in a stock assessment report. There are insufficient data to determine whether animals in this region exhibit affiliation to the Biscayne Bay stock, the estuarine stock further to the north in the Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System (IRLES), or are simply transient animals associated with coastal stocks. There is relatively limited estuarine habitat along this coastline; however, the Intracoastal Waterway extends north along the coast to the IRLES. It should be noted that during 2003 to 2007, there were three stranded bottlenose dolphins in this region in enclosed waters. One of these had signs of human interaction from a boat strike and another was identified as an offshore morphotype of bottlenose dolphin.

Bottlenose dolphins have been documented in Biscayne Bay since the 1950's (Moore, 1953). Live capture fisheries for bottlenose dolphins are known to have occurred throughout the southeastern U.S. and within Biscayne Bay during the 1950's and 1960's; however, it is unknown how many individuals may have been removed from the population during this period (Odell, 1979; Wells and Scott, 1999).

The Biscayne Bay bottlenose dolphin stock has been the subject of an ongoing photo-ID study conducted by the NMFS SEFSC since 1990. From 1990 to 1991, preliminary information was collected focusing on the central portion of Biscayne Bay. The survey was re-initiated in 1994, and it was expanded to include the northern portion of Biscayne Bay and south to the Card Sound Bridge in 1995 (SEFSC unpublished data; Litz, 2007). Through 2007, the photo-ID catalog included 229 unique individuals. Approximately 80% of these individuals may be long-term residents with multiple sightings over the 17 years of the study (SEFSC, unpublished data). Analyses of the sighting histories and associations of individuals from the Biscayne Bay segregated along a north/south gradient (Litz, 2007).

Remote biopsy samples of Biscayne Bay animals were collected between 2002 and 2004 for analyses of population genetic structure and persistent organic pollutant concentrations in blubber. Genetic structure was investigated using both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear (microsatellite) markers, and the data from Biscayne Bay were compared to data from Florida Bay dolphins to the south (Litz, 2007). Within Biscayne Bay, dolphins sighted primarily in the northern half of Biscayne Bay were significantly differentiated from those sighted primarily in the southern half at the microsatellite loci but not at the mitochondrial locus. There was not sufficient genetic information between these groups to indicate true population subdivision (Litz, 2007). However, genetic differentiation was found between the Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay dolphins in both markers (Litz, 2007). The observed genetic differences between resident animals in Biscayne Bay and those in an adjacent estuary combined with the high levels of sight fidelity observed, demonstrate that the resident Biscayne Bay bottlenose dolphins are a demographically distinct population stock.

The total number of bottlenose dolphins in the Biscayne Bay stock is unknown. During small boat surveys between 2003 and 2007, 157 unique individuals were identified using standard methods, however, this catalog size does not represent a valid estimate of population size because the residency patterns of dolphins in Biscayne Bay is not fully understood. Litz (2007) determined that 69 animals in Biscayne Bay have a northern home range. Based on Waring et al. (2010), the maximum population of animals that may be in the project area is equal to the total number of uniquely identified animals for the entire photo-ID study of Biscayne Bay—229 individuals. Present data are insufficient to calculate a minimum population estimate, and to determine the population trends, for the Biscayne Bay stock of bottlenose dolphins. The total human-caused mortality and serious injury for this stock is unknown and there is insufficient information available to determine whether the total fishery-related mortality and serious injury for this stock is insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. Documented human-caused mortalities in recreational fishing gear entanglement and ingestion of gear reinforce concern for this stock. Because the stock size is currently unknown, but likely small and relatively few mortalities and serious injuries would exceed potential biological removal, NMFS considers this stock to be a strategic stock.

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 (McLellan et al., 2003; Rosel et al., 2009).

The coastal morphotype is morphologically and genetically distinct from the larger, more robust morphotype primarily occupying habitats further offshore (Hoelzel et al., 1998; Mead and Potter, 1995; Rosel et al., 2009). Aerial surveys conducted between 1978 and 1982 (CETAP, 1982) north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, identified two concentrations of bottlenose dolphins, one inshore of the 82 ft (25 m) isobath and the other offshore of the 164 ft (50 m) isobath. The lowest density of bottlenose dolphins was observed over the continental shelf, with higher densities along the coast and near the continental shelf edge. It was suggested, therefore, that north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the coastal morphotype is restricted to waters less than 82 ft deep (Kenney, 1990). Similar patterns were observed during summer months in more recent aerial surveys (Garrison and Yeung, 2001; Garrison et al., 2003). However, south of Cape Hatteras during both winter and summer months, there was no clear longitudinal discontinuity in bottlenose dolphin sightings (Garrison and Yeung 2001; Garrison et al., 2003). To address the question of distribution of coastal and offshore morphotypes in waters south of Cape Hatteras, tissue samples were collected from large vessel surveys during the summers of 1998 and 1999, from systematic biopsy sampling efforts in nearshore waters from New Jersey to central Florida conducted in the summers of 2001 and 2002, and from winter biopsy collection effort in 2002 and 2003 in nearshore continental shelf waters of North Carolina and Georgia. Additional biopsy samples were collected in deeper continental shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras during the winter of 2002. Genetic analyses using mitochondrial DNA sequences of these biopsies identified individual animals to the coastal or offshore morphotype. Using the genetic results from all surveys combined, a logistic regression was used to model the probability that a particular bottlenose dolphin group was of the coastal morphotype as a function of environmental variables including depth, sea surface temperature, and distance from shore. These models were used to partition the bottlenose dolphin groups observed during aerial surveys between the two morphotypes (Garrison et al., 2003).

The genetic results and spatial patterns observed in aerial surveys indicate both regional and seasonal differences in the longitudinal distribution of the two morphotypes in coastal Atlantic waters. Generally, from biopsy samples collected, the coastal morphotype is found in nearshore waters, the offshore morphotype in deeper waters and a spatial overlap between the two morphotypes in intermediate waters. More information on the seasonal differences and genetic studies off of the Carolina's, Georgia, and Florida, differentiating morphotypes of bottlenose dolphins can be found online in the NMFS stock assessment reports.

In summary, the primary habitat of the coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphin extends from Florida to New Jersey during summer months and in waters less than 65.6 ft (20 m) deep, including estuarine and inshore waters.

In addition to inhabiting coastal nearshore waters, the coastal morphotype of bottlenose dolphin also inhabits inshore estuarine waters along the U.S. east coast and Gulf of Mexico (Wells et al., 1987; Wells et al., 1996; Scott et al., 1990; Weller, 1998; Zolman, 2002; Speakman et al., 2006; Stolen et al., 2007; Balmer et al., 2008; Mazzoil et al., 2008). There are multiple lines of evidence supporting demographic separation between bottlenose dolphins residing within estuaries along the Atlantic coast. In Biscayne Bay, Florida, there is a similar community of bottlenose dolphins with evidence of year-round residents that are genetically distinct from animals residing in a nearby estuary in Florida Bay (Litz, 2007). A few published studies demonstrate that there are significant genetic distinctions and differences between animals in nearshore coastal waters and estuarine waters (Caldwell, 2001; Rosel et al., 2009). Despite evidence for genetic differentiation between estuarine and nearshore populations, the degree of spatial overlap between these populations remains unclear. Photo-ID studies within estuaries demonstrate seasonal immigration and emigration and the presence of transient animals (e.g., Speakman et al., 2006). In addition, the degree of movement of resident estuarine animals into coastal waters on seasonal or shorter time scales is poorly understood. However, for the purposes of this analysis, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting primarily estuarine habitats are considered distinct from those inhabiting coastal habitats. Initially, a single stock of coastal morphotype bottlenose dolphins was thought to migrate seasonally between New Jersey (summer months) and central Florida based on seasonal patterns in strandings during a large scale mortality event occurring during 1987 to 1988 (Scott et al., 1988). However, re-analysis of stranding data (McLellan et al., 2003) and extensive analysis of genetic (Rosel et al., 2009), photo-ID (Zolman, 2002) and satellite telemetry (NMFS, unpublished data) data demonstrate a complex mosaic of coastal bottlenose dolphin stocks. Integrated analysis of these multiple lines of evidence suggests that there are five coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins: The Northern Migratory and Southern Migratory stocks, a South Carolina/Georgia Coastal stock, a Northern Florida Coastal stock, and a Central Florida Coastal stock.

The spatial extent of these stocks, their potential seasonal movements, and their relationships with estuarine stocks are poorly understood. More information on the migratory movements and genetic analyses of bottlenose dolphins can be found online in the NMFS stock assessment reports.

The NMFS stock assessment report addresses the Central Florida Coastal stock, which is present in coastal Atlantic waters from 29.4° North south to the western end of Vaca Key (approximately 24.69° North to 81.11° West) where the stock boundary for the Florida Keys stock begins (see Figure 1 of the NMFS Stock Assessment Report). There has been little study of bottlenose dolphin stock structure in coastal waters of southern Florida; therefore the southern boundary of the Central Florida stock is uncertain. There is no obvious boundary defining the offshore extent of this stock. The combined genetic and logistic regression analysis (Garrison et al., 2003) indicated that in waters less than 32.8 ft (10 m) depth, 70% of the bottlenose dolphins were of the coastal morphotype. Between 32.8 ft and 65.6 ft depth, the percentage of animals of the coastal morphotype dropped precipitously, and at depths greater than 131.2 ft (40 m) nearly all (greater than 90%) animals were of the offshore morphotype. These spatial patterns may not apply in the Central Florida Coastal stock, as there is a significant change in the bathymetric slope and a close approach of the Gulf Stream to the shoreline south of Cape Canaveral.

Aerial surveys to estimate the abundance of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the Atlantic were conducted during winter (January to February) and summer (July to August) of 2002. Abundance estimates for bottlenose dolphins in each stock were calculated using line-transect methods and distance analysis (Buckland et al., 2001). More information on the survey tracklines, design, effort, animals sighted, and methods for calculating estimated abundance can be found online in the NMFS stock assessment reports.

The estimated best and minimum population for the Central Florida Coastal Stock is 6,318 and 5,094 animals, respectively. There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for this stock. From 1995 to 2001, NMFS recognized only a single migratory stock of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the western North Atlantic, and the entire stock was listed as depleted. This stock structure was revised in 2002 to recognize both multiple stocks and seasonal management units and again in 2008 and 2010 to recognize resident estuarine stocks and migratory and resident coastal stocks. The total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury for the Central Florida Coastal stock likely is less than 10% of the calculated PBR, and thus can be considered to be insignificant and approaching zero mortality and serious injury rate. However, there are commercial fisheries overlapping with this stock that have no observer coverage. This stock retains the depleted designation as a result of its origins from the originally delineated depleted coastal migratory stock. The species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, but this is a strategic stock due to the depleted listing under the MMPA.

Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species and others in the region can be found in ACOE's IHA 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/.

In general, potential impacts to marine mammals from explosive detonations could include mortality, serious injury, as well as Level A harassment (injury) and Level B harassment. In the absence of mitigation, marine mammals could 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 would be 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 (in the absence of mitigation) 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's criteria for determining potential for non-lethal injury (Level A harassment) from explosives are the peak pressure that would 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) in hearing at received sound levels of 182 dB re 1 μPa 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 threshold for sub-TTS behavioral harassment is 177 dB re 1 μPa 2 s. The Level B harassment zone 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 Port of Miami 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, seriously injured, or killed when exposed to the energy generated from an explosive force on the sea floor. However, the ACOE and NMFS believe that the monitoring and mitigation measures would preclude this possibility in the case of this particular specified activity.

Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A harassment) are defined in this 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 μPa 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 μPa 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 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. For the project in Miami Harbor, the distance from the blast array at which the 23 psi threshold could be met for various charge detonation weights can be, and has been calculated.

The threshold for sub-TTS behavioral harassment is 177 dB re 1 μPa 2 s. However, as described previously, this criterion would not apply to the ACOE's activity because there would only be a maximum of two blasting events a day (minimum four to six hours apart), and the multiple (staggered) detonations are within a few milliseconds of each other and do not last more than a few seconds in total duration per a blasting event.

For a fully confined blast, the pressure at the edge of the danger zone is expected to be 6 psi. Utilizing the pressure data collected the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, for a maximum charge weight of 450 lbs in a fully confined blast, the pressure is expected to be 22 psi approximately 700 ft (213.4 m) from the blast, which is below the threshold for Level B harassment (i.e., 23 psi criteria for explosives less than 2,000 lb). However to ensure the protection of marine mammals, and in case of an incident where a detonation is not fully confined, the ACOE assumes that any animal within the boundaries of a designated “danger zone” at the time of detonation would be taken by Level B harassment.

The ACOE is planning to implement, and NMFS has required, a series of monitoring and mitigation measures to protect marine mammals from the potential impacts of the proposed confined blasting activities. The ACOE has designated a “danger zone” as the area within which the potential for Level B harassment occurs, and the “exclusion zone” as the area within which if an animal crosses and enters that zone then the confined blast would be delayed until the animal leaves the zone of its own volition. The exclusion zone is larger than the area where the ACOE has determined that Level B harassment would occur, so if the monitoring and mitigation measures implemented are successful as expected, and no detonation occurs when an animal is inside of the exclusion zone, no take by Level B harassment is likely to occur. However, to be conservative, the ACOE has calculated the potential exists for Level B harassment and is pursuing an IHA from NMFS. More information on how the danger and exclusion zones are determined is included in the “Mitigation” section of this document (see below).

In a previous monitoring report for ACOE's Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, it was noted that a bottlenose dolphin outside the exclusion zone, in the deeper water channel, exhibited a startle response immediately following a confined blast. Details of that event from the monitoring report are included below:

Any animals near the exclusion zone were watched carefully during the blast for any changes in behavior or noticeable reaction to the blast. The only observation that showed signs of a possible reaction to the blast was on July 27, when two dolphins were in the channel west of the blast. The dolphins were stationary at approximately 2,400 ft (731.5 m) from the blast array, feeding and generally cavorting. Due to the proximity of the dolphins, the drill barge was contacted prior to the blast to confirm that the exclusion zone calculation was 1,600 ft (487.7 m) for the lower weight of explosives used that day. The topography of the bottom in that area is very shallow (approximately 3.3 ft [1 m]) to the south, then an exceptionally steep drop off into the channel at 40 plus ft ending at the bulkhead wall to the north. Westward, the channel continues and has a more gradual upward slope. At the time of the blast, one of the dolphins was at the surface in the shallows, while the other dolphin was underwater within the channel. The dolphin that was underwater showed a strong reaction to the blast. The animal jumped fully out of the water in a `breaching' fashion; behavior that had not been exhibited prior to the blast. The animal was observed jumping out of the water immediately before the observers heard the blast suggesting that the animal reacted to the blast and not some other stimulus. It is probable that, because this animal was located in the channel, the sound and pressure of the blast traveled either farther or was more focused through the channeling and the reflection from the bulkhead, thus causing the animal to react even though it was well outside the safety radius. These two dolphins were tracked for the entire 30 min post blast period and no obvious signs of distress or behavior changes were observed. Other animals observed near the safety radius during the blast were all to the south of the blasting array, well up on the seagrass beds or in the pipe channel that runs through the seagrass beds. None of these animals showed any reaction to the blast.

Individual dolphins from other stocks and within the Biscayne Bay and Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stocks potentially move both inshore and offshore of Biscayne Bay due to the openness of this bay system and closeness of the outer continental shelf. These movements are not fully understood and the possibility exists that these other stocks may be affected in the same manner as the Biscayne Bay and Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stocks.

Based on the data from the Miami Harbor project in 2005 and the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, the ACOE and NMFS expects limited potential effects of the proposed construction and confined blasting activities on marine mammals in the Port of Miami action area.

No information is currently available that indicates resident bottlenose dolphins in the proposed action area specifically utilize the inner and outer channels, walls, and substrate of the Port of Miami as habitat for feeding, resting, mating, or other biologically significant functions. The bottom of the channel has been previously blasted, and the rock and sand dredged. The walls of the channels are composed of vertical rock. The ACOE acknowledges that while the port may not be suitable foraging habitat for bottlenose dolphins in Biscayne Bay, it is likely that dolphins may use the area to traverse to and from North Biscayne Bay or offshore via the main channel (i.e., Government Cut).

The temporary modification of the action area by the construction and confined blasting activities may potentially impact the two stocks of bottlenose dolphins expected to be present in the Port of Miami, however, these impacts are not expected to be adverse. If animals are using the Port of Miami project area to travel from south to north Biscayne Bay or vice-versa and/or exiting the Biscayne Bay via the main shipping channel, the construction and confined blasting activities may delay or detour their movements.

Confined blasting within the boundaries of the Port of Miami would be limited both spatially and temporally. The explosives utilized in the confined blasting operations are water soluble and non-toxic. If an explosive charge is unable to be fired and must be left in the drill hole, it is designed to break down. Also, each drill hole has a booster with detonator and detonation cord. Most of the detonation cord is recovered onto the drill barge by pulling it back onboard the drill barge after the confined blasting event. Small amounts of detonation cord may remain in the water after the confined blasting event has taken place, and would be recovered by small vessels with scoop nets. Any material left in the drill hole after the confined blast event would be recovered through the dredging process, when the cutterhead dredge excavates the fractured rock material.

With regard to prey species (mainly fish), a very small number of fish are expected to be impacted by the Miami Harbor project, based on the results of the 2005 blasting project in Miami Harbor. That project consisted of 40 confined blast events over a 38 day time frame. Of these 40 confined blast events, 23 were monitored (57.5% of the total) by the State, and injured and dead fish were collected after the all clear was given (the “all-clear” is normally at least two to three min after the shot is fired, since seagulls and frigate birds quickly learned to approach the confined blast site and swoop in to eat some of the stunned, injured, and dead fish floating on the surface of the water). State biologists and volunteers collected the carcasses of the floating fish (note that not all dead fish float after a blasting event, and due to safety concerns, there are no plans to put divers on the bottom of the channel in the blast zone to collect non-floating fish carcasses. The fish were described to the lowest taxonomic level possible (usually species) and the injury types were categorized. The data forms are available from the FWC and ACOE upon request.

A summary of those data shows that 24 different genera were collected during the previous Miami Harbor blasting project. The species with the highest abundance were white grunts ( Haemulon plumier, N = 51), scrawled cowfish ( Lactophrys quadricornis, N = 43), and pygmy filefish ( Monocanthus setifer, N = 30). The total fish collected during the 23 confined blasts was 288 or an average of 12.5 fish per blast (range 3 to 38). In observation of the three confined blasts with the greatest number of fish killed (see Table 4 of ACOE's application) and reviewing the maximum charge weight per delay for the Miami Harbor project, it appears that there is no direct correlation between the charge weight and fish killed that can be determined from such a small sample. Reviewing the 23 blasting events where dead and injured fish were collected after the “all-clear” signal was given, no discernable pattern exists. Factors that affect fish mortality include, but are not limited to fish size, body shape (fusiform, etc.), proximity of the blast to a vertical structure like a bulkhead (e.g., see the August 10, 2005 blast event, a much smaller charge weight resulted in a higher fish kill due to the closeness of a bulkhead).

In the past, to reduce the potential for fish to be injured or killed by the confined blasting, the resource agencies have requested, and ACOE has allowed, that confined blasting contractors utilize a small, unconfined explosive charge, usually a 1 lb (0.5 kg) booster, detonated about 30 seconds before the main confined blast, to drive fish away from the confined blasting zone. It is assumed that noise or pressure generated by the small charge would drive fish from the immediate area, thereby reducing impacts from the larger and potentially more-damaging confined blast. Blasting companies use this method as a “good faith effort” to reduce the potential impacts to aquatic natural resources. The explosives industry recommends firing a “warning shot” to frighten fish out of the area before seismic exploration work is begun (Anonymous, 1978 in Keevin et al., 1997).

There are limited data available on the effectiveness of fish scare charges at actually reducing the magnitude of fish kills, and the effectiveness may be based on the fish's life history. Keevin et al. (1997) conducted a study to test if fish scare charges are effective in moving fishes away from blast zones. They used three freshwater species (i.e., largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ), and flathead catfish ( Pylodictis olivaris ), equipping each fish with an internal radio tag to allow the fishes movements to be tracked before and after the scare charge. Fish movement was compared with a predicted lethal dose (LD) 0% mortality distance for an open water shot (no confinement) for a variety of charge weights. Largemouth bass showed little response to repelling charges and none would have moved from the kill zone calculated for any explosive size. Only one of the flathead catfish and two of the channel catfish would have moved to a safe distance for any blast. This means that only 11% of the fish used in the study would have survived the blast events.

These results call into question the effectiveness of this minimization methodology; however, some assert that based on the monetary value of fish (American Fishery Society, 1992 in Keevin et al., 1997), including the high value commercial or recreational species like snook ( Centropomus undecimalis ) and tarpon ( Megalops atlanticus ) found in southeast Florida inlets like Port Everglades, the low cost associated with repelling charge use would be offset if only a few fish moved from the kill zone (Keevin et al., 1997).

To calculate the potential loss of prey species from the project area as an impact of the confined blasting events, the ACOE used a 12.5 fish kill per blasting event estimate based on the Miami Harbor 2005 project, and multiplied it by the 40 shots, reaching a total estimate of 500 floating fish. As stated previously, not all carcasses float to the surface and there is no way to estimate how many carcasses did not float. Using an estimate of 12.5 fish kill per blasting event, and the maximum 600 detonations for the entire multi-year project, the minimum number of fish expected to be killed by the project is approximately 7,500 fish across the entire 28,500 ft (8,686.8 m) long channel footprint, assuming the worst case scenario and the entire channel needs to be blasted.

NMFS anticipates that the proposed action would result in no significant impacts to marine mammal habitat beyond rendering the areas immediately around the Port of Miami less desirable shortly after each confined blasting event and during dredging operations and potentially eliminating a relatively small amount of locally available prey. The impacts would be localized and instantaneous. Impacts to marine mammal habitat, as well as invertebrate and fish species are not expected to be significantly detrimental.

In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) 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 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.

Over the last 10 years, the ACOE's Jacksonville District has been collecting data concerning the effects of confined blasting projects on marine mammals. This effort began in the early 1990's when the ACOE contracted with Dr. Calvin Koyna, Precision Blasting Services, to review previous ACOE blasting projects. The ACOE also received recommendations from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC, then known as the Florida Department of Natural Resources) and the USFWS to prepare for a harbor deepening project at Port Everglades, Florida, which was conducted in the mid-1980s. The recommendations prepared for the project were specifically aimed at protecting endangered manatees and endangered and threatened sea turtles.

The ACOE would develop and implement four zones as protective measures that are based on the use of an unconfined blast. The use of unconfined blast in development of these protective zones for a confined blast would increase the conservation measures afforded marine mammals in the action area. These four zones are referred to as the danger zone (i.e., inner most zone, located closest to the blast), the exclusion zone (i.e., the danger zone plus 500 ft (152.4 m) to add an additional layer of conservatism for marine mammals), the safety zone (i.e., the third zone), and the watch zone (i.e., the outer most zone). All of these zones are noted in Figure 11 of ACOE's IHA application and described in further detail in this section of the document (see below). Of these four zones, only the danger zone is associated with a MMPA threshold. The danger zone has been determined to be larger than or equal to the threshold for Level B harassment, as defined by the MMPA. Injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality are expected to occur at closer distances to the blasting array within the danger zone. These four zone calculations would be included as part of the specifications package that the contractors would bid on before the project is awarded.

As part of the ACOE's Miami Harbor Phase II project, the ACOE monitored the confined blasting project and collected data on the pressures associated with confined blasts, while employing a formula to calculate buffer and exclusion zones that would protect marine mammals. Results from the pressure monitoring at Miami Harbor Phase II demonstrate that stemming each drill hole reduces the blast pressure entering the water (Nedwell and Thandavamoorthy, 1992; Hemen et al., 2005; Hempen et al., 2007).

The following standard conditions have been incorporated into the project specifications to reduce the risk to marine mammals in the proposed project area. While this application is specific to bottlenose dolphins, these specifications are written for all protected species that may be in the proposed project area.

If confined blasting is planned during the period of November 1 through March 31, significant operational delays should be expected due to the increased likelihood of manatees being present within the project area. If possible, avoid scheduling confined blasting during the period from November 1 through March 31. In the area where confined blasting could occur or any area where confined blasting is required to obtain channel design depth, the following marine mammal protective measures shall be employed, before, during, and after each confined blast:

(A) The USFWS and NMFS must review the contractor's approved Blasting Plan prior to any confined blasting activities. (Copies of this blasting plan shall be provided to FDEP and FWC as a matter of comity.) This confined blasting proposal must include information concerning a watch program and details of the confined blasting events. This information must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the date of the confined blast(s) to the following addresses:

(1) FWC—ISM, 620 South Meridian Street, Mail Stop 6A, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 or ImperiledSpecies@myfwc.com.

(2) NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

(3) USFWS, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559.

(4) NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Protected Species Management Branch, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

In addition to plan review, Dr. Allen Foley shall be notified at the initiation and completion of all in-water blasting ( allen.foley@myfwc.com ).

(B) The contractor's blasting plan shall include at least the following information, as required by the project's specifications:

(1) A list of PSOs, their qualifications, and positions for the watch, including a map depicting the locations for boat or land-based PSOs. Qualified PSOs must have prior on-the-job experience observing for protected species during previous in-water blasting events where the blasting activities were similar in nature to this project.

(2) The amount of explosive charge, the explosive charge's equivalency in TNT, how it would be executed (depth of drilling, stemming, in-water, etc.), a drawing depicting the placement of the charges, size of the exclusion zone, and how it would be marked (also depicted on a map), tide tables for the blasting event(s), and estimates of times and days for blasting events (with an understanding this is an estimate, and may change due to weather, equipment, etc.).

(C) For each explosive charge placed, four zones would be calculated, denoted on monitoring reports and provided to PSOs before each blast for incorporation in the watch plan for each planned detonation. All of the zones would be noted by buoys for each of the blasts. These zones are:

(1) Danger Zone: The danger zone radius is equal to 260 (79.25 m) times the cube root of the weight of the explosive charge in lbs per delay (equivalent weight of tetryl or TNT). The radius of the danger zone has been determined to be equal to or larger than the distance from the charge to a location where a marine mammal would experience Level B harassment.

Danger Zone Development: The radius of the danger zone would be calculated to determine the maximum distance from the confined blast at which mortality to marine mammals is likely to occur. The danger zone was determined by the amount of explosives used within each delay (which can contain multiple boreholes). (The original basis of this calculation was to protect human U.S. Navy Seal divers from underwater detonations of underwater mines [Goertner, 1982]). Goertner's calculations were based on impacts to terrestrial animals in water when exposed to a detonation suspended in the water column (unconfined blast) as researched by the U.S. Navy in the 1970's (Yelverton et al., 1973; Richmond et al., 1973). Additionally, observations of sea turtle injury and mortality associated with unconfined blasts for the cutting of oil rig structures in the Gulf of Mexico (Young, 1991; Young and O'Keefe, 1994) were also incorporated in this radius beyond its use by the Navy.

The U.S. Navy Dive Manual and the FWC Guidelines (2005) set the danger zone formula for an unconfined blast suspended in the water column, which is as follows:

This formula is conservative for the confined blasting being done by the ACOE in the Port of Miami since the blast would be confined with the rock and not suspended in the water column. The reduction of impact by confining the shots more than compensates for the presumed higher sensitivity of marine mammals. The ACOE and NMFS believes that the radius of the danger zone, coupled with a strong marine mammal monitoring and protection plan is a conservative approach to the protection of marine mammals in the action area.

(2) Exclusion Zone: The exclusion zone radius is equal to the danger zone plus a buffer of 500 ft. Detonation would not occur if a marine mammal is known to be (or based on previous sightings, may be) within the exclusion zone.

Exclusion Zone Development: The exclusion zone is not associated with any threshold of take under the MMPA. The exclusion zone was developed during consultations with the FWC during the 2005 to 2006 Phase II dredging and confined blasting project in Miami Harbor. FWC requested a larger “no blast” radius due to the high number of manatees documented in the vicinity of the Port of Miami, particularly utilizing the Bill Sadowski Critical Wildlife Area directly south of the port and north of Virginia Key. The ACOE concurred with this request and added a second zone with an additional 500 ft radius above the calculated radius of the danger zone. To be consistent with the previous blasting activities at Miami Harbor, and since the confined blasting would take place in the same area, with the same concerns about the proximity of manatees to the blasting sites along Fisherman's Channel, the ACOE plans to maintain the exclusion zone.

(3) Safety Zone: The safety zone is equal to 520 (158.50 m) times the cube root of the weight of the explosive charge in lbs per delay (equivalent weight of tetryl or TNT).

Safety zone (ft; two times the size of the danger zone) = 520 (lbs/delay)  1/3

Safety Zone Development: The safety zone is not associated with any threshold of take. The safety zone was developed to be an area of “heightened awareness” of protected species (e.g. dolphins, manatees, and sea turtles) entering the blast area, without triggering a shut-down. This area triggers individual specific monitoring of each individual or group of animals as they transit in, out, or through the designated zones.

(4) Watch Zone: The watch zone is three times the radius of the danger zone to ensure that animals entering or traveling close to the exclusion zone are sighted and appropriate actions can be implemented before or as the animal enters the any impact areas (i.e., a delay in blasting activities).

Watch Zone Development: The watch zone is not associated to any threshold of take. The watch zone is the area that can be typically covered by a small helicopter based on the blasting site, flight speed, flight height, and available fuel to ensure effective mitigation-monitoring of the project area.

(D) The watch program shall begin at least one hour prior to the scheduled start of blasting to identify the possible presence of marine mammals. The watch program shall continue for at least 30 minutes (min) after detonations are complete.

(E) The watch program shall consist of a minimum of six PSOs. Each PSO shall be equipped with a two-way radio that shall be dedicated exclusively to the watch. Extra radios should be available in case of failures. All of the PSOs shall be in close communication with the blasting sub-contractor in order to halt the blast event if the need arises. If all PSOs do not have working radios and cannot contact the primary PSO and the blasting sub-contractor during the pre-blast watch, the blast shall be postponed until all PSOs are in radio contact. PSOs would also be equipped with polarized sunglasses, binoculars, a red flag for back-up visual communication, and a sighting log with a map to record sightings. All confined blasting events would be weather dependent. Climatic conditions must be suitable for optimal viewing conditions, to be determined by the PSOs.

(F) The watch program shall include a continuous aerial survey to be conducted by aircraft, as approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The confined blasting event shall be halted if an animal(s) is sighted within the exclusion zone, within the five min before the explosives are scheduled to be detonated. An “all clear” signal must be obtained from the aerial PSO before the detonation can occur. The confined blasting event shall be halted immediately upon request of any of the PSOs. If animals are sighted, the blast event shall not take place until the animal(s) moves out of the exclusion zone under its own volition. Animals shall not be herded away or intentionally harassed into leaving. Specifically, the animals must not be intentionally approached by project watercraft or aircraft. If the animal(s) is not sighted a second time, the event may resume 30 min after the last sighting.

(G) An actual delay in blasting shall occur when a marine mammal is detected within the exclusion zone at the point where the blast countdown reaches the T-minus five min. At that time, if an animal is in or near the exclusion zone, the countdown is put on hold until the zone is completely clear of marine mammals and all 30 min sighting holds have expired. Animal movements into the safety zone prior to that point are monitored closely, but do not necessarily stop the countdown. The exception to this would be stationary animals that do not appear to be moving out of the area or animals that begin moving into the exclusion zone late in the countdown. For these cases, holds on the T-minus 15 minutes may be called to keep the shipping channel open and minimize the impact on the Port of Miami operations.

(H) The PSOs and contractors shall evaluate any problems encountered during blasting events and logistical solutions shall be presented during blasting events and logistical solutions shall be presented to the Contracting Officer. Corrections to the watch shall be made prior to the next blasting event. If any one of the aforementioned conditions is not met prior to or during the blasting, the watch PSOs shall have the authority to terminate the blasting event, until resolution can be reached with the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer would contact FWC, USFWS, and NMFS.

(I) If an injured or dead marine mammal is sighted after the confined blast event, the PSOs on watch shall contact the ACOE and the ACOE would then contact the proper Federal and/or state natural resource agencies.

The PSOs shall maintain contact with the injured or dead marine mammal until authorities arrive. Blasting shall be postponed until consultations are reinitiated and completed, and determinations can be made of the cause of injury or mortality. If blasting injuries are documented, all demolition activities shall cease. The ACOE would then submit a revised blasting plan to USFWS and NMFS for review with copies provided to FWC and FLDEP as a matter of comity.

(J) Within 30 days after completion of all blasting events, the primary PSO shall submit a report the ACOE, who would provide it to the USFWS, NMFS, FWC, and FLDEP providing a description of the event, number and location of animals seen and what actions were taken when animals were seen. Any problems associated with the event and suggestions for improvements shall also be documented in the report.

The ACOE would rely upon the same monitoring protocol developed for the Port of Miami project in 2005 (Barkaszi, 2005) and published in Jordan et al. (2007), which can be found online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm . The monitoring protocol is summarized here:

A watch plan would be formulated based on the required monitoring radii and optimal observation locations. The watch plan would consist of at least six PSOs including at least one aerial PSO, two boat-based PSOs, and two PSOs stationed on the drill barge (see Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the ACOE's IHA application). This watch plan would be consistent with the program that was utilized successfully at Miami Harbor in 2005. The sixth PSO 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 dredging equipment. This process would ensure complete coverage of the four zones as well as any critical areas. The watch would begin at least one hour prior to each blast and continue for one half hour after each blast (Jordan et al., 2007).

The aerial PSO would fly in a turbine engine helicopter (bell jet ranger) with the doors removed. This provided maximum visibility of the watch and safety zones as well as exceptional maneuverability and the needed flexibility for continual surveillance without fuel stops or down time, minimization of delays due to weather or visibility and the ability to deliver post-blast assistance. Additionally, at least six commercial helicopter, small Cessna, and ultra-light companies operate on Key Biscayne, immediately south of the Port of Miami and offer “flight-seeing” operations over downtown Miami, Bayfront, and the Port of Miami. Recreational use of ultra-lights launching from Key Biscayne is also common in the area, as are overflights of commercial seaplanes, jet aircraft, and helicopters. The action area being monitored is a high traffic area, surrounded by an urban environment where animals are potentially exposed to multiple overflights daily. ACOE conferred with Mary Jo Barkaszi, owner and chief PSO of Continental Shelf Associates International, Inc. (CSA), a protected species monitoring company with 25 years of experience, and has worked on the last five blasting events involving marine mammal concerns for the ACOE throughout the country. All of these blasting events had bottlenose dolphins commonly occur in the project area. Ms. Barkaszi states that in her experience, she has not observed bottlenose dolphins diving or fleeing the area because a helicopter is hovering nearby at 500 ft (pers. comm., September 12, 2011). During monitoring events, the helicopter hovers at 500 ft above the watch zone and only drops below that level when helping to confirm identification of something small in the water, like a sea turtle. The ACOE and NMFS do not expect the incidental take of bottlenose dolphins, by Level B harassment, from helicopter-based monitoring of the proposed confined blasting operations and the ACOE is not requesting take.

Boat-based PSOs are placed on one of two vessels, both of which have attached platforms that place the PSOs eyes at least 10 ft (3 m) above the water surface enabling optimal visibility of the water from the vessels. The boat-based PSOs cover the safety zone where waters are deep enough to safely operate the boats without any impacts to seagrass resources. The shallow seagrass beds south of the project site relegate the PSO boats mainly to the channel east and west of the blast zone. At no time are any of the PSO boats allowed in shallow areas where propellers could potentially impact the fragile seagrass.

At times, turbidity in the water may be high and visibility through the water column may be reduced so that animals are not seen below the surface as they should be under normal conditions. This may be more common on an ebb tide or with a sustained south wind. However, animals surfacing in these conditions are still routinely sighted from the air and from the boats, thus the overall PSO program is not compromised, only the degree to which animals were tracked below the surface. Adjustments to the program are made accordingly so that all protected species are confirmed out of the safety zone prior to the T-minus five min, just as they are under normal visual conditions. The waters within the project area are exceptional for observation so that the decreased visibility below the surface during turbid conditions make the waters more typical of other port facilities where PSO programs are also effective throughout the U.S., for example New York and Boston harbors, where this monitoring method has also been employed.

All PSOs are equipped with marine-band VHF radios, maps of the blast zone, polarized sunglasses, and appropriate data sheets. Communications among PSOs and with the blaster is of critical importance to the success of the watch plan. The aerial-based PSO is in contact with vessel and drill barge-based PSOs and the drill barge with regular 15 min radio checks throughout the watch period. Constant tracking of animals spotted by any PSO is possible due to the amount and type of PSO coverage and the excellent communications plan. Watch hours are restricted to between two hours after sunrise and one hour before sunset. The watch begins at least one hour prior to the scheduled blast and is continuous throughout the blast. Watch continues for at least 30 min post blast at which time any animals that were seen prior to the blast are visually re-located whenever possible and all PSOs in boats and in the aircraft assisted in cleaning up any blast debris.

If any marine mammals are spotted during the watch, the PSO notifies the aerial-based PSO and/or the other PSOs via radio. The animals is located by the aerial-based PSO to determine its range and bearing from the blast array. Initial locations and all subsequent re-acquisitions are plotted on maps. Animals within or approaching the exclusion zone are tracked by the aerial and boat-based PSOs until they exited the exclusion zone. Anytime animals are sighted near the safety zone, the drill barge is alerted as to the animal's proximity and some indication of any potential delays it might cause.

If any animal(s) is sighted inside the exclusion zone and not re-acquired, no blasting is authorized until at least 30 minutes has elapsed since the last sighting of that animal(s). The PSOs on watch would continue the countdown up until the T-minus five minute point. At this time, the aerial-based PSO confirms that all animals are outside the safety zone and that all holds have expired prior to clearing the drill barge for the T-minus five min notice. A fish scare charge would be fired at T-minus five min and T-minus one min to minimize effects of the blast on fish that may be in the same area of the blast array by scaring them from the blast area.

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.” NMFS implementing 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 would result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area.

The ACOE would be conducting a study on fish kill associated with confined underwater blasting that would provide information on the effects of confined underwater blasting on prey species for dolphins in the proposed project area. This study would determine the minimum distance from the blast array, based on charge weight, at which fish would not be killed, or injured (the “lethal dose of zero” distance) by confined underwater blasting. Similar studies have been completed for open water (unconfined) blasts as cited by Hempen and Keevin (1995), Keevin et al. (1995a, 1995b, and 1997), and Keevin (1998), but no such studies have been conducted for confined underwater blasting. This data would be useful for future confined blasting projects where pisciverous marine mammals are found, since it would allow resource managers to assess the impacts of the blasting activities on marine mammal prey, where species composition and density data have been collected for that project.

Contractor's Additional Monitoring —The contractor selected by the ACOE has incorporated the proposed monitoring from the project specifications (which were incorporated into the specifications from the original IHA). Additionally, the contractor has added two additional monitoring efforts to their confined blasting methods. These have been incorporated into the project contract and planned to be a requirement of the proposed project.

(1) Water pressure monitoring of each blast at 140 ft (42.7 m) and 3,500 ft (1,066.8 m). The monitoring program would comprise measuring both noise and transient underwater peak overpressure resulting from proposed controlled blasting, and utilizing these measurements to monitor the quality of the confined blasting program and to optimize the protection of marine resources. The contractor would record the noise associated with 30 blast events on a hydrophone system capable of recording in a broad frequency range (75 Hz to 350 kHz). The contractor would also record associated work as separate recordings, including borehole drilling and fish repelling charges. Files would be provided to the government for its records. This condition is a requirement in the ACOE's contract. More details and information, including the equipment planned to be used for the underwater overpressure monitoring for the proposed action, can be found in Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company's Technical Approach Plan.

(2) Electronic surveillance by sonar fish finders during final 20 minutes before each confined blast. It is expected that some fish would be stunned or killed during a blast event. In order to enumerate these events and collect data on important game fish species, a fisheries technician would be deployed during each blast event. The technician would have a firm background in local fish identification and in the processing and analysis of fish species and anatomy. The technician would be deployed onboard one of the vessels used for protected species monitoring. During the watch period, the technician would watch a standard acoustical “fish finder” mounted on the vessel with graphical display. The technician would record large species or schools of fish as well as any fish observed from the surface during the pre-blast monitoring. Immediately after the all-clear siren, the vessel would move into the blast zone. While the PSOs search for marine mammals, the fisheries technician would search for stunned and dead fish species.

Most modern off-the-shelf fish finders use a dual beam transducer to allow for use in a broad range of water depths. The dual beam transducer consist of two separate sonar transceivers, the first transmitting at 200 kHz or greater and the second transmitting between 50 to 85 kHz depending on the brand. The higher frequency beam is used for greater resolution in shallow water (less than 100 ft) and the lower frequency is used for penetration into deeper water (greater than 100 ft). Most of the units have the ability to manually switch between frequencies and to disable on the other frequencies. The marine mammal of concern managed under NMFS jurisdiction in Miami Harbor is the bottlenose dolphin, which is considered to be in the mid-frequency functional hearing group (150 Hz to 160 kHz) according to Southall et al. (2007). Since the water in and around the Miami Harbor action area is not more than 100 ft, it would be acceptable to only use the 200 kHz (or greater) beam and not use the lower frequency beam. The vessels proposed to be used are equipped with the Garmin 440s echosounder/GPS combination. These units utilize the 50 kHz and 200 kHz sonar beams and have the function to disable the 50 kHz beam. If the fish-finding sonar sound source has a frequency lower than 200 kHz, the ACOE would shut-down the fish-finding sonar if a marine mammal(s) is sighted in the proposed action area (i.e., the watch zone).

Additionally, ACOE would provide sighting data for each blast to researchers at NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center's marine mammal program and any other researchers working on dolphins in the proposed project area to add to their database of animal usage of the project area. The ACOE would rely upon the same monitoring protocol developed for the Port of Miami project in 2005 (Barkaszi, 2005) and published in Jordan et al. (2007).

The ACOE plans to coordinate monitoring with the appropriate Federal and state resource agencies, and would provide copies of all relevant monitoring reports prepared by their contractors. After completion of all detonation, the ACOE would submit a summary report to regulatory agencies.

Within 30 days after completion of all blasting events, the lead PSO shall submit a report to the ACOE, who would provide it to NMFS. The report would contain the PSO's logs (including names and positions during the blasting events), provide a description of the events, environmental conditions, number and location of animals sighted, the behavioral observations of the marine mammals, and what actions were taken when animals were sighted in the action area of the project. Any problems associated with the event and suggestions for improvements shall also be documented in the report. 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 NMFS 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.

In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, ACOE would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299 ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov and Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ) (Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-404-3922). The report must include the following information:

• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;

• Description of the incident;

• Status of all noise-generating source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Water depth;

• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);

• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

• Fate of the animal(s); and

• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ACOE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ACOE may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.

In the event that ACOE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), ACOE would immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299) and/or by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov ) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program Administrator ( Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with ACOE to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that ACOE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), ACOE would report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299), and/or by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov ) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program Administrator ( Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ), within 24 hours of discovery. ACOE would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

The Biscayne Bay stock of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins is bounded by Haulover Inlet to the north and Card Sound Bridge to the south. Biscayne Bay is 428 square mi (mi 2 ) (1,108.5 square km [km 2 ]) in area. The Port of Miami channel, within the boundaries of Biscayne Bay, is approximately 7,200 ft (2,194.6 m) long by 500 ft (152.4 m) wide, with the 3,425 ft (1,044 m) long by 1,400 ft (426.7 m) wide Dodge-Lummus Island turning basin (total area 0.3 mi 2 [0.8 km 2 ]) at the western terminus of Fisherman's Channel. The Port of Miami's channels consist of approximately 0.1% of the entire area of Biscayne Bay. To determine the maximum area of Biscayne Bay in which bottlenose dolphins may experience pressure levels greater than or equal to the 23 psi threshold for explosives less than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg), which has the potential to result in Level B harassment due to temporary threshold shift (TTS) and associated behavioral disruption, the ACOE may utilize a maximum charge weight of 450 lb (204.1 kg) with a calculated danger zone of 1,995 ft (608.1 m). Using this radius, the total area of this zone is approximately 0.1% of Biscayne Bay (12,503,617 ft 2 [1,161,624 m 2 ]).

Utilizing the pressure data collected the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, for a maximum charge weight of 450 lbs in a fully confined blast, the pressure is expected to be 22 psi approximately 700 ft (213.4 m) from the blast, which is below the threshold for Level B harassment (i.e., 23 psi criteria for explosives less than 2,000 lb). However to ensure the protection of marine mammals, and in case of an incident where a detonation is not fully confined, the ACOE assumes that any animal within the boundaries of the danger zone would be taken by Level B harassment.

Litz (2007) identified 69 individuals of the Biscayne Bay stock that she classified as the “northern dolphins” meaning animals with a mean sighting history from 1994 to 2004 north of 25.61° North. The photo-ID study that Litz's data is based on encompassed an area of approximately 200 mi 2 (518 km 2 ), approximately 50% of Biscayne Bay. The estimated maximum population of animals that may be in the project area is equal to the total number of uniquely identified animals for the entire photo-ID study of Biscayne Bay is 229 individuals (Waring et al., 2010). The best population estimate for Biscayne Bay is 157 individuals, which are based on SEFSC's most consistent survey effort conducted during the 2003 to 2007 photo-ID survey seasons (Waring et al., 2010).

Table 4 (below) presents the estimated incidental take, by Level B harassment, for varying charge weight delays likely to be used during the blasting activities and the estimated impacts based on the population estimates used in this analysis. In all cases, less than one bottlenose dolphin is expected to be taken incidental to each blasting event (0.049 minimum to 0.162 maximum). This assumes that the distribution of bottlenose dolphins is equal throughout all of Biscayne Bay.

The ACOE accessed the NMFS SEFSC photo-ID survey data from 1990 to 2004 in Biscayne Bay via the OBIS-Seamap database ( http://seamap.env.duke.edu/ ) and downloaded the Google Earth overlay of the data. Figure 12 of the ACOE's IHA application shows the general area of the Port of Miami and hot spots of bottlenose dolphin sightings both north and south of Miami Harbor. The data were used to see if sightings across all parts of the Biscayne Bay were equal. This sighting frequency data was not used to calculate the potential take numbers of marine mammals incidental to the blasting activities.

Reviewing the data from the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, the ACOE noted that for the 40 detonations, 28% of all animals sighted within the action area (Fisherman's Channel) were bottlenose dolphins (the other animals sighted were manatees and sea turtles). Bottlenose dolphins were sighted inside the exclusion zone 12 times with a total of 30 individuals, with an average of 2.5 animals per sighting out of the total 58 bottlenose dolphins recorded during the project; therefore, groups of dolphins entered the exclusion zone multiple times. Also, dolphins entered the exclusion zone during 30% of the blasting events. Not all of the incidents where dolphins entered the exclusion zone resulted in a project delay, it is dependent upon when during the countdown the animals cross the line demarcating the exclusion zone, and how long they stay in the exclusion zone.

During the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, bottlenose dolphins in the exclusion zone triggered delays on four occasions during the 13 blasting events (31%). If the maximum 313 (365 calendar days/year minus 52 Sundays/year [no confined blasting would occur on Sundays]) potential detonations for the duration of the one year IHA have an equal percentage of delays as the 2005 project (assuming construction starts in June with blasting March 2014 to March 2015 timeframe, with no blasting on Sundays), 94 of the detonations would be delayed for some period of time due to the presence of protected species and 29 of those delays would specifically be for bottlenose dolphins.

As a worst-case scenario, using the area of the danger zone (i.e., the area where Level B harassment would potentially occur), and recognizing that the Port of Miami is within the boundaries of the northern area described in Litz (2007), and that the danger zone of any blasting event using equal to or less than 450 lbs/delay would be approximately 0.1% of Biscayne Bay, the ACOE assumes that because animals are not evenly distributed throughout Biscayne Bay, that they travel as single individuals or in groups (as documented in the OBIS-Seamap data and the monitoring data from the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005), up to three bottlenose dolphins from the Biscayne Bay stock may be taken, by Level B harassment, incidental to each blasting event. This estimate does not take into account the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts.

Assuming that the delays would be spread equally across the action area and using the calculation of 29 delays, 15 of the delayed blasting events would take place in Biscayne Bay since it compromises 52% of the proposed action area. Three bottlenose dolphins times 15 detonations is equal to 45 bottlenose dolphins potentially harassed (Level B) over the 1-year period.

The Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is present in the coastal Atlantic waters shallower than 65.6 ft (20 m) in depth between latitude 29.4° North to the western end of Vaca Key (approximately 29.69° North to 81.11° West) where the stock boundary for the Florida Key stock begins, with an area of 3,007 mi 2 (7,789 km 2 ). The outer entrance channel of the Port of Miami is approximately 15,500 ft long (4,724.4 m) by 500 ft wide, which is approximately 0.28 mi 2 (0.73 km 2 ). The Port of Miami's channels consist of approximately 0.009% of the stocks boundaries.

The same calculations for assessing the potential impacts to bottlenose dolphins from the proposed blasting activities that were used for the Biscayne Bay stock were also applied to this stock. To determine the maximum area of the coastal Atlantic in which bottlenose dolphins may experience pressure levels greater than or equal to the 23 psi threshold for explosives less than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg), which has the potential to result in Level B harassment due to TTS and associated behavioral disruption, the ACOE may utilize a maximum charge weight of 450 lb (204.1 kg) with a calculated danger zone of 1,995 ft (608.1 m). Using this radius, the total area of this zone is approximately 0.015% of coastal Atlantic where this stock is expected to occur).

For an open-water, unconfined blast, the pressure edge of the danger zone is expected to be 23 psi. For a fully confined blast, the pressure at the edge of the danger zone is expected to be 6 psi. Utilizing the pressure data collected the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, for a maximum charge weight of 450 lbs in a fully confined blast, the pressure is expected to be 22 psi approximately 700 ft (213.4 m) from the blast, which is below the threshold for Level B harassment (i.e., 23 psi criteria for explosives less than 2,000 lb). However to ensure the protection of marine mammals, and in case of an incident where a detonation is not fully confined, the ACOE assumes that any animal within the boundaries of the danger zone would be taken by Level B harassment.

Waring et al. (2010) estimates the minimum population for the Western North Atlantic Central Florida stock to be 5,094 animals, and estimates the best population to be 6,318 animals.

Table 5 (below) presents the estimated incidental take, by Level B harassment, for varying charge weight delays likely to be used during the proposed blasting activities and the estimated impacts based on the population estimates used in this analysis. In all cases, less than one bottlenose dolphin is expected to be taken incidental to each blasting event (0.102 minimum to 0.948 maximum). This assumes that the distribution of bottlenose dolphins is equal throughout all of the stock's range.

Other than the aerial surveys conducted by NMFS used to develop the stock assessment report, the ACOE has not been able to locate any additional photo-ID or habitat usage analysis for this stock. As a result, the ACOE is unable to determine if animals are evenly distributed throughout the stock's range, particularly in the southernmost portion of the stock's range where the action area is located.

To be conservative, the ACOE would use the same assumptions for the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock as was used for the Biscayne Bay stock. Reviewing the data from the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, the ACOE noted that for the 40 detonations, 28% of all animals sighted within the action area (Fisherman's Channel) were bottlenose dolphins (the other animals sighted were manatees and sea turtles). Bottlenose dolphins were sighted inside the exclusion zone 12 times with a total of 30 individuals, with an average of 2.5 animals per sighting out of the total 58 bottlenose dolphins recorded during the project; therefore, groups of dolphins entered the exclusion zone multiple times. Also, dolphins entered the exclusion zone during 30% of the blasting events. Not all of the incidents where dolphins entered the exclusion zone resulted in a project delay, it is dependent upon when during the countdown the animals cross the line demarcating the exclusion zone, and how long they stay in the exclusion zone.

During the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005, bottlenose dolphins in the exclusion zone triggered delays on four occasions during the 13 blasting events (31%). If the maximum 313 planned detonations for the duration of the one year IHA (equal to 365 calendar days/year minus 52 Sundays/year [no confined blasting would occur on Sundays) have an equal percentage of delays as the 2005 project (assuming construction starts in June with blasting March 2014 to March 2015 timeframe, with no blasting on Sundays), 94 of the detonations would be delayed for some period of time due to the presence of protected species and 29 of those delays would specifically be for bottlenose dolphins.

As a worst-case scenario, using the area of the danger zone (i.e., the area where Level B harassment would potentially occur), and that the danger zone of any blasting event using equal to or less than 450 lbs/delay would be approximately 0.009% of the stock's range. The ACOE assumes that because animals are not evenly distributed throughout the stock's range, that they travel as single individuals or in groups (as documented in the monitoring data from the Miami Harbor Phase II project in 2005), up to three bottlenose dolphins from the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock may be taken, by Level B harassment, incidental to each blasting event. This estimate does not take into account the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts.

Assuming that delays would be spread equally across the action area and using the calculation of 29 delays, 14 of the delayed blasting events would take place in the Outer Entrance Channel since it compromises 48% of the proposed action area. Three bottlenose dolphins times 14 detonations is equal to 42 bottlenose dolphins potentially exposed to underwater sound and pressure over a one year period for an IHA incidental to the proposed confined blasting activities at the Port of Miami.

Without the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, the ACOE has calculated up to 87 bottlenose dolphins (45 from the Biscayne Bay stock, 42 of the Western North Atlantic Central Florida stock) may be potentially taken, by Level B harassment, incidental to the proposed blasting operations over the course of the one year IHA. Due to the protective measures of confined blasts, the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures (i.e., danger, exclusion, safety, and watch zones, use of the confined blasting techniques, as well as PSOs), the ACOE is requesting the take, by Level B harassment only, of a total of 22 bottlenose dolphins (12 bottlenose dolphins from the Biscayne Bay stock and 10 bottlenose dolphins from the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock). The ACOE believes that the implementation of the protective measures of confined blasts reduces the potential for take to approximately 25% of the calculated take without any monitoring and mitigation measures. Based on the previous project by the ACOE at Miami Harbor, with 40 blast events and no documented take, this estimated take is likely high.

The ACOE would coordinate monitoring with the appropriate Federal and state resource agencies, including NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS SERO Protected Resources Division, and would provide copies of any monitoring reports prepared by the contractors.

As a preliminary matter, NMFS typically includes our negligible impact and small numbers analyses and determinations under the same section heading of our Federal Register notices. Despite co-locating these terms, NMFS acknowledges that negligible impact and small numbers are distinct standards under the MMPA and treat them as such. The analyses presented below do not conflate the two standards; instead, each standard has been considered independently and NMFS has applied the relevant factors to inform our negligible impact and small numbers determinations.

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.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS evaluated factors such as:

(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;

(2) The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment (all relatively limited);

(3) The context in which the takes occur (i.e., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to the baseline data);

(4) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, and impact relative to the size of the population);

(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment or survival; and

(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures (i.e., the manner and degree in which the measure is likely to reduce adverse impacts to marine mammals, the likely effectiveness of the measures, and the practicability of implementation).

Tables 1, 4, and 5 in this document discloses the habitat, regional abundance, conservation status, density, and the number of individuals potentially exposed to sounds and pressure levels considered the threshold for Level B harassment. There are no known important reproductive or feeding areas in the proposed action area.

For reasons stated previously in this document, the specified activities associated with the ACOE's confined blasting operations are not likely to cause PTS, or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death to affected marine mammals. As a result, no take by injury, serious injury, or death is anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and would be minimized through the incorporation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures.

Tables 4 and Table 5 of this document outline the number of requested Level B harassment takes that are anticipated as a result of these proposed confined blasting activities. Approximately 22 Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (12 from the Biscayne Bay stock, 10 from the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock) are anticipated to incur short-term, minor, hearing impairment (TTS) and associated behavioral disruption due to the instantaneous duration of the confined blasting events. While some other species of marine mammals may occur in the proposed project area, only Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are anticipated to be potentially impacted by the ACOE's proposed confined blasting operations.

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24-hr cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). The ACOE's proposed action at Miami Harbor includes up to two planned blasting events per day over multiple days; however, they are very short in duration and in a relatively small area surrounding the blast holes (compared to the range of the animals), and are only expected to potentially result in momentary exposures and reactions by marine mammals in the proposed action area, which would not be expected to accumulate in a manner that would impact reproduction or survival.

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are the only species of marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction that are likely to occur in the proposed action area; they are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, however both stocks are listed as depleted and considered strategic under the MMPA. To reduce impacts on these stocks (and other protected species in the proposed action area), the ACOE must delay operations if animals enter designated zones. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated and described in this notice (see “Potential Effects on Marine Mammals” section above), the activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock, particularly given NMFS's and the applicant's plan to implement mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures to minimize impacts to marine mammals. Also, the proposed confined blasting activities are very short in duration and there are no known important areas in the ACOE's proposed action area. Additionally, the proposed confined blasting operations would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.

As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that one species of marine mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. For each species, these numbers are estimated to be small (i.e., 22 Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, 12 from the Biscayne Bay stock [17% of the estimated minimum population, 7.6% of the estimated best population, and 5.2% of the estimated maximum population], and 10 from the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal stock [0.19% of the estimated minimum population and 0.15% of the estimated best population]) when compared to the population of the stock and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through the incorporation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described in this document.

NMFS has preliminarily determined, provided that the aforementioned proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, that the impact of conducting the confined blasting activities in the Port of Miami from March 2014 through March 2015 may result at worst in a temporary modification in behavior and/or low level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins.

While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area immediately after confined blasting operations, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant underwater acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within this area and the instantaneous and sporadic duration of the confined blasting activities, have led NMFS to determine that the taking by Level B harassment from the specified activity would have a negligible impact on the affected species in the specified geographic region. NMFS believes that the length of the proposed confined blasting operations, the requirement to implement mitigation measures, and the inclusion of the monitoring and reporting measures, would reduce the amount and severity of the potential impacts from the proposed confined blasting operations to the degree that it would have a negligible impact on the species or stocks of marine mammals in the proposed action area.

Section 101(a)(5)(D) also requires NMFS to determine that the authorization would not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There is no subsistence hunting for marine mammals in the action area (waters off of the coast of southeast Florida) that implicates MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D).

Under section 7 of the ESA, the ACOE requested formal consultation with the NMFS SERO, on the project to improve the Port of Miami on September 5, 2002, and reinitiated consultation on January 6, 2011. NMFS determined that the action is likely to adversely affect one ESA-listed species and prepared a Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued on September 8, 2011, that analyzes the project's effects on staghorn coral ( Acropora cervicornis ) and its designated critical habitat. It is NMFS's biological opinion that the ACOE's proposed action is likely to adversely affect staghorn coral, but is not likely to jeopardize its continued existence or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. Based upon NMFS SERO's updated analysis, NMFS no longer expects the project is likely to adversely affect Johnson's seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ) or its designated critical habitat. NMFS SERO has determined that the ESA-listed marine mammals (blue, fin, sei, humpback, North Atlantic right, and sperm whales), smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ), and leatherback sea turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea ) are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Previous NMFS BiOps have determined that hopper dredges may affect hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), and loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtles through entrainment by the draghead. Any incidental take of loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, or hawksbill sea turtles due to hopper dredging has been previously authorized in NMFS's 1997 South Atlantic Regional BiOp on hopper dredging along the South Atlantic coast. The ACOE is currently in re-initiation of consultation with NMFS on the South Atlantic Regional BiOp. Should a new BiOp is issued by NMFS while construction is underway at Miami Harbor, the applicable Terms and Conditions of that South Atlantic Regional BiOp would be incorporated into the project.

To meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requirements, the ACOE has prepared a “Final General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement on the Navigation Study for Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida” (FEIS) and a “Record of Decision on the Navigation Study for Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida” (ROD) for the project was signed on May 22, 2006; however, this document does not analyze NMFS's action, the issuance of the IHA for the ACOE's activity. NMFS, after independently reviewing and evaluating the document for sufficiency and compliance with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 § 5.09(d), has conducted a separate NEPA analysis and prepared an “Environmental Assessment for Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Confined Blasting Operations During the Port of Miami Construction Project in Miami, Florida,” which analyzes the project's purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, and environmental effects for the action prior to making a determination on the issuance of the IHA. Based on the analysis in the EA and the underlying information in the record, including the IHA application, proposed IHA, public comments, and formal ESA section 7 consultation, NMFS prepared and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determining that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FONSI was signed on July 31, 2012 prior to the issuance of the IHA for the ACOE's activities in March 2013 to March 2014. The currently proposed confined blasting operations that would be covered by the proposed IHA from March 2014 to March 2015 are similar to the confined blasting operations described in the NMFS EA and the ACOE's FEIS and the effects of the proposed IHA fall within the scope of those documents and do not require further supplementation. After considering public comments received in response to the publication in the Federal Register notice and proposed IHA, NMFS will decide whether to reaffirm its FONSI.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the ACOE for conducting confined blasting operations at the Port of Miami, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The duration of the IHA would not exceed one year from the date of its issuance. The proposed IHA language is provided below:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida (FL) 32232, is hereby authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to blasting operations as part of the Miami Harbor Deepening Project in the Port of Miami in Miami-Dade County, Florida:

1. This Authorization is valid from March 15, 2014, through March 14, 2015.

2. This Authorization is valid only for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) activities associated with the blasting of the Port of Miami in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The blasting operations shall be limited to waters shallower than 60 feet (ft) (18.3 meters [m]) and located entirely on the continental shelf and shall not take place seaward of the outer reef. The four components to be conducted by the ACOE, as part of the project in Miami Harbor, are:

(a) Widening of Cut 1 and deepening of Cut 1 and Cut 2;

(b) Adding a turn widener and deepening at the southern intersection of Cut 3 within Fisherman's Channel;

(c) Widening and deepening the Fisher Island Turning Basin; and

(d) Expanding the Federal Channel and Port of Miami berthing areas in Fisherman's Channel and the Lummus Island Turning Basin.

3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes

(a) The incidental taking of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, is limited to the following species in the waters of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean:

(i) Odontocetes—12 animals from the Biscayne Bay Stock and 10 from the Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal Stock (22 total) of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ).

(ii) If any marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction are encountered during blasting operations that are not authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound thresholds greater than or equal to Level B harassment, then the Holder of this Authorization must delay or suspend blasting operations to avoid take.

(b) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in Condition 3(a) above or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization.

4. The methods authorized for taking by Level B harassment are limited to the following acoustic sources:

(a) Explosives with a maximum charge weight per delay of 450 lb (4.5 kg)

5. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), at 301-427-8401.

6. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements

The Holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation and monitoring requirements when conducting the specified activities to achieve the least practicable impact on affected marine mammal species or stocks:

(a) The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NMFS must review the contractor's approved blasting plan prior to any blasting activities. This blasting proposal must include information concerning a watch program and details of the blasting events. This information must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the proposed date of the blast(s) to the following addresses:

(i) FWC-ISM, 620 South Meridian Street, Mail Stop 6A, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 or ImperiledSpecies@myfwc.com and Dr. Allen Foley allen.foley@myfwc.com.

(ii) NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

(iii) NMFS Southeast Regional Office, Protected Species Management Branch, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, and

(iv) USFWS, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559.

(b) The contractor's blasting plan shall include at least the following information:

(i) A list of Protected Species Observers (PSOs), their qualifications, and positions for the watch, including a map depicting the proposed locations for boat or land-based PSOs. NMFS-qualified PSOs must have prior on-the-job experience observing for marine mammals and other protected species during previous in-water blasting events where the blasting activities were similar in nature to the blasting project in the Port of Miami.

(ii) The amount of explosive charge proposed, the explosive charge's equivalency in TNT, how it will be executed (depth of drilling, stemming, in-water, etc.), a drawing depicting the placement of the charges, size of the exclusion zone, and how it will be marked (also depicted on a map), tide tables for the blasting event(s), and estimates of times and days for blasting events (with an understanding this is an estimate, and may change due to weather, equipment, etc.).

(c) A test blast program shall be completed prior to implementing a construction blasting program. The test blast program shall have all the same monitoring and mitigation measures in place for marine mammals and other protected species (see below).

(d) The weight of explosives to be used in each blast shall be limited to the lowest poundage of explosives that can adequately break the rock.

(e) The explosives shall be confined in a hole with drill patterns (i.e., holes in the array) that are restricted to a minimum of 8 ft (2.4 m) separation from a loaded hole.

(f) The hours of blasting shall be restricted from two hours after sunrise to one hour before sunset to ensure adequate observation of marine mammals in the project area.

(g) Select explosive products and their practical application method to address vibration and air blast (overpressure) control for protection of existing structures and marine wildlife.

(h) Loaded blast holes shall be individually delayed to reduce the maximum lbs per delay at point detonation (in order to spread the explosive's total pressure over time), which in turn will reduce the mortality radius. Delay timing adjustments with a minimum of eight milliseconds (ms) between delay detonations to stagger the blast pressures and prevent cumulative addition of pressures in the water.

(i) Cap the hole containing explosives with rock in order to spread the explosive's outward potential of the blast and total overpressure over time, thereby reducing the chance of injuring a marine mammal or other protected species.

(j) The blast design shall match, to 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 or hydraulic shock.

(k) If possible, avoid scheduling blasting operations during the period from November 1 through March 31(due to the increased likelihood of manatees [ Trichechus manatus latirostris ] being present within the project area).

(l) Calculate, establish, and monitor a danger (i.e., inner-most zone, located closest to the blast), exclusion (i.e., the danger zone plus 500 ft [152.4 m], safety (i.e., the third zone), and watch zone (i.e., the outer most zone) with the appropriate radius (R) based on the weight of explosives per delay. The danger zone has been determined to be larger than or equal to the threshold for Level B harassment, as defined by the MMPA. All of the zones will be noted by buoys for each of the blasts.

(m) The watch program shall begin at least one hour prior to the schedule start of blasting to identify the possible presence of marine mammals and is continuous throughout the blast. The watch program shall continue for at least 30 minutes after detonations are complete.

(n) The watch program shall consists of a minimum of six NMFS-qualified PSOs (at least one aerial-based PSO, two boat-based PSOs, two drill barge-based PSOs, and one PSO placed in the most optimal observation location on a day-by-day basis depending on the location of the blast and the placement of dredging equipment). NMFS-qualified PSOs must be approved in advance by NMFS's Office of Protected Resources, to record the effects of the blasting and dredging activities and the resulting noise on marine mammals. Each PSO shall be equipped with a two-way marine-band VHF radio that shall be dedicated exclusively to the watch. Extra radios shall be available in case of failures. All of the PSOs shall be in close communication with the blasting sub-contractor in order to half the blast event if the need arises. If all PSOs do not have working radios and cannot contact the primary PSO and the blasting sub-contractor during the pre-blast watch, the blast shall be postponed until all PSOs are in radio contact. PSOs shall be equipped with polarized sunglasses, binoculars, a red flag for back-up visual communication, and appropriate data sheets (i.e., a sighting log with a map) to record sightings and other pertinent data. All blasting events are weather dependent and conditions must be suitable for optimal viewing conditions to be determined by the PSOs.

(o) The watch program shall include a continuous aerial survey to be conducted by aircraft, as approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. The aerial-based PSO is in contact with vessel and drill barge-based PSOs and the drill barge with regular 15 minute radio checks through the watch period. The aerial PSO will fly in a turbine engine helicopter with the doors removed to provide maximum visibility of the zones.

(p) Boat-based PSOs are placed on one of two vessels, both of which have attached platforms that place the PSOs eyes at least 10 ft (3 m) above the water surface enabling optimal visibility of the water from the vessels. The boat-based PSOs cover the safety zone where waters are deep enough to safely operate the boats without any impacts to seagrass resources. At no time are any of the boats with PSOs allowed in shallow areas where propellers could potentially impact the seagrass.

(q) If any marine mammals are spotted during the watch, the PSO will notify the aerial-based PSO and/or other PSOs via radio. The animal(s) is located by the aerial-based PSO to determine its range and bearing from the blast array. Initial locations and all subsequent re-acquisitions are plotted on maps. Animals within or approaching the safety zone are tracked by the aerial and boat-based PSOs until they have exited the safety zone, the drill barge is alerted as to the animal's proximity and some indication of any potential delays it might cause.

(r) If any animal(s) is sighted inside the safety zone and not re-acquired, no blasting is authorized until at least 30 minutes has elapsed since the last sighting of that animal(s). The PSOs on watch will continue the countdown up until the T-minus five minutes point. At this time, the aerial-based PSO confirms that all animals are outside the safety zone and that all holds have expired prior to clearing the drill barge for the T-minus five minutes notice.

(s) The blasting event shall be halted if an animal(s) is sighted within the exclusion zone, within the five minutes before the explosives are scheduled to be detonated. An “all clear” signal must be obtained from the aerial PSO before the detonation can occur. The blasting event shall be halted immediately upon request of any of the PSOs. If animals are sighted, the blast event shall not take place until the animal(s) moves out of the exclusion zone under its own volition. Animals shall not be herded away or intentionally harassed into leaving. Specifically, the animals must not be intentionally approached by project watercraft or aircraft. If the animal(s) is not sighted a second time, the even may resume 30 minutes after the last sighting.

(t) Blasting shall be delayed when a marine mammal is detected within the exclusion zone at the point where the blast countdown reaches the T-minus five minutes. At that time, if an animal is in or near the safety zone, the countdown is put on hold until the zone is completely clear of marine mammals and all 30 minutes sighting holds have expired. Animal movements into the safety zone prior to that point are monitored closely, but do not necessarily stop the countdown. The exception to this would be stationary animals that do not appear to be moving out of the area or animals that do not appear to be moving out of the area or animals that begin moving into the safety zone late in the countdown. For these cases, holds on the T-minus 15 minutes may be called to keep the shipping channel open and minimize the impact on the Port of Miami operations.

(u) During times of high turbidity and reduced visibility through the water column that compromise the sightability of animals below the water surface, adjustments should be made to the monitoring and mitigation program so that all protected species can be confirmed outside of the safety zone prior to the T-minus five minutes, just as they are under normal visual conditions.

(v) After the blast, any animal(s) seen prior to the blast are visually relocated whenever possible.

(w) The PSOs and contractors shall evaluate any problems encountered during blasting events and logistical solutions shall be presented to the Contracting Officer. Corrections to the watch shall be made prior to the next blasting event. If any one of the aforementioned conditions is not met prior to or during the blasting, the watch PSOs shall have the authority to terminate the blasting event. If any one of the aforementioned conditions is not met prior to or during the blasting, the watch PSOs shall have the authority to terminate the blasting event, until resolution can be reached with the Contracting Officer.

(x) A fish scare charge shall be fired at T-minus five minutes and T-minus one minute to minimize effects of the blast on fish that may be in the same area of the blast array by scaring them from the blast area.

(y) A study on fish kill associated with confined underwater blasting shall be conducted to provide information on the effects of confined underwater blasting on prey species for dolphins. This study shall determine the minimum distance from the blast array, based on charge weight, that fish will not be killed, or injured, by confined underwater blasting.

(z) Water pressure monitoring shall be conducted of each blast at 140 ft (42.7 m) and 3,500 ft (1,066.8 m).

(aa) Conduct electronic surveillance by fish-finding sonar during the final 20 minutes before each confined blast event. If the sound source associated with the fish-finding sonar device is lower than 200 kHz, the ACOE shall shut-down the fish-finding sonar if marine mammals are sighted in the confined underwater blasting area (i.e., watch zone).

7. Reporting Requirements.

The Holder of this Authorization is required to:

(a) Submit a draft report on all activities and monitoring results to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 90 days after completion of the demolition and removal activities. This report must contain and summarize the following information:

(i) Dates, times, locations, weather, sea conditions during all blasting and dredging activities and marine mammal sightings;

(ii) Species, number, location, distance, and behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated blasting activities, observed before, during, and after blasting activities.

(iii) An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals that may have been taken by Level B harassment during the blasting activities with a discussion of the nature of the probably consequences of that exposure on the individuals that have been exposed. Describe any behavioral responses or modifications of behaviors that may be attributed to the blasting activities.

(iv) A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Incidental Harassment Authorization as well as any additional conservation recommendations.

(b) Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS decides that the draft report needs no comments, the draft report shall be considered to be the final report.

(c) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, ACOE will immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299 ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov and Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ) (Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-404-3922). The report must include the following information:

(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; description of the incident; status of all noise-generating source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; water depth; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility); description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident; species identification or description of the animal(s) involved; fate of the animal(s); and photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ACOE to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ACOE may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or telephone.

In the event that ACOE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), ACOE will immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299) and/or by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov ) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program Administrator ( Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ). The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with ACOE to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

In the event that ACOE discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), ACOE will report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299), and/or by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator ( Blair.Mase@noaa.gov ) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program Administrator ( Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov ), within 24 hours of discovery. ACOE will provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

8. To the greatest extent feasible, ACOE is encouraged to coordinate its monitoring studies on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the project area with the NMFS's Southeast Fisheries Science Center, USFWS, and any other state or Federal agency conducting research on marine mammals. Also, report to NMFS and USFWS any chance observations of marked or tag-bearing marine mammals or carcasses, as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammals.

9. ACOE is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to NMFS's project specific Biological Opinions (2003 and 2011).

10. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of all contractors and PSOs operating under the authority of this Incidental Harassment Authorization.

NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed project and NMFS's preliminary determinations 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.

Background: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: License radio frequencies in a way that maximizes their public benefits; keep wireless networks as open to innovation as possible; and make wireless services available to all Americans. See Charter at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/csmac-2013-charter. This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

Matters To Be Considered: The Committee will receive reports on the progress of the following subcommittees established to help NTIA develop new or revised strategies for responding more efficiently and effectively to fundamental technological, operational, and other trends to continue advancement of delivering spectrum products, services, and solutions that will support the ever-increasing demand for spectrum:

NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, prior to the meeting. To the extent that the meeting time and agenda permit, any member of the public may speak to or otherwise address the Committee regarding the agenda items. See Open Meeting and Public Participation Policy, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

Time and Date: The meeting will be held on March 28, 2014, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The times and the agenda topics are subject to change. The meeting will be available via two-way audio link and may be webcast. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, for the most up-to-date meeting agenda and access information.

Place: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. The meeting will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Washington, at (202) 482-6415 or BWashington@ntia.doc.gov, at least five (5) business days before the meeting.

Status: Interested parties are invited to attend and to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before or after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of a meeting must send them to NTIA's Washington, DC office at the above-listed address and comments must be received five (5) business days before the scheduled meeting date, to provide sufficient time for review. Comments received after this date will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting. It would be helpful if paper submissions also include a compact disc (CD) in Word or PDF format. CDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer. Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to BWashington@ntia.doc.gov. Comments provided via electronic mail also may be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.

Records: NTIA maintains records of all Committee proceedings. Committee records are available for public inspection at NTIA's Washington, DC office at the address above. Documents including the Committee's charter, member list, agendas, minutes, and any reports are available on NTIA's Committee Web page at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

Title and OMB Number: Generic Clearance for the DoD IG Digital Communications Outreach—Generic Survey Collection; OMB Control Number 0704-TBD.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain customer satisfaction metrics from users of the organization's Web site, www.dodig.mil and those engaged by public affairs and social media initiatives. The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. Specifically, this collection is necessary for DoD IG's compliance with OMB Digital Strategy Milestone 8.2, which requires agencies to implement customer satisfaction measurement tools on all government Web sites. This strategy identifies specific customer satisfaction metrics that all agencies must measure, which will enable aggregation of this data at the federal level, providing a government-wide view of how well we serve our customers and opening up new possibilities for consolidating and improving the federal Web space. Compliance with the Digital Strategy will also allow DoD IG to make data-driven decisions on service performance and increase customer satisfaction. A 60-day Federal Reserve notice was published on April 22, 2013 (78 FR 23756). No public comments were received.

Type of Review: New.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Expected Annual Number of Activities/Collections: 2.

Annual Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Annual Number of Responses: 2,000.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 333.

Total Expected Number of Activities/Collections: 6.

Total Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Total Number of Responses: 6,000.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 1,000.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

To request additional information please contact Ms. Toppings, DoD Clearance Officer, at WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Section 704 Annual Performance Report (Parts I and II).

OMB Control Number: 1820-0606.

Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 412.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 14,420.

Abstract: These data collection instruments are the annual performance reports for State Independent Living Services (SILS) and Centers for Independent Living (CIL) programs. These are known as the 704 Report Part I and the 704 Report Part II, respectively. These reports are required by sections 704(m)(4)(D), 706(d), 721(b)(3) and 725(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act) and the corresponding regulations in 34 CFR parts 364, 365, and 366. Approval of grantees' annual performance reports (704 Report) is a prerequisite for the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) approval of the annual SILS grant awards (part B funds) and CILs continuation grant awards (part C funds).

The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Implementation Study of the Ramp Up to Readiness Program.

OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,086.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,212.

Abstract: This study will examine the implementation of Ramp-Up to Readiness, a schoolwide guidance intervention aimed at increasing the college readiness of students. The intervention is at present being implemented in 34 high schools in Minnesota, and the developers intend to make the intervention available to a much larger set of Minnesota schools. No independently gathered high-quality evidence exists, however, on whether schools are able to implement this comprehensive intervention as intended or how its core components compare to the college-readiness supports in other high schools. The project for which OMB clearance is requested will attempt to gather such evidence from 22 public Minnesota high schools through the least burdensome means. The school-level implementation study will focus on assessing whether Ramp-Up school staff implement the program as intended, on identifying the extent to which the Ramp-Up program differs from the college-readiness supports offered in schools without Ramp-Up, and on the validity of a measure of personal college readiness, which the developers hypothesize is a key mechanism through which the program impacts later outcomes. The study will collect data from school staff in the following activities: Administrative data collection, focus groups in January and June, extant document collection, instructional logs, student and staff surveys, and student personal readiness assessment. The findings produced through analysis of these data will help (1) state education agencies seeking strategies and programs to endorse as a potential means of improving students college readiness and college enrollment, (2) local education agencies that are considering the challenges of implementing Ramp-Up, (3) the developer of this intervention (the College Readiness Consortium at the University of Minnesota) and developers of other college readiness interventions who continually seek to improve their programs by using information from studies like this, and (4) a group of education stakeholders in the Midwest interested in considering whether to conduct a study of the impacts of the Ramp-Up intervention on student outcomes.

The President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the Board) is established by Executive Order 13532 (February 26, 2010). The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Board is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.

The Board will receive updates from the Chairman of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs, the Board's subcommittees (Black Males, Strategy, Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), Community Colleges and Aspirational Support) and the Executive Director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs on their respective activities, thus far, during Fiscal Year 2014 including activities that have occurred since the Board's last meeting, which was held on September 25, 2013. In addition, the Board will discuss possible strategies to meet its duties under its charter, Ivory Toldson, Deputy Director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs will discuss federal initiatives supporting the educational pipeline from high school to college, and a representative from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will present on health disparities among students at HBCUs.

Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative format) should notify Sedika Franklin, White House Initiative on HBCUs, at (202) 453-5630, no later than Friday, February 7, 2014. We will attempt to meet requests for such accommodations after this date, but cannot guarantee their availability. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

An opportunity for public comment is available on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, from 1:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Individuals who wish to provide comments will be allowed three to five minutes to speak. Those members of the public interested in submitting written comments may do so by submitting them to the attention of Sedika Franklin, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, by Friday, February 21, 2014.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the office of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20202, Monday through Friday (excluding federal holidays) during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Electronic Access to the Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/fedregister/index.html . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-866-512-1830; or in the Washington, DC, area at 202-512-0000.

As the bioenergy industry begins to advance commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol technologies, BETO wants to identify the next step(s) in drop-in hydrocarbon biofuel production. This workshop is intended to discuss, reassess, and prioritize demonstration and deployment efforts needed to realize affordable, scalable, and sustainable hydrocarbon biofuels. The workshop will convene university, national laboratory, industry, advocacy, government and other stakeholders to consider the following questions:

• What is the state of technology regarding the deployment of hydrocarbon biofuels, as well as supportive bioproducts and biopower?

• What are the current technical, conversion, feedstock and logistics, and market barriers to deploying hydrocarbon biofuels?

• What are priority strategies for overcoming such technical barriers?

These discussions will inform DOE's demonstration and deployment strategy, and the results will be presented at a breakout session during the annual Biomass 2014 conference July 29-30th. The workshop will include sessions on past demonstration and deployment successes, lessons learned, goals, research strategies, and facilitated breakout sessions.