[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6545-6567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD001


Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; Confined 
Blasting Operations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers During the Port 
of Miami Construction Project in Miami, Florida

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (ACOE) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to 
take small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental 
to confined blasting operations in the Port of Miami in Miami, Florida. 
NMFS has reviewed the application, including all supporting documents, 
and determined that it is adequate and complete. Pursuant to the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on the its 
proposal to issue an IHA to ACOE to incidentally harass, by Level B 
harassment only, marine mammals during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March 6, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to P. 
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine

[[Page 6546]]

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 
mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected]. 
NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than 
the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all 
attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size.
    All comments received are a part of the public record and will 
generally be posted to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    A copy of the application containing a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the above address, 
telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) or visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    This project was previously evaluated by the ACOE under an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) for 
the project was signed on May 22, 2006, which is also available at the 
same internet address. Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by 
appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    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:

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (I) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].

16 U.S.C. 1362(18).

Summary of Request

    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).

Description of the Proposed Specified Activities

    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);

[[Page 6547]]

    (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

[[Page 6548]]

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.

[[Page 6549]]

    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.

Test Blast Program

    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.

Description of the Proposed Dates, Duration, and Specified Geographic 
Region

    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[deg]46'05'' North 80[deg]09'40'' West. See Figure 11 of the 
ACOE's IHA application for more information on the

[[Page 6550]]

location of the project area in the Port of Miami.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Proposed Specified 
Activity

    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.

   Table 1--The Habitat and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals Inhabiting the Proposed Project Area in the
                                   Atlantic Ocean off the U.S. Southeast Coast
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Species                         Habitat                  ESA \1\                  MMPA \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Mysticetes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena  Coastal and shelf......  EN.....................  D.
 glacialis).
Humpback whale (Megaptera              Pelagic, nearshore       EN.....................  D.
 novaeangliae).                         waters, and banks.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei)..  Pelagic and coastal....  NL.....................  NC.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera              Shelf, coastal, and      NL.....................  NC.
 acutorostrata).                        pelagic.
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)...  Pelagic and coastal....  EN.....................  D.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)....  Primarily offshore,      EN.....................  D.
                                        pelagic.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)....  Slope, mostly pelagic..  EN.....................  D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Odontocetes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus).  Pelagic, deep seas.....  EN.....................  D.
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius         Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 cavirostris).
Gervais' beaked whale (Mesoplodon      Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 europaeus).
True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon        Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 mirus).
Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon  Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 densirostris).
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima).......  Offshore, pelagic......  NL.....................  NC.
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps)..  Offshore, pelagic......  NL.....................  NC.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)..........  Widely distributed.....  NL NL EN (Southern       NC NC D (Southern
                                                                 Resident).               Resident, AT1
                                                                                          Transient).
Short-finned pilot whale               Inshore and offshore...  NL.....................  NC.
 (Globicephala macrorhynchus).
False killer whale (Pseudorca          Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 crassidens).
Mellon-headed whale (Peponocephala     Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 electra).
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata)  Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)....  Pelagic, shelf.........  NL.....................  NC.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops           Offshore, Inshore,       NL.....................  NC S (Biscayne Bay and
 truncatus).                            coastal, and estuaries.                           Central Florida
                                                                                          Coastal stocks) D
                                                                                          (Western North
                                                                                          Atlantic Coastal).
Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno          Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 bredanensis).
Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis        Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 hosei).
Striped dolphin (Stenella              Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
 coeruleoalba).
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella  Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC D (Northeastern
 attenuata).                                                                              Offshore).
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella     Coastal to pelagic.....  NL.....................  NC.
 frontalis).
Spinner dolphin (Stenella              Mostly pelagic.........  NL.....................  NC D (Eastern).
 longirostris).
Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene)...  Pelagic................  NL.....................  NC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Sirenians
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Indian (Florida) manatee          Coastal, rivers, and     EN.....................  D.
 (Trichechus manatus latirostris).      estuaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL = Not listed.
\2\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not classified.

    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 Dolphin

    Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical 
and temperate waters, and in U.S. waters occur in multiple complex 
stocks along

[[Page 6551]]

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 Stock

    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

[[Page 6552]]

mortalities and serious injuries would exceed potential biological 
removal, NMFS considers this stock to be a strategic stock.

Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal 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[deg] North south to the western end of Vaca Key (approximately 
24.69[deg] North to 81.11[deg] 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

[[Page 6553]]

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/.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

    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 [mu]Pa\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 [mu]Pa\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.

     Table 2--NMFS's Threshold Criteria and Metrics Utilized for Impact Analyses From the Use of Explosives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mortality             Level A Harassment (Non-lethal injury)  Level B Harassment  Level B Harassment
                                                                           (Non-injurious;     (Non-injurious
                                                                           TTS and             behavioral, Sub-
                                                                           associated          TTS)
                                                                           behavioral
                                                                           disruption [dual
                                                                           criteria])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 psi-msec (onset of severe      205 dB re 1         13 psi-msec         182 dB re 1         177 dB re 1
 lung injury [mass of dolphin      [mu]Pa\2\[middot]   positive pressure   [mu]Pa\2\[middot]   [mu]Pa\2\[middot]
 calf]).                           s EFD (50 percent   (onset of slight    s EFD*; 23 psi      s EFD* (for
                                   of animals would    lung injury).       peak pressure (<    multiple
                                   experience TM                           2,000 lb) 12 psi    detonations
                                   rupture).                               peak pressure (>    only).
                                                                           2,000 lb).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: In greatest \1/3\-octave band above 10 Hz or 100 Hz.

    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 [mu]Pa\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

[[Page 6554]]

shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity. One 
criterion used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\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 
[mu]Pa\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.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    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

[[Page 6555]]

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).

 Table 3--Confined Blast Maximum Charge Weight and Number of Fish Killed
                    During Miami Harbor 2005 Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Max charge
                  Date                     weight/delay     Fish killed
                                               (lb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 2005...........................             112              35
July 26, 2005...........................              85              38
August 10, 2005.........................              17              28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6556]]

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.

Proposed Mitigation

    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 [email protected].
    (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 
([email protected]).
    (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 (ft) = 260 (lbs/delay) 1/3

    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

[[Page 6557]]

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:

R = 260 (W) 1/3

Where:

R = radius of the danger zone in ft
W = weight of the explosive charge in lbs (tetryl or TNT)

    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 (ft) = danger zone + 500 ft

    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 (ft; three times the size of the Danger Zone) = 3 [260 (lbs/
delay) 1/3]

    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

[[Page 6558]]

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.

Proposed Monitoring for Mitigation During Confined Blasting Events

    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

[[Page 6559]]

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.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' 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

[[Page 6560]]

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 
[email protected] and [email protected], and the NMFS 
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299 
([email protected] and [email protected]) (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 [email protected] and 
[email protected], and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal 
Stranding Network (877-433-8299) and/or by email to the Southeast 
Regional Stranding Coordinator ([email protected]) and Southeast 
Regional Stranding Program Administrator ([email protected]). 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 
[email protected] and [email protected], and the NMFS 
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299), and/or 
by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator 
([email protected]) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program 
Administrator ([email protected]), 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.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

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

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[Level B harassment].

The ACOE is requesting the take of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, by 
Level B harassment only, incidental to proposed confined blasting 
activities at Miami Harbor. The ACOE notes that multiple IHAs (up to 
three) would likely be needed and requested for the project due to the 
duration of the planned blasting activities. See Table 2 (above) for 
NMFS's threshold criteria and metrics utilized for impact analyses from 
the use of explosives.

Biscayne Bay Stock

    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[deg] North. The 
photo-ID study that Litz's data is based on encompassed an

[[Page 6561]]

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.

  Table 4--The Estimated Incidental Take of Bottlenose Dolphins From the Biscayne Bay Stock, per Each Blasting
                     Event, Based on the Maximum Charge Weight/Delay and Population Density
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Estimated take                  Estimated take
                                                                     based on     Estimated take     based on
                                                    Danger Zone       minimum      based on best      maximum
               Maximum (lbs/delay)                     (ft)         population      population      population
                                                                   estimate  (69  estimate  (157  estimate  (229
                                                                     animals)        animals)        animals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
450.............................................           1,992           0.072           0.164           0.239
200.............................................           1,518           0.042           0.095           0.139
119.............................................           1,277           0.030           0.067           0.098
50..............................................             957           0.017           0.038           0.055
17..............................................             668           0.008           0.018           0.027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal Stock

    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[deg] North to the 
western end of Vaca Key (approximately 29.69[deg] North to 81.11[deg] 
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

[[Page 6562]]

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.

  Table 5--The Estimated Incidental Take of Bottlenose Dolphins From the Western North Atlantic Central Florida
     Coastal Stock, Per Each Blasting Event, Based on the Maximum Charge Weight/Delay and Population Density
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Estimated take
                                                                                     based on     Estimated take
                                                                    Danger zone       minimum      based on best
                       Maximum (lbs/delay)                             (ft)         population      population
                                                                                     estimate        estimate
                                                                                      (5,094)         (6,318)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
450.............................................................           1,992           0.758           0.940
200.............................................................           1,520           0.441           0.547
119.............................................................           1,279           0.312           0.387
50..............................................................             958           0.175           0.217
17..............................................................             668           0.085           0.106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Summary of Requested Estimated Take

    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,

[[Page 6563]]

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.

Encouraging and Coordination Research

    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.

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers Analyses and Determinations

    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

[[Page 6564]]

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.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    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).

Endangered Species Act

    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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 Sec.  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.

Proposed Authorization

    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

[[Page 6565]]

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 [email protected] and Dr. Allen Foley 
[email protected].
    (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.

Danger Zone R (ft) = 260 (lbs/delay)\1/3\
Exclusion Zone R (ft) = [260 (lbs/delay)\1/3\] + 500 ft
Safety Zone R = 520 (lbs/delay)\1/3\
Watch Zone R = 3 [260 (lbs/delay)\1/3\]

    (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

[[Page 6566]]

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

[[Page 6567]]

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 
[email protected] and [email protected], and the NMFS 
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299 
([email protected] and [email protected]) (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 [email protected] and 
[email protected], and the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal 
Stranding Network (877-433-8299) and/or by email to the Southeast 
Regional Stranding Coordinator ([email protected]) and Southeast 
Regional Stranding Program Administrator ([email protected]). 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 
[email protected] and [email protected], and the NMFS 
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network (877-433-8299), and/or 
by email to the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator 
([email protected]) and Southeast Regional Stranding Program 
Administrator ([email protected]), 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.

Information Solicited

    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.

    Dated: January 29, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02281 Filed 2-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P