Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; Beach Boulevard AICWW Bridge Blasting Project, Duval County, FL, 73913-73922 [E8-28720]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 234 (Thursday, December 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73913-73922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XK27


Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities; 
Beach Boulevard AICWW Bridge Blasting Project, Duval County, FL

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental take authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(IHA) to the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) for the take 
of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, 
incidental to the removal and replacement of support structures for the 
Beach Boulevard Bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICWW) 
in Duval County, FL.

DATES: The IHA is effective from December 1, 2008, through February 28, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA is available by writing to Michael Payne, 
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact 
listed here.
    A copy of the application containing a list of the references used 
in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified 
above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT), or online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, 
by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Ken Hollingshead, 
NMFS, (301) 713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
public for review.
    An authorization 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, and if the permissible methods of 
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and 
reporting of such takings are set forth to achieve the least 
practicable adverse impact. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 
50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the specified activity 
that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, 
adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates 
of recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 
defines ``harassment'' as:

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (I) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential

[[Page 73914]]

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).

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS 
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

    On May 5, 2008, NMFS received a letter from the JTA, requesting an 
IHA. The requested IHA will authorize the take, by harassment, of small 
numbers of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) incidental 
to explosive demolition performed for the purpose of removing support 
structures for the Beach Boulevard Bridge on the AICWW in Duval County, 
Florida. The Beach Boulevard Bridge spans approximately 300 ft (91.5 m) 
over open water. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and St. Johns 
River Water Management District (SJRWMD) have issued Environmental 
Resource Permits to JTA for the replacement of the existing Beach 
Boulevard Bridge over the AICWW. The ACOE issued permit SAJ-2003-9340 
on November 22, 2005, to expand State Road 212 (Beach Boulevard) from 
San Pablo Road to Penman Road in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. 
The permit included authorization to replace Beach Boulevard Bridge 
over the AICWW. The blasting of the bridge will reduce the amount of 
time that tugs and barges are active in the AICWW, thereby reducing 
risks to wildlife.
    Additional information on the blasting project is contained in the 
application and Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), which is 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Specified Activities

    The purpose of the blasting project is to remove twelve support 
structures from the old bridge by explosive demolition. While 
dismantling and discarding the existing bridge spam will be routine, 
the strength and mass of the bridge footers pose a dismantling problem. 
After careful consideration, the bridge contractor, Superior 
Construction, has determined that demolishing the footers with 
explosives is the most practical means of destroying them. The new, 
fully permitted bridge will consist of separate eastbound and westbound 
spans. The new westbound bridge, which is 100 percent constructed and 
in use, occurs where no bridge structure previously existed. The 
location of the future eastbound bridge, which has not yet been 
started, coincides almost exactly with the existing bridge, 
necessitating the full removal of the latter. The existing bridge 
support piers are undersized, relative to the future span's 
requirements, and must be removed to make room for construction 
equipment and the new bridge, particularly its support piles. The 
permitted method of removal of the old bridge allows for the footers to 
be removed via non-explosive means from barges. The barges would have 
to be relocated regularly by a large tug boat for up to three months 
due to the quantity of concrete involved and the limited reach of the 
equipment.
    Under the existing permits, the most practical way of demolishing 
the old bridge supports is to use a hydraulic hoe ram, the equivalent 
of a large jack hammer, mounted on a barge, maneuvered by a tug boat, 
and literally chip the concrete supports into tens of thousands of 
pieces. For demolition of the piers adjacent to the channel, a barge 
with a large chipper will operate from the channel and chip at an angle 
away from the channel. This way, nearly all of the small amount of 
rubble that falls toward the channel will land in the chipper barge.
    There are only two practical ways of taking down the bridge 
supports -- one method entails the aforementioned hoe ram which would 
chip the concrete into tens of thousands of pieces, the other involves 
explosives. Under a hoe ram only (i.e., no blasting) scenario, the 
risks to wildlife stem from tugs and barges operating in the AICWW, for 
a total of 900 hours (90 days x 10 hours per day). An additional impact 
would be incurred by the protracted percussion pounding of the hammer. 
In a blasting scenario, risks to wildlife include the three blast 
events, and tug/barge activity in the AICWW totaling 400 hours (40 days 
x 10 hours per day). A Blasting Plan document has been prepared for 
this proposed action (see JTA's application).

Background

    The JTA currently is in the process of replacing the Beach 
Boulevard Bridge across the AICWW. The project area is depicted in 
Location Map, Exhibit 1 of JTA's application. The new bridge will 
consist of separate eastbound and westbound spans. The new westbound 
bridge, which has been constructed and is in use, occurs where no 
bridge structure previously existed. The location of the future 
eastbound bridge, which has not yet been started, coincides almost 
exactly with the bridge that is being replaced, necessitating the full 
removal of the latter. The existing bridge's support piers are 
undersized, relative to the future span's requirements, and must be 
removed to make room for construction equipment and the new bridge, 
particularly its support piles. JTA plans to demolish the piers with 
controlled explosives.

Baseline Conditions

    The over water portion of the western side of the old bridge is 
supported by four piers of bent piles. The eastern, over water portion 
is supported by four similar piers and four bascule pier piles. 
Concrete coffer dams support the footers on both sides of the navigable 
channel. The below-water plan view of these twelve supports is 
indicated on Salient Features, Plan View, Exhibit 2 of JTA's 
application. The supports on both sides are protected from erosional 
scour by much rip rap and numerous gabions. A navigation channel is 
between the two sets of bent pile piers. A protective fender system is 
in place. Over the years, much rock, gravel, and rip rap has been 
placed in the open water under the bridge.

Blasting Details

    As preface to preparing the 12 structures (the number of supports 
below the mean low water elevation) for explosive demolition and 
consistent with the current permits, each structure will be chipped to 
approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). 
Once the supports have been lowered to 5 ft NGVD, the below water and 
remaining above water portions will be removed by explosives.
    Three separate blast events will take place during the project. The 
locations and sequence of the blasts are indicated on Exhibit 5 of 
JTA's application. In preparation for each blasting event, floating 
turbidity curtains will be deployed within 40 ft (12.2 m) of the 
structures to be blasted. The curtains will minimally be 6 ft (1.8 m) 
long. Curtains longer than 6 ft would be torn and carried away by the 
currents at the bridge and ultimately become waste. Once the curtains 
are in place, the target concrete will be drilled, explosives will be 
placed in the drill holes, and the drill holes will be stemmed. Mats to 
contain debris will be draped over the above water portion of the 
supports. Only after all the measures described in the Marine Wildlife 
Safety Plan and Manatee, Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle Survey

[[Page 73915]]

Watch Plan have been implemented (see Exhibit 7 in JTA's application 
for the location of wildlife spotters), will the blast events occur. 
The duration of each event will be approximately two seconds. The first 
blast is tentatively scheduled for the first week in December 2008 and 
will focus on demolishing the four western supports and underlying 
coffer dam. The second event will occur about 10 days later and destroy 
the supports and coffer dam on the immediate eastern side of the 
channel. The final blast event will take place on or about December 31, 
2008 and will eliminate the four supports situated east of the channel 
and west of the eastern bridge abutment. The existing fenders will be 
removed immediately prior to the final blasting event.
    The radius of dangerous effect or ``harm'' for underwater 
explosives is based on a Navy Diver formula derived for human divers. 
Importantly, the formula is based on an uncontrolled blast suspended in 
the water column; the formula yields an artificially high radius in 
instances of controlled or contained blasts, like the kind proposed at 
the Beach Boulevard Bridge. The Navy Diver formula used for the Safety 
Zone is:
R = [520(W)\1/3\] + 500
where R = Safety Zone radius and W = weight of explosives in pounds per 
delay (0.009 second minimum separation). With 16.5 pounds (lbs) of 
dynamite the maximum explosives per delay, the Safety Zone is 1,824 ft 
(556.4 m). The max/delay of dynamite (16.5 lbs) is equivalent to 13.2 
lbs of TNT. This radius is depicted in Exhibit 7 of JTA's application.

Demolition Debris

    Approximately 3,604 cubic yards (cy) of blast debris is anticipated 
(8 bascule piers, 2,900 cy; 2 coffer dams, 440 cy; and the eastern four 
piers, 264 cy). All of the debris would also have been generated by 
chipping demolition. Most of the debris will remain close to its 
source. Some will fall along side slopes and the bottom of the AICWW 
channel. The average size of the blast debris will be 6 to 9 inches. A 
small percentage of the debris will be finer particles, including dust. 
Some may become displaced by as much as 0.5 cy. The use of mats on the 
above water portions of the supports will prevent fragments from 
traveling through the air. Due to the resistance, portions of the 
supports will prevent fragments from traveling through the air. Due to 
the resistance of the water itself, none of the underwater demolition 
debris will be propelled beyond a 40 ft (12.2 m) radius, see Exhibit 8 
of JTA's application. Unfortunately, the high water flow velocities 
under the bridge preclude most turbidity control measures. This problem 
will be largely offset by the fact that most of the debris will quickly 
settle due to its mass. The very fine material will not have major 
impacts since the AICWW continuously transports a considerable load of 
suspended fine materials in the water column.
    A modicum of rebar is embedded in the piers. This will likely 
remain in place through the blasting. Some rebar may topple into the 
water. All accessible rebar will be removed by heavy equipment (see the 
Debris Removal section below). A very small percentage of the rebar may 
remain in the AICWW.
    The non-explosive deconstruction of the bridge will yield mostly 
large disassembled pieces and large jack-hammered pieces. These will be 
removed by trucks using the remaining bridge. The existing grates, 
which directly overlie the navigation channel, will be easily removed, 
without impeding navigation. A small amount of the span pieces 
inevitably will fall into the water beneath the bridge, outside the 
channel. These will be removed during the removal of the blast rubble 
(see the Debris Removal section below).

Debris Removal

    Quick removal of any blasting debris from the navigation channel is 
imperative. Any debris which affects the cross-sectional and profile 
integrity of the channel will be removed via the dual barge method 
described below, within 6-8 hours of the blasting event.
    Exhibit No. 3 (in JTA's application) indicates bottom contours as 
determined in 2006. The contours were generated with side scanning 
sonar that recorded continuously along nine east/west traverses spaced 
50 ft (15.2 m) apart. A new bottom contour survey will be produced a 
few weeks prior to any chipping demolition. The survey will result from 
a side-scanning sonar recording bottom depths continuously along 40 
east/west traverses spaced 10 ft (3.1 m) apart. The 2008 survey will 
also have 5 ft (1.5 m) contours and serve as the reference for all 
post-demolition debris removal. The survey will be forwarded to ACOE 
and SJRWMD prior to any chipping demolition. Following demolition, 
debris will be removed from the bottom so that only an incidental 
quantity remains post-development. After debris removal, a final survey 
of the bottom will be prepared and submitted to ACOE and SJRWMD. The 
survey will be generated using a side-scanning sonar which records 
bottom depths continuously along 40 east/west traverses spaced 10 ft 
apart. The contour level will be 5 ft.
    Two barges will be used during debris removal. One will have either 
a large back hoe or a small crane that will lift debris from the 
waterway. The second barge will hold the debris. Whether on the east or 
west side of the navigation channel, the paired barges will be oriented 
north/south, thereby keeping the navigation channel largely 
unobstructed. A land based back hoe or crane will empty the barge loads 
into awaiting dump trucks. Creosote soaked piles will be taken to Trail 
Ridge Land Fill in western Duval County, Florida. Concrete and rebar 
will be taken to one of several approved C & D land fills in Duval 
County, Florida. JTA knows of no other practical means of debris 
removal/disposal.
    Additional details regarding the proposed explosive demolition 
project can be found in the SEA: ``Supplemental Assessment on an 
Authorization for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Associated with 
Confined Underwater Blasting as a Construction Method for Removing 
Support Structures of the Beach Boulevard AICWW Bridge Project in Duval 
County, Florida by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority.'' The SEA 
can also be found online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications

Dates, Duration, and Location of Specified Activity

    The bi-directional bridge which is being replaced has been closed 
and currently is undergoing partial disassembly in preparation for 
demolition. Nearly all of the above water part of the bridge will be 
demolished via chipping. The below-water portions and a small-amount of 
the above water portions of the bridge will be demolished by the use of 
explosives. The first blasting event will occur on or shortly after 
December 1, 2008, and the subsequent two blasts will be completed by 
December 31, 2008.
    The existing Beach Boulevard Bridge traverses the AICWW in Sections 
36 and 38, Township 2 South, Ranges 28 and 29 East, Duval County, 
Jacksonville, Florida (see Exhibit 1 of the Blasting Plan in JTA's 
application for more information). Approximate coordinates of the site 
are as follows: 30[deg]17'17'' North latitude, 81[deg]26'18'' West 
longitude.

[[Page 73916]]

Description of Marine Mammals and Habitat Affected in the Activity Area

    Several cetacean species and a single species of sirenian are known 
to or could occur in the Duval County study area and off the Southeast 
Atlantic coastline (see Table 1 below). Species listed as Endangered 
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), includes the humpback, 
sei, fin, blue, North Atlantic right, and sperm whale. The marine 
mammals that occur in the blasting area belong to three taxonomic 
groups: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), and 
sirenians (the manatee). Table 1 below outlines the cetacean species 
and their habitat in the region of the proposed project area.

     Table 1. The habitat and conservation status of marine mammals
inhabiting the proposed study area in the Southeast U.S. Atlantic Ocean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Species                    Habitat              ESA\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes                       Coastal and shelf    EN
North Atlantic right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale                   Pelagic and banks    EN
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryde's whale                    Pelagic and coastal  NL
(Balaenoptera brydei)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke whale                      Shelf, coastal, and  NL
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata)      pelagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue whale                       Pelagic and coastal  EN
(Balaenoptera musculus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sei whale                        Primarily offshore,  EN
(Balaenoptera borealis)           pelagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale                        Slope, mostly        EN
(Balaenoptera physalus)           pelagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontocetes                      Pelagic, deep seas   EN
Sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale            Pelagic              NL
(Ziphius cavirostris)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gervais' beaked whale            Pelagic              NL
(Mesoplodon europaeus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
True's beaked whale              Pelagic              NL
(Mesoplodon mirus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blainville's beaked whale        Pelagic              NL
(Mesoplodon densirostris)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale                Offshore, pelagic    NL
(Kogia sima)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale                Offshore, pelagic    NL
(Kogia breviceps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale                     Widely distributed   NL
(Orcinus orca)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-finned pilot whale         Inshore and          NL
(Globicephala macrorhynchus)      offshore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
False killer whale               Pelagic              NL
(Pseudorca crassidens)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mellon-headed whale              Pelagic              NL
(Peponocephala electra)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy killer whale               Pelagic              NL
(Feresa attenuata)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risso's dolphin                  Pelagic, shelf       NL
(Grampus griseus)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottlenose dolphin               Offshore, inshore,   NL
(Tursiops truncatus)              coastal, estuaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough toothed dolphin            Pelagic              NL
(Steno bredanensis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser's dolphin                 Pelagic              NL
(Lagenodelphis hosei)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped dolphin                  Pelagic              NL
(Stenella coeruleoalba)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pantropical spotted dolphin      Pelagic              NL
(Stenella attenuata)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin         Coastal to pelagic   NL
(Stenella frontalis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spinner dolphin                  Mostly pelagic       NL
(Stenella longirostris)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clymene dolphin                  Pelagic              NL
(Stenella clymene)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenians                        Coastal, rivers and  EN
West Indian (Florida) manatee     estuaries
(Trichechus manatus
 latirostris)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, NL =
  Not listed

    The two species of marine mammals that are known to commonly occur 
in close proximity to the blasting area of the St. Johns River, AICWW, 
and Beach Boulevard (otherwise known as State Road 212- U.S. Highway 
90) are the West Indian (Florida) manatee and Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphin.

Florida Manatee

    The West Indian manatee in Florida and U.S. waters is managed under 
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is 
listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They 
primarily inhabit coastal and inshore waters. The Atlantic population 
of this species frequents the AICWW (Pablo Creek) project vicinity, 
particularly as a migration route in the spring and fall, but may be 
found anytime during the year. The immediate area near the project site 
is considered foraging habitat and animals may potentially loaf for 
long periods of time in the marina basin adjacent to the site, which 
increases the likelihood of manatee presence during the explosive 
demolition of the structures. Manatee occurrences are extremely rare 
during winter months (December, January, and February) in typical years 
because of the cold water temperatures in the waterway and lack of warm 
water refuge sites nearby. To minimize potential involvement with 
manatees from underwater explosions, the optimal timeframe to utilize 
explosives is during the winter months of the year. The USFWS considers 
this timeframe ``the manatee construction window'' for utilizing 
explosives.

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins

    Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical 
and temperate waters, and in U.S. waters occur in multiple complex 
stocks along the U.S. Atlantic coast. According to the 2005 NOAA stock 
assessment report, bottlenose dolphins inhabiting water

[[Page 73917]]

less than 66 ft (20 m) deep are divided into 36 separate inshore or 
coastal stocks while animals in water 66-656 ft (20-200 m) deep 
constitute three continental shelf stocks.
    These complex stock segments of coastal bottlenose dolphins are 
based on a combination of geographical, ecological, and genetic 
research. However, because the data of structure of stocks is complex, 
coastal and continental shelf stocks may overlap, the exact structure 
of these stocks continues to be revised as research is completed. 
Analytical results of the overall genetic variation indicate a minimum 
of five stocks of coastal bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. Atlantic 
coast.
    The action would occur inshore at a depth of less than 66 ft (20.1 
m) and, therefore, has the potential to affect the coastal stocks. From 
genetic analysis, the bottlenose dolphin population around Duval 
County, Florida consists of part of the Western North Atlantic Coastal 
Morphotype stock. This stock may also include demographically distinct 
coastal and resident estuarine populations that are defined by seasonal 
migratory and transient movements throughout large home ranges. The 
movement along the southern portion of the Atlantic coast is poorly 
understood and is currently under study. The resident estuarine stocks 
are likely demographically distinct from coastal stocks and are 
currently included in the coastal management unit definitions. The 
estimated population for the U.S. Western North Atlantic Coastal 
Morphotype stock of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, which are based on 
aerial surveys and counts conducted in winter 1995 and summer 2002, is 
approximately 17,466 animals; but these estimates do not include all 
estuarine waters and the abundance may be negatively biased.
    Based upon available data and analysis, seven management units with 
the range of the coastal morphotype of western North Atlantic 
bottlenose dolphin have been defined, yet the population structure is 
probably more complex and will continue to be refined as research 
efforts continue. The best abundance estimate of the Northern Florida 
management unit is 448 individuals. The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin is 
not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and the U.S. 
coastal migratory stock is considered depleted and the management units 
are considered strategic under the MMPA.
    NMFS defines seven geographic management units within the range of 
the coastal morphotype of the Western North Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphin. The bottlenose dolphin stocks within the Western North 
Atlantic population are complex, and resident estuarine stocks likely 
exist, but they are currently included in coastal management unit 
definitions. Abundance estimates do not exist for estuarine waters. 
Further, each management unit definition likely encompasses seasonal 
residents and migratory or transient animals. Genetic analyses, photo-
identification, radio transmitters, and stable isotope radios of oxygen 
were used to identify the stocks.
    The AICWW Beach Boulevard Bridge project site is in the Northern 
Florida management unit for Atlantic bottlenose dolphin coastal 
morphotypes. Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are known to occur in the 
project area at or within a few hundred feet of the project several 
times a week. Dolphins, when present near the project site, usually 
occur in groups of two or three. Bottlenose dolphin occurrence in the 
Jacksonville area is year-round, however significant seasonal variation 
exists.
    Based on photo-identification and behavioral data, Caldwell (2001) 
identified three behaviorally differentiated bottlenose dolphin 
communities in the Jacksonville, Florida area. These three distinct 
communities have been called Northern, Southern, and Coastal. The 
Northern community has year-round residency and random social 
affiliations, with a mean group size of 5 individuals. The Southern 
community has seasonal residency and non-random social affiliations, 
with a mean group size of 22 individuals. The Coastal community has no 
residency and random social affiliations, with a mean group size of 17 
individuals. The social structure on a small geographic scale of these 
three distinct populations varies based on significant genetic 
differentiation and behavior. Although the three Jacksonville area 
communities use contiguous habitats, the Northern and Southern 
communities are primarily inshore, and the Coastal community generally 
uses the coastal waters of the Jacksonville area from the beach to 1.9 
miles (3 km) offshore (Caldwell, 2001). The Southern and Coastal 
communities have partially overlapping ranges, while the Northern and 
Southern community's ranges may generally be separated by the St. 
John's River. Also, the Southern and Coastal communities are 
behaviorally and genetically differentiated from the Northern community 
(Caldwell, 2001).
    In Florida and other states along the U.S. East Coast, bottlenose 
dolphin abundance and density is often correlated with water 
temperature and season. Significantly fewer dolphins were observed 
during the winter season when water temperature falls below 16 degrees 
Celsius (Caldwell, 2001).
    NMFS anticipates that no bottlenose dolphins will be injured or 
killed during the three blasting events. The specific objective of 
JTA's wildlife watch plan is to ensure that no dolphins (or manatees) 
are in the area during the blast detonations. Because of the 
circumstances and the proposed mitigation and monitoring requirements 
discussed herein this document, NMFS believes it highly unlikely that 
the activities would result in injury (Level A harassment), serious 
injury or mortality of bottlenose dolphins, however, they may 
temporarily avoid the area where the proposed explosive demolition will 
occur. The JTA has requested the incidental take of six bottlenose 
dolphin for the action. The estimated abundance of the Western North 
Atlantic Coastal stock is approximately 17,466 animals and the 
estimated abundance of the North Florida management unit is 
approximately 448 animals. NMFS has determined that the number of 
requested incidental takes for the proposed action are small relative 
to population estimates, of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins.
    Further information on the biology and local distribution of these 
species and others in the region can be found in JTA's application, 
which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES), and the NMFS Marine 
Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

Potential Effects of Activities on Marine Mammals

    In general, potential impacts to marine mammals from explosive 
detonations could include both lethal and non-lethal injury (Level A 
harassment), as well as Level B harassment. In the absence of 
mitigation, marine mammals may be killed or injured as a result of an 
explosive detonation due to the response of air cavities in the body, 
such as the lungs and bubbles in the intestines. Effects are likely to 
be most severe in near surface waters where the reflected shock wave 
creates a region of negative pressure called ``cavitation.''
    A second potential possible cause of mortality is the onset of 
extensive lung hemorrhage. Extensive lung hemorrhage is considered 
debilitating and potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by lung 
hemorrhage is likely to be the major cause of marine mammal death from 
underwater shock waves. The estimated range for the onset of extensive 
lung hemorrhage to marine

[[Page 73918]]

mammals varies depending upon the animal's weight, with the smallest 
mammals having the greatest potential hazard range.
    NMFS' criteria for determining non-lethal injury (Level A 
Harassment) from explosives are the peak pressure that will result in: 
(1) the onset of slight lung hemorrhage, or (2) a 50-percent 
probability level for a rupture of the tympanic membrane (TM). These 
are injuries from which animals would be expected to recover on their 
own.
    NMFS has established dual criteria for what constitutes Level B 
Harassment: (1) An energy based temporary threshold shift (TTS) 
received sound levels 182 dB re 1 [micro]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 Level B harassment zone, therefore, is the 
distance from the mortality, serious injury, injury (Level A 
harassment) zone to the radius where neither of these criterions is 
exceeded.
    The primary potential impact to the Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 
occurring in the St. Johns River and AICWW from the detonations is 
Level B harassment incidental to noise generated by explosives. In the 
absence of any mitigation or monitoring measures, there is a very small 
chance that a marine mammal could be injured or killed when exposed to 
the energy generated from an explosive force on the sea floor. However, 
NMFS believes the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures will 
preclude this possibility in the case of this particular activity.
    Non-lethal injurious impacts (Level A harassment) are defined in 
this proposed IHA as TM rupture and the onset of slight lung injury. 
The threshold for Level A Harassment corresponds to a 50-percent rate 
of TM rupture, which can be stated in terms of an energy flux density 
(EFD) value of 205 dB re 1 [micro]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 295 ft 
(89.9 m).
    Level B (non-injurious) harassment includes temporary (auditory) 
threshold shift (TTS), a slight, recoverable loss of hearing 
sensitivity. One criterion used for TTS is 182 dB re 1 [micro]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 recently been 
established by NMFS to provide a more conservative range of TTS when 
the explosive or animals approaches the sea surface, in which case 
explosive energy is reduced, but the peak pressure is not. The distance 
for 23 psi is 1,180 ft (359.8 m) (NMFS will apply the more conservative 
of these two distances).
    Level B harassment also includes behavioral modifications resulting 
from repeated noise exposures (below TTS) to the same animals (usually 
resident) over a relatively short period of times. Threshold criteria 
for this particular type of harassment are currently still being 
considered. One recommendation is a level of 6 dB below TTS (see 69 FR 
21816, April 22, 2004), which would be 176 dB re 1 [micro]Pa\2\ s. Due, 
however, to the infrequency of detonations, the short overall time 
period of the project, and the continuous movement of marine mammals in 
the AICWW, NMFS believes that behavioral modification from repeated 
exposures to the same animals is highly unlikely.
    The Safety Zone radius of the blast is determined by using the Navy 
Diver Formula for an uncontrolled blast suspended in the water column. 
In the current instance, the formula is conservative since the charges 
to be used for Beach Boulevard Bridge footers will be confined within 
the footers, effectively reducing both the pressure and impulse of a 
water shock wave. In addition, boreholes will be stemmed at the in 
collars to further contain the pressures. The Safety Zone radius 
formula in feet is expressed by the following: R = 520 (W) \1/3\ + 500 
(R = exclusion zone radius, W = weight of explosive in pounds per 
delay)
    For the designed maximum explosives per delay of 16.5 pounds, the 
resulting Safety Zone is 1,824 ft. The max/delay of explosives is 16.5 
lbs dynamite, which is equivalent to 13.2 lbs TNT. A maximum psi of 23 
is used to determine the TTS distance and a maximum psi of 100 is used 
to determine the PTS distance. Cole's equation for determining max 
pressures created by free-field underwater explosions used is expressed 
by the following: P = 21,600 (W \1/3\ / R) \1.13\ (P = pressure, W = 
TNT weight/delay, R= radius in feet)
TTS Distance:
R = (13.2\1/3\) / (23/21,600)\0.885\ = 1,180 ft
PTS Distance:
R = (13.2\1/3\) / (100/21,600)\0.885\ = 295 ft
    NMFS considers the Safety Zone radius calculated using the Navy 
Diver Formula conservative for marine mammals when compared to the 
calculated distances for TTS and PTS. The calculated Safety Zone will 
be used for both Atlantic bottlenose dolphin and the Florida manatee. 
Blasting is anticipated to be completed with three shots occurring over 
a two to three week period. The time frame for the blasting is subject 
to change dependent upon weather, tides, etc.

Comments and Responses

    On Friday, October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63436), NMFS published in the 
Federal Register a notice of a proposed IHA for JTA's request to take 
marine mammals incidental to conducting the removal of bridge support 
structures by explosive demolition, and requested comments regarding 
this proposed IHA (FRNOR). During the 30-day public comment period, 
NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
    Commission Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the 
requested authorization provided that NMFS consult with USFWS to ensure 
that it has reviewed the applicant's recent information supplementing 
the 1999 biological assessment, revised blasting plan, and the current 
Draft Manatee, Marine Mammal, and Sea Turtle Survey Watch Plan.
    Response: Based on correspondence between NMFS, USFWS, and the 
applicant, both agency's have reviewed and determined JTA's recent 
information supplementing the 1999 biological assessment, revised 
blasting plan, and the current Draft Manatee, Marine Mammal, and Sea 
Turtle Survey Watch Plan are sufficient for the proposed action.
    Commission Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the 
requested authorization provided that the applicant be required to 
conduct all practicable monitoring and mitigation measures that 
reasonably can be expected to protect the potentially affected marine 
mammal species from serious injury.
    Response:NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has 
included requirements to this effect in the IHA.
    Commission Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the 
requested authorization provided that operations be suspended 
immediately, pending review by NMFS, if a dead or seriously injured 
marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death 
or injury could have occurred incidental to those operations.

[[Page 73919]]

    Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has 
included a requirement to this effect in the IHA.
    Commission Comment 4: The Commission reiterates its view that an 
across-the-board definition of temporary threshold shift (TTS) as 
constituting no more than Level B harassment inappropriately dismisses 
possible injury (Level A harassment) and biologically significant 
behavioral effects to the affected animals that may occur if an 
animal's hearing is compromised, even temporarily.
    Response: This issue has been addressed several times by NMFS in 
the past and NMFS stated in previous Federal Register notices (68 FR 
64595, November 14, 2003 and 71 FR 76989, December 22, 2006) that the 
reclassification of TTS from Level B to Level A harassment requires 
support and scientific documentation, and not be based on speculation 
that TTS might result in increased predation, for example. In addition, 
it is irrelevant for this IHA, because sound levels will not be high 
since mitigation and monitoring requirements under the IHA is expected 
to prevent TTS. Also, while there has been discussion among scientists 
regarding whether a permanent shift in hearing thresholds (PTS) can 
occur with repeated exposures of TTS, at least one study showed that 
long-term (4-7 years) noise exposure on 3 experimental pinnipeds 
species had caused no change on their underwater hearing thresholds at 
frequencies of 0.2-6.4 kHz (Southall et al., 2005).
    TTS can effect how an animal behaves in response to the 
environment, including conspecifics, predators, and prey. The following 
physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role in inducing 
auditory fatigue: effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 
reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment 
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, 
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and 
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output. 
Ward (1997) suggested that when these effects result in TTS rather than 
PTS they are within the normal bounds of physiological variability and 
tolerance and do not represent a physical injury. Additionally, 
Southall et al. (2007) indicated that although PTS is a tissue injury, 
TTS is not because the reduced hearing sensitivity following exposure 
to intense sound results primarily from fatigue, no loss, of cochlear 
hair cells and supporting structures and is reversible. Accordingly, 
NMFS classifies TTS (when resulting from exposure to underwater 
detonations) as Level B harassment, no Level A harassment (injury).

Incidental Take Authorization Requested

    Provided the proper mitigation and monitoring measures are 
implemented, the blasting activities may result in the incidental 
taking of marine mammals by Level B behavioral harassment only. As a 
result, the JTA has requested an IHA for Level B harassment.
    Level A take (i.e., injury or mortality) due to the explosive 
demolition of bridge support structures is not anticipated during the 
blasting operations. Since the activities will occur during the winter 
season, the abundance of marine mammals in the action area should be at 
its lowest. Injuries or mortalities due to the blasting events are not 
anticipated because of the incorporation of mitigation and monitoring 
measures described below.

Estimated Number of Marine Mammal Takes

    As discussed above, NMFS anticipated that take of marine mammals 
will occur in the form of disturbance from the explosive demolition of 
bridge support structures. As also discussed above, no lethal take is 
expected to result from the blasting activities. Due to NMFS estimates, 
the JTA has been authorized the incidental take of nine Atlantic 
bottlenose dolphins during the effective dates of the three planned 
blasting events.
    The population size of the U.S. Western North Atlantic Coastal 
stock of bottlenose dolphins is estimated to be 17,466 animals. 
Population estimates for the North Florida management unit is estimated 
448 animals. The estimated total possible number of individuals that 
may be incidentally harassed during the project is 9 animals, which is 
0.05 and 2 percent of the respective Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 
population for the Western North Atlantic Coastal stock and North 
Florida management unit for this species. NMFS had determined that 
these are small numbers, relative to population estimates, of Atlantic 
bottlenose dolphins.

Possible Effects of Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The JTA expects the effects on marine mammal habitat to be minimal. 
The existing land cover and land use within the project area include 
the two bridge abutments, the open water of the AICWW, salt marsh, a 
marina to the northeast, and a navigable water body to the southeast. 
The salt marsh, largely occurring north and south of the western bridge 
abutment, is dominated by grasses (Spartina alterniflora and Juncus 
roemaerianus). Invertebrates (mollusks, polychaetes, crustaceans, and 
insects) and terrestrial vertebrates (mammals, wading birds) are common 
marsh associates. Fish frequent the marsh at high and mid-tides. The 
remainder of the submerged area is mud and sand. Polychaetes, 
crustaceans, and mollusks likely occur in areas where tidal flow 
velocity is not high. Fish occur over the bottoms. There is no 
submerged aquatic vegetation in the area.
    The vast majority of the debris from the demolition will be gravel 
size and larger, as well as a small amount of sand-sized pieces 
(indicated in the Demolition Debris section and Exhibit 7 of the 
Blasting Plan). The blast debris will not disperse across an area wider 
than 80 ft (24.4 m).
    No components of the bridge will be purposefully placed in the 
AICWW; only those demolition fragments which are impractical to keep 
out of the water will end up on the bottom. The bascule grates and all 
of the rebar in those portions of the supports that will be chipped 
will undergo controlled removal. Most of the rebar in those portions of 
the supports that will be demolished by explosives will remain intact 
and in place, and therefore will be easily cut and removed with heavy 
machinery. Only a small portion of the support structure rebar will end 
up in the AICWW.
    Most of the horizontal portions of the bridges (i.e., spans) will 
be deconstructed through the use of cranes, large chippers, and trucks. 
Very little of this portion of the bridge will fall into the water. The 
vertical supports will be shipped to an elevation of 5 ft (1.5 m), with 
nearly all of the concrete fragments falling into the open water away 
from the channel, and the steel rebar cut and hauled away for disposal 
or recycling. Rubble generated by the explosive demolition of the 
remaining above water stubs and all of the submerged portions of the 
supports will be removed in accordance with the Debris Removal section 
of the Blasting Plan.
    The profile and cross-section of the channel will be re-established 
within 6-8 hours of each of the three blasting events, as referenced in 
the Debris Removal section of the Blasting Plan. Debris in the project 
area, but outside of the channel, will be removed within 30 days of the 
final blasting event.
    It is anticipated that the blasting events will not physically 
impact the

[[Page 73920]]

marine mammal habitat in the AICWW except for the blast debris which 
falls to the bottom. The anticipated biological impact of the explosive 
demolition is that benthic and water column dwelling vertebrate and 
invertebrate species near the blasts will be killed by pressure waves. 
Restoration of the physical habitat adjacent to the AICWW channel will 
begin within an hour or two of the two related blast events and will 
entail debris removal. Restoration of the physical habitat at the 
bridge will be completed within 30 days of the final blasting and will 
involve re-establishing the pre-blast contours through the use of a 
clamshell dredge and/or large back hoe.
    The activity will have a small and inconsequential impact to the 
physical habitat at/near the bridge. The blasting events will have an 
ephemeral impact on the biological component of the near bridge 
habitat. Temporary disturbance of the project area during the proposed 
blasting activities is not expected to reduce post-construction use of 
the area by resident and transient species. The project is not expected 
to result in loss of bottlenose dolphin habitat. Habitat modifications, 
if any, are anticipated to be inconsequential and are not expected to 
have any effect on the dolphin species and/or stock.
    The blasting versus non-blasting discussion hinges on whether the 
additional 500 hours of permitted tug/barge activity without several 
trained wildlife observers represents a greater risk to wildlife than 
the three proposed blast events which include a Watch Plan specifically 
designed and implemented to minimize risk provided the suggested 
mitigation and monitoring is implemented by JTA.
    Impacts to navigation in the AICWW are expected to be low, whether 
blasting occurs or not. However, it is obvious that a project entailing 
400 hours of tug/barge activity will be less impacting than 900 hours 
of tug/barge operations.
    The only two practical means of removing the existing footers is by 
chipping or explosives, with chipping the no-action alternative, in 
this case. Chipping while protracted, is in fact possible. However, 
risks to wildlife, slight risks to boat navigation and brief channel 
closures are all positively correlated to the demolition duration. 
Therefore, explosive demolition, while not risk-free, is superior to 
chipping.
    The location and nature of the blasting combine to indicate that 
impacts to the AICWW will be limited. The footprint of the bridge in 
the blasting area comprises a channel that experiences high scour, and 
shallower bottoms that are covered with rip rap, gravel, and rocks. It 
is highly manipulated and artificial setting. The blasting will consist 
of three brief shock waves and result in more rubble falling on top of 
the existing rubble.
    Five complications to further impact minimization exist. First the 
area is tidally influenced with the normal tidal range over 4 ft (1.2 
m). The constant ebb and flow limits turbidity control measures. 
Second, the AICWW is comparatively narrow at the bridge crossing, 
leading to strong currents. Third, the currents are bi-directional, 
eliminating any minimization measures that might be implementable at a 
uni-directional flow location. Fourth, interstitial gaps in the rip rap 
and general rubble all but prevent turbidity containment, particularly 
when combined with the three aforementioned complications. Finally, 
maintenance of navigation in the channel severely limits possible 
remediation and containment of blast rubble coming from the eight 
footers next to the channel.
    The JTA anticipates no loss or modification to the habitat used by 
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in the AICWW. The primary source of marine 
mammal habitat impact resulting from the explosive demolition is noise, 
which is intermittent (maximum 3 times per year) and of limited 
duration. The effects of debris (which will be recovered following test 
activities), were analyzed in JTA's application and concluded that 
marine mammal habitat would not be affected.
    NMFS anticipates that the action will result in no impacts to 
marine mammal habitat beyond rendering the areas immediately around the 
bridge support structures less desirable shortly after the blasting 
event. Three blasting events over a two to three week period are 
anticipated during the validity of the IHA.
    Blasting impacts to the AICWW estuarine water column and bottoms 
will consist of three rapidly moving pressure waves. Excepting a very 
small area (approximately 40 ft or 12.2 m) immediately around the 
blasts, the substrate will not be affected. The estuarine water column 
will be affected for a distance less than 1,824 ft (556.4 m) from the 
blasts (according to the commonly used blasting safety formula). The 
impacts will be localized and instantaneous. Impacts to marine mammal, 
invertebrate, and fish species are not expected to be detrimental.

Mitigation

    In the absence of acoustic measurements (due to the high cost and 
complex instrumentation needed), in order to protect endangered, 
threatened, and protected species, the following equation has been 
adopted by the JTA for the blasting project to determine the zone for 
potential harassment, injury or mortality from an open water explosion 
and to assist the JTA in establishing mitigation and monitoring to 
reduce impacts to the lowest level practicable. This equation is 
believed to be conservative because they are based on humans, who are 
more sensitive than dolphins, and on unconfined charges, while the 
proposed blasts in the AICWW will be confined (stemmed) charges. The 
equation, based on the Navy Diver Formula, is:
Safety Zone radius = 520 (lbs/delay)\1/3\ + 500
    The Safety Zone is the approximate distance in feet beyond which 
injury (Level A Harassment) is unlikely from an open water explosion 
and mortality is not expected. This zone will be used for implementing 
mitigation measures for both Florida manatees and Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphins.
    In the AICWW or any area where explosives are required to remove 
bridge support structures, marine mammal protection measures will be 
employed by the JTA. For each explosive charge, the JTA will ensure 
that a detonation will not occur if a marine mammal is sighted by a 
dedicated biologically-trained observer within the safety zone, a 
circular area around the detonation site with the following radius: R = 
520(W)\1/3\ + 500 (520 times the cube root of the weight of the 
explosive charge in pounds) where: R = radius of the safety zone in ft; 
W = weight of the explosive charge in lbs per delay (9 ms minimum 
separation).
    Although the area inside the Safety Zone is considered to be an 
area for potential injury, the JTA and NMFS believe that because all 
explosive charges will be stemmed (placed in drilled hole and tamped 
with rock), the areas for potential mortality and injury will be 
significantly smaller than this area and, therefore, it is unlikely 
that even non-serious injury would occur if as is believed to be the 
case, monitoring and mitigating this zone will be effective. Since 
bottlenose dolphins are commonly found on the surface of the water, 
implementation of a mitigation and monitoring program is expected by 
NMFS to be effective.
    The JTA will implement mitigation measures and a monitoring program 
that will establish the Safety Zone radius to ensure that bottlenose 
dolphins will not be injured during blasting and that impacts will be 
at the lowest level practicable. Additional mitigation measures 
include: (1) confining the

[[Page 73921]]

explosives in a borehole with drill patterns restricted to a minimum of 
8 ft (2.4 m) separation from any other loaded borehole; (2) restricting 
the hours of detonation from 2 hours after sunrise to 1 hour before 
sunset to ensure adequate observation of marine mammals in the Safety 
Zone; (3) staggering the detonation for each explosive hole in order to 
spread the explosive's total overpressure over time; (4) capping or 
stemming the boreholes containing explosives with angular rock or 
crushed stone (sized at 1/20 to 1/8 of the borehole diameter) to a 
minimum of 12 inches in depth in order to reduce the outward potential 
of the blast, thereby reducing the chance of injuring a marine mammal; 
(5) matching, 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; (6) establishing a Safety Zone (1,824 ft) 
for confined blasting based on the maximum weight of explosives 
detonated (16.5 lbs per 25 ms delay) and calculated using the Navy 
Diver Formula; (7) conducting a marine protected species watch (as 
described in the Marine Wildlife Safety Plan and Manatee, Marine 
Mammal, Sea Turtle Survey Watch Plan) with no less than five NMFS-
qualified observers from a small water craft, aircraft, and/or an 
elevated platform on the explosives barge, beginning at least 60 
minutes before and continuing for at least 30 minutes after each 
detonation to ensure that there are no marine mammals in the area at 
the time of detonation; (8) allowing animals to leave the Safety Zone 
under their own volition; and (9) conducting blasts during time periods 
of the year when there are low marine mammal abundance densities. 
Avoiding periods when marine mammals are in the blasting zone is 
another mitigation measure to protect marine mammals from underwater 
explosions. Given the poor water clarity and available habitat in the 
immediate area of the project, the USFWS recommended demolition 
utilizing explosives during the ``manatee construction window'' 
(December-February) when the occurrence or density of marine mammals in 
the Jacksonville area is at its lowest.

Monitoring

    The JTA will be implementing a Marine Wildlife Safety Plan and a 
Manatee, Marine Mammal, and Sea Turtle Watch Plan (Watch Plan) that 
will minimize the possibility of incidental take to pressure waves from 
the blast to the fullest extent practicable. JTA is working on the 
Watch Plan with USFWS, SJRWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission (FWC), and ACOE. The Watch Plan has been prepared to ensure 
the protection of those species large enough to be located visually 
within the zone of blasting activities influence.
    A nearly identical Watch Plan was used during the demolition of the 
Fuller Warren Bridge, which spans approximately 3,600 ft (1,097.6 m) 
over open water in downtown Jacksonville, Florida. The Beach Boulevard 
Bridge spans approximately 300 ft (91.5 m) over open water. Applying 
the same specifications for a project that is more than an order of 
magnitude smaller in scale represents an effort to provide more than 
adequate protection for large wildlife including bottlenose dolphins.
    The observer monitoring program will take place in a large circular 
area around the blasting site (also referred to as the Watch Zone). Any 
marine mammal(s) in the Safety, or Watch Zone will not be forced to 
move out of those zones by human intervention. Detonation shall not 
occur until the animal(s) move(s) out of the Safety Zone on its own 
volition.
    Monitoring and mitigation will consist primarily of surveying and 
taking action to avoid detonating charges when protected species are 
within the Safety Zone radius. The marine wildlife safety observer team 
will consist of five members. The team will have a chief observer, who 
will be the aerial observer in a helicopter, and four other stationary 
ground and/or waterborne observers. Observers will be equipped with 
two-way radios, binoculars, a sighting log, map, signal flags, and 
polarized sunglasses.
    Proposed monitoring requirements in relation to JTA's blasting 
activities will include observations made by the applicant and their 
associates. Information recorded will include species counts, numbers 
of observed disturbances, and descriptions of the disturbance behaviors 
before, during and after blasting activities. Observations of unusual 
behaviors, numbers, or distributions of marine mammals and sea turtles 
in the activity area to NMFS and USFWS so that any potential follow-up 
observations can be conducted by the appropriate personnel. In 
addition, observations of tag-bearing marine mammal, sea turtles, and 
fish carcasses as well as any rare or unusual species of marine mammals 
and fish will be reported to NMFS and USFWS.
    If at any time injury or death of any marine mammal occurs that may 
be a result of the proposed blasting activities, the JTA will suspend 
activities and contact NMFS immediately to determine how best to 
proceed to ensure that another injury or death does not occur and to 
ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the MMPA.
    Several mitigation measures to reduce the potential for harassment 
from explosive demolition activities would be (or are proposed to be 
implemented) implemented as part of the blasting construction 
activities. The potential risk of injury or mortality would be avoided 
with the following proposed mitigation and monitoring measures. 
Monitoring of the test area will continue throughout the activity until 
the last detonation is complete. The activity would be postponed if:
    (1) Any marine mammal is visually detected with the Safety Zone 
(1,824 ft). The delay would continue until the animal(s) that caused 
the postponement is confirmed to be outside the Safety Zone (visually 
observed swimming out of the range and not likely to return).
    (2) Any marine mammal is detected in the Safety Zone and 
subsequently is not seen again. The activity would not continue until 
the last verified location is outside the Safety Zone and the animal is 
moving away from the activity area, or the animal has not been seen for 
at least 30 minutes within the Safety Zone.
    (3) Large schools of fish are observed in the water within the 
Safety Zone. The delay would continue until large schools are confirmed 
to be outside the Safety Zone.
    In the event of a postponement, pre-activity monitoring would 
continue as long as weather and daylight hours allow. If a charge 
failed to explode, mitigation measures would continue while operations 
personnel attempted to recognize and solve the problem, i.e., detonate 
the charge.
    A formal Plan Coordination Meeting will be held no later than three 
days before the first detonation event to review the items listed 
above, to discuss the responsibilities of all parties, and to review 
and approve the schedule of events. Attendees will include the 
contractor's representative, the entire Marine Wildlife Safety Observer 
team, the blasting consultant, the USFWS, FWC, the USCG, and other 
interested environmental parties such as NMFS and Florida Marine 
Patrol. The agenda will be coordinated by Superior Construction with 
the blasting contractor, USFWS, and FDEP. It will include the latest 
information about the possible presence of marine mammals during the 
operation, the logistics of the detonation schedule, the communications 
plan, and the responsibilities of all parties involved.

[[Page 73922]]

A summary report will be submitted to all interested parties.
    Post-activity monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness 
of pre-activity monitoring and mitigation by reporting any sightings of 
dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring, 
concentrating on the area down current of the test site, would commence 
immediately following each detonation and continue for at least one 
hour after the last detonation. The monitoring team would document and 
report to the appropriate marine mammals killed or injured during the 
activity and, if practicable, recover and examine any dead animals. The 
species, number, location, and behavior of any animals observed by the 
teams would be documented and reported to the project leader.
    West Indian manatees, which are federally listed as Endangered 
under the ESA and managed by the USFWS, are not expected in the St. 
John's River and AICWW (Pablo Creek) during the time periods when the 
activities would be conducted. However, if manatees are sighted during 
the activities, the JTA would follow similar mitigation and monitoring 
procedures in place for bottlenose dolphins to avoid impacts, 
suspending activities in any areas manatees are occupying.

Reporting

    After completion of all detonation events, the Chief Observer will 
submit a summary report to regulatory agencies. This report