Federal Register Vol. 80, No.238,

Title: Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Family Day Care Homes Meal Claim Feasibility Study

Form Number: N/A

OMB Number: Not Yet Assigned.

Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: The objective of this feasibility study is to design and test a data collection method that enables FNS to estimate erroneous payments due to meals claimed improperly by family day care home providers participating in the CACFP. Specifically, the study focuses on accurately estimating meals that are claimed but not served.

The study relies on data from four sources: (1) State agencies that administer the program for FNS, (2) sponsors who manage CACFP on behalf of State agencies, (3) providers that operate family day care homes, and (4) parents with children enrolled in a participating provider's facility. State agencies will provide lists of sponsors including administrative information about them. Sponsors will prepare extant administrative records of participating providers. Providers and parents will provide primary data on meal services and child attendance. Providers will report meal service information via a smart phone application (app) or a reporting Web site; parents will report child attendance via text messaging or a reporting Web site. These data, in combination with extant administrative records collected from sponsors, will be used to estimate improper payments.

The study activities subject to this notice include collecting administrative records and meal serving information from 300 providers associated with 15 sponsors in two States.

For a period of one month, providers selected and assigned to the study group will report meal serving times in addition to their regular meal claims for reimbursement purposes; parents whose children are attending these providers' facilities will report the drop-off and pick-up times of their children on a daily basis. Providers selected and assigned to the control group will take part under the business-as-usual condition and will have no direct involvement in the study as their meal claims will be obtained directly from the sponsors.

Providers and parents in the study group will receive study materials with full details of what they will be asked to do. They will also receive contact information to contact the study team for additional questions.

Affected Public: This study includes three respondent groups: State and local government (state agencies), for-profit or non-profit businesses (CACFP sponsors and family day care home providers), and individuals/households (parents of children enrolled in selected family day care homes).

Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated respondents is 917 (2 State agencies, 15 sponsors, 150 family day care providers, and 750 parents).

Selected States agencies, sponsors and providers are required to support this federally funded study. Upon FNS's approval of the two States selected for this study, a purposive sample of 15 sponsors will be selected to represent sponsors of varying sizes in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

With each selected sponsor, 20 providers will be randomly selected and evenly assigned to a study or control group, i.e., 10 providers to the study group and the other 10 to the control group. Therefore, there will be a total of 300 providers in the study, i.e., 20 providers per sponsor × 15 sponsors. Since the providers assigned to the control group will not be contacted for this study, the respondents will only include the 150 providers in the study group.

Parents can voluntarily participate in the study if their children attend participating providers' day care homes. Assuming an average of five families per provider, the study group will include an initial sample of 750 parents, i.e., 5 families × 10 providers in the study group × 15 sponsors. Assuming that 20% of these parents refuse to participate in the study or fail to report attendance data on the daily basis during the study month, the final analytic sample include approximately 600 parents, i.e., 750 parents × 20%.

Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondent: FNS estimates that the frequency of responses per respondent will average an estimated 24 responses per respondent across the entire collection. Each State agency will provide two responses for the study: (1) Attend an orientation conference call, including reading an advance letter and study materials in preparation for the call and any follow-up communication with the study team after the call; and (2) provide requested information about sponsors, including communication regarding the data request and transfer.

Each sponsor will provide four types of responses: (1) Attend a study orientation conference call including reading an advance letter and study materials before the call and any follow-up communication with the study team after the call; (2) provide monthly meal claim data for November 2016, January 2017, and March 2017 (3 times), including communication about the data transfer; (3) provide administrative records for CACFP day care providers including communication about the data transfer; and (4) facilitate study recruitment as needed.

Each day care home provider selected for the study will provide three types of responses: (1) Review an advance letter and study materials to provide requested child enrollment information, including communication about the study and the requested enrollment information; (2) report meal service information via the smart phone app or the reporting Web site (22 times); and (3) facilitate parent recruitment as needed.

Participating parents will provide two types of responses: (1) Review an advanced letter and study materials to decide whether to participate in the study, including communication with the study team about the study; and (2) if they agree to participate, report child attendance via text messages on their personal mobile phone or a reporting Web site (22 times).

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 17,644 (see table below)

Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time of response varies from three minutes to two hours depending on respondent group, as shown in the table below, with an average estimated time of 0.11 hours for respondents and 0.05 hours for non-respondents.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The total public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 1,875.50 hours. The estimated burden for each type of participant is detailed in the table below.

Title: Residue and Biomass Field Survey.

OMB Control Number: 0535—0251.

Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection for 3 years.

Abstract: The primary objectives of the National Agricultural Statistics Service are to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop production, livestock production, economic statistics, and environmental statistics related to agriculture and to conduct the Census of Agriculture and its follow-on surveys. This project is conducted as a cooperative effort with USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

The Residue and Biomass Field Survey will use as a sampling universe, fields in the South Fork watershed in central Iowa (Buckeye, IA). This study will investigate the effect crop residue removal has on soil and water quality. Measurements of crop residues will be compared with remotely sensed data to measure crop residue cover and soil tillage intensity for the entire watershed. The survey will be conducted in several phases. The farm operators will only be involved in three parts of the complete survey process. After obtaining the operators' permission, field enumerators will return several times during the growing season to measure and collect samples from the target areas. The farm operators will be contacted two other times to collect some additional data relating to cropping practices performed during the growing season.

Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995).

NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, 72 FR 33376, June 15, 2007.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average a total of 70 minutes per respondent for the complete survey cycle.

Respondents: Farmers, ranchers, and farm managers in the South Fork Watershed in Central Iowa.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 100

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 65 hours

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Title: Urban Agriculture Pilot Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-NEW.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to conduct a new information collection for a period of three years.

Abstract: The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has traditionally been focused on production agriculture. This focus has omitted some urban agriculture, which is attracting increased interest from individuals and local governments. In contrast with traditional agriculture, agriculture in urbanized areas tends to be conducted in smaller areas and have less potential for sales. Yet, urban agriculture contributes to the Nation's food security by providing local sources. NASS intends to integrate urban agriculture in future Censuses of Agriculture. In 2015, NASS conducted a small scale urban agriculture study in Baltimore, Maryland. This new data collection will build on the Baltimore project by refining methodology and procedures for: (1) Building the list of potential urban agricultural locations, (2) developing the questionnaire used to collect urban agricultural data, (3) data collection, and (4) summarizing data on urban agriculture. The intent is that the resulting methodology and procedures will be integrated into the 2017 Census of Agriculture to collect data on urban agriculture, in addition to traditional agriculture. This data collection includes surveys to be conducted in two urbanized areas: Seattle, Washington and Austin, Texas. The first survey will be conducted in Seattle. The second survey will be conducted in Austin to address methodological issues that remain after analyzing results from the Baltimore and Seattle projects. All results from these surveys will be used for internal purposes only; no publications will be generated. These surveys will be voluntary.

NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

Estimate of Burden: This collection of information contains two components. The first component consists of up to 50 cognitive interviews (conducted through personal enumeration) and is intended to develop the questionnaire used to gather data on agricultural activity in urbanized areas. Public reporting burden for this component is estimated to average 60 minutes per response. The second component is a survey conducted in two urbanized areas (Seattle, WA and Austin, TX). The sample sizes for the Seattle and Austin surveys will be 390 and 545, respectively. Public reporting burden for this component is estimated to average 50 minutes per response. For this component, NASS plans to use a combination of mailed pre-survey letters, mailed questionnaires, telephone enumeration, and personal enumeration.

Respondents: Individuals and households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 985.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 700 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological, or other forms of information technology collection methods.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

Matters To Be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness-related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; information technology and data requirements; regulatory issues; finance and infrastructure; and workforce development. The Committee's subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agenda's may change to accommodate Committee business. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final detailed agenda's on its Web site, http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/, at least one week prior to the meeting. The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or [email protected] five (5) business days before the meeting.

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC, 20230, or email to [email protected].

For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 12, 2016. Comments received after January 12, 2016, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.

NIST is authorized by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 1 to “facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, consensus-based, industry-led set of standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes to cost-effectively reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure.” 2 In carrying out this function, NIST is directed to “coordinate closely and regularly with relevant private sector personnel and entities, critical infrastructure owners and operators, and other relevant industry organizations.” 3 NIST has taken this approach since February 2013 when Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” 4 tasked the Secretary of Commerce to direct the Director of NIST to lead the development of the Framework.

NIST developed the Framework by using information collected through a Request for Information (RFI) that was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 13024) on February 26, 2013; a series of five open public workshops; 5 and a 45-day public comment period in response to a draft version of the Framework announced in the Federal Register (78 FR 64478) on October 29, 2013. A final version of Framework 1.0 was published on February 12, 2014, after a year-long, open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive industry input and public comments, and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 9167) on February 18, 2014. NIST subsequently solicited information on Framework users' experiences through an RFI published in the Federal Register (79 FR 50891) on August 26, 2014 as well as another workshop held on October 29 and 30, 2014, at the University of South Florida.

In addition to extensive outreach and providing responses to inquiries, NIST has made information about the Cybersecurity Framework available on its Web site at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/ to assist organizations in learning more about using the Framework. This includes an Industry Resources page (available at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-industry-resources.cfm), listing publicly available materials developed by organizations other than NIST that support use of the Framework. NIST does not necessarily endorse, approve, or recommend any of the commercial entities, equipment, or materials listed on the Industry Resources page, nor does it imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Since the Framework's release as version 1.0, NIST has continued to work on topics raised during the Framework's development but not integrated into version 1.0 of the Framework. These are listed in the NIST Roadmap for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. Significant progress has been made in several of these areas, through programs like the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.

Continuing its inclusive approach, in advance of any decision regarding possible updates of the Framework and Framework stewardship, NIST is interested in hearing from all stakeholders.6

In this RFI, NIST seeks specific information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used and the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared and might be enhanced, and the long-term governance of Framework. This information is needed to carry out NIST's statutory responsibilities with the ultimate goal of assisting organizations as they seek to improve their cybersecurity risk management practices.

Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Do not include in comments or otherwise submit proprietary or confidential information, as all comments received in response to this RFI will be made available publicly at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-rfi.cfm.

Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this RFI using the template available at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-rfi.cfm. Use of this template is not required and all responses that comply with the requirements listed in the ADDRESSES and DATES section of this notice will be considered whether or not the template is used.

While the Framework and associated outreach activities by NIST have focused on critical infrastructure, this RFI generally uses the broader term “organizations” in seeking information.

The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks comment. They are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include any topic believed to have implications for the voluntary use and subsequent improvement of the Framework, regardless of whether the topic is included in this document.

1. Describe your organization and its interest in the Framework.

2. Indicate whether you are responding as a Framework user/non-user, subject matter expert, or whether you represent multiple organizations that are or are not using the Framework.

3. If your organization uses the Framework, how do you use it? (e.g., internal management and communications, vendor management, C-suite communication).

4. What has been your organization's experience utilizing specific portions of the Framework (e.g., Core, Profile, Implementation Tiers, Privacy Methodology)?

5. What portions of the Framework are most useful?

6. What portions of the Framework are least useful?

7. Has your organization's use of the Framework been limited in any way? If so, what is limiting your use of the Framework (e.g., sector circumstance, organizational factors, Framework features, lack of awareness)?

8. To what extent do you believe the Framework has helped reduce your cybersecurity risk? Please cite the metrics you use to track such reductions, if any.

9. What steps should be taken to “prevent duplication of regulatory processes and prevent conflict with or superseding of regulatory requirements, mandatory standards, and related processes” as required by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014? 7

10. Should the Framework be updated? Why or why not?

11. What portions of the Framework (if any) should be changed or removed? What elements (if any) should be added to the Framework? Please be as specific as possible.

12. Are there additions, updates or changes to the Framework's references to cybersecurity standards, guidelines, and practices that should be considered for the update to the Framework?

13. Are there approaches undertaken by organizations—including those documented in sector-wide implementation guides—that could help other sectors or organizations if they were incorporated into the Framework?

14. Should developments made in the nine areas identified by NIST in its Framework-related “Roadmap” 8 be used to inform any updates to the Framework? If so, how?

15. What is the best way to update the Framework while minimizing disruption for those currently using the Framework?

16. Has information that has been shared by NIST or others affected your use the Framework? If so, please describe briefly what those resources are and what the effect has been on your use of the Framework. What resources, if any, have been most useful?

17. What, if anything, is inhibiting the sharing of best practices?

18. What steps could the U.S. government take to increase sharing of best practices?

19. What kind of program would help increase the likelihood that organizations would share information about their experiences, or the depth and breadth of information sharing (e.g., peer-recognition, trade association, consortia, federal agency)?

20. What should be the private sector's involvement in the future governance of the Framework?

21. Should NIST consider transitioning some or even all of the Framework's coordination to another organization?

22. If so, what might be transitioned (e.g., all, Core, Profile, Implementation Tiers, Informative References, methodologies)?

23. If so, to what kind of organization (e.g., not-for-profit, for-profit; U.S. organization, multinational organization) could it be transitioned, and could it be self-sustaining?

24. How might any potential transition affect those currently using the Framework? In the event of a transition, what steps might be taken to minimize or prevent disruption for those currently using the Framework?

25. What factors should be used to evaluate whether the transition partner (or partners) has the capacity to work closely and effectively with domestic and international organizations and governments, in light of the importance of aligning cybersecurity standards, guidelines, and practices within the United States and globally?

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages fishing activities in the Rose Atoll Marine, Marianas Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments. Regulations at 50 CFR part 665 require the owner and operator of a vessel used to non-commercially fish for, take, retain, or possess any management unit species in these monuments to hold a valid permit.

Regulations also require the owner and operator of a vessel that is chartered to fish recreationally for, take, retain, or possess, any management unit species in these monuments to hold a valid permit. The fishing vessel must be registered to the permit. The charter business must be established legally in the permit area where it will operate. Charter vessel clients are not required to have a permit.

The permit application collects basic information about the permit applicant, type of operation, vessel, and permit area. NMFS uses this information to determine permit eligibility. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.

Regulations also require the vessel operator to report a complete record of catch, effort, and other data on a NMFS logsheet. The vessel operator must record all requested information on the logsheet within 24 hours of the completion of each fishing day. The vessel operator also must sign, date, and submit the form to NMFS within 30 days of the end of each fishing trip.

NMFS collects information on paper permit applications and logsheets.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0664.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes per permit application; 20 minutes per logsheet form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 40.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

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 small numbers 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 for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. 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 U.S. can apply for a one-year authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, provided that there is no potential for serious injury or mortality to result from the activity. 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 the authorization.

On October 22, 2013, CALTRANS submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) incidental to construction associated with the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project in the city of Santa Cruz, California, for a period of one year starting March 2016. After receiving NMFS comments and questions, CALTRANS submitted a revised IHA application on February 17, 2015. NMFS determined the IHA application was complete on May 29, 2015, and proposes to issue an IHA that would be valid between March 1, 2016, and February 28, 2016. NMFS is proposing to authorize the Level B harassment of Pacific harbor seal and California sea lion.

The proposed project consists of a seismic retrofit of the existing Murray Street Bridge, which spans the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor and additional minor modifications to replace deficient bridge barriers (widening shoulders to standard widths and replacement and improvement of sidewalks and railings). The seismic retrofit project will provide the bridge with additional vertical support and resistance to lateral seismic forces by installing additional pilings and supplemental structural elements. In order to provide sufficient area for construction operations, some boats, Harbor facilities, and commercial businesses will require temporary relocation. Pile installation would include both impact and vibratory pile driving methods.

The nine-span bridge is supported by two abutments (identified as Abutments 1 and 10, located at the western and eastern ends of the bridge, respectively) and 8 “bents” (identified as Bents 2 through 9, located at 60-foot intervals between the abutments). The seismic retrofit project consists of the following basic in-water elements:

• Installation of concrete infill walls at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 9 to span the voids between the existing concrete support columns. The infill walls will also span the void between the existing and new columns at Bent 9.

• Installation of shear keys and seat extenders at Bents 2 through 9.

• Retrofit of foundations with 16-inch diameter CISS (cast-in-steel-shell) piles at Bent 9. These piles will extend to depths of approximately −55 feet to −90 feet at Bent 9.

• Retrofit of both outriggers and bents with 30-inch diameter CISS piles at Bents 6, 7, and 8 and 30-inch diameter CIDH piles at Bents 2, 3, 4, and 5. These piles will extend to depths of approximately −55 feet to −85 feet at Bent 5 and at approximately −85 feet to −120 feet at Bents 6-8.

• Installation of fenders to protect boats passing by the pier foundations, new pile caps at Bents, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and replacement of existing fender.

A summary of in-water piles to be removed and installed is listed in Table 1.

The Murray Street Bridge Retrofit project is currently planned to commence in the spring of 2016. Overall, the seismic retrofit work will be executed over a period of approximately 18 months, with in-water construction lasting for an approximate total 10-month period over two years with 5 months during the first year and 5 months during the second year. The in-water pile driving for the bridge piles would occur over a total of 30 days within the 10-month period. Due to in-water work timing restrictions to protect federally-listed salmonids, all in-water construction activities including pile removal/installation would occur between the period from July 1 to mid-November. This IHA would cover activities conducted March 1, 2016-February 28, 2017.

The project area includes waters within the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor and adjacent lands managed by the Santa Cruz Port District (see Figure 2 of the IHA application). The study area consists of the open waters, docks, and other potential haul-out features of the Harbor from the Harbor Launch Ramp area (including the fuel dock and Vessel Assist dock) to 500 feet upstream of the boundary of the Area of Impact (see Figure 2 of the IHA application).

The Murray Street Bridge Retrofit project is tentatively proposed for construction in five partially overlapping interchangeable phases. Generally, work will begin on the eastern side of the Harbor and progress to the western side.

Details of each activity for the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project are provided below.

(1) Installation of Bridge Piles: The most intense activity would be the installation of new bridge support piles, which will also involve the demolition of the existing piles at Bent 6. CISS piles at Bents 5 through 8 will be installed within the waterway by impact driving 30-inch steel casings either to refusal at rock or into a shaft drilled within rock (depending on the location). The installation of new piles at Bents 5 through 8 will include two piles on each side for a total of 16 piles in the water. The work activity will be focused within the area of the bridge. Overall the installation of piles is expected to take a total of approximately 1 day for each 30-inch pile and 4 days for 8 16-inch piles for a total of 30 days. The installation of these piles requires the use of a crane(s), a drilling rig, a pile driver, excavation and earthmoving equipment, concrete trucks and pumps, concrete vibrators, supply trucks, welding equipment, and other machinery.

(2) Installation of In-Water Barge or Temporary Bridge Trestle: Installation of an in-water barge or temporary bridge trestle is planned to accommodate equipment for pile installation. The installation would be done using impact and vibratory hammers. Work within the waterway will require either the use of barges or construction of trestles to provide work platforms. If barges are utilized, prefabricated modular units may be brought to the site and locked together. This type of platform can be installed, reconfigured, and removed relatively quickly, but the system is not suitable for areas that are too narrow to accommodate the modules. For example, footings from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge to the north and footings from the Murray Street Bridge appear too close together to allow use of a modular barge between footings. In these areas, a trestle likely will need to be constructed.

(3) Removal and Replacement of Boat Berths: The temporary use of portions of the eastern harbor boat yard and the western parking lot for contractor staging, in combination with provision of construction access to the bridge from the waterway, will result in temporary disruptions of harbor activities including temporary removal of existing boat berths and replacement upon completion of the project. To accommodate construction staging and in-water construction, the project calls for the temporary relocation of berths at Dock FF and Dock BY (Boat Yard on east side) to existing visitor berths with reconstruction of Dock FF and Dock BY upon completion of the bridge seismic retrofit construction. Dock FF accommodates University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) boats that are used for university classes. A walking dock (gangway) would be constructed to connect the existing parking lot area to the portion of Dock FF that will remain during construction. Six temporary berths may be constructed adjacent to the gangway to minimize relocation of some of the existing boats. Upon completion of construction, no additional new boat berths will be constructed as was originally proposed. Although design plans have not yet been completed for the reinstalled berths, it is expected that the berth docks would be plastic, wood or concrete over polyethylene floats and would be anchored with pilings. Piles would be driven into the harbor floor by impact hammer. There would be no dredging or placement of fill in harbor waters with reinstallation of docks and both berths.

The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction most likely to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).

General information on the marine mammal species found in Oregon coastal waters can be found in Caretta et al. (2015), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/pacific_sars_2014_final_noaa_swfsc_tm_549.pdf. Refer to that document for information on these species. A list of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action and their status are provided in Table 2. Specific information concerning these species in the vicinity of the proposed action area is provided in detail in the CALTRANS' IHA application (CALTRANS, 2015).

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., pile removal and pile driving) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, the “Proposed Mitigation” section, and the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall et al. (2007) designate “functional hearing groups” for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz;

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;

• High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and

• Pinnipeds in Water: Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.

As mentioned previously in this document, two marine mammal species (both are pinniped species) are likely to occur in the proposed seismic survey area.

Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound repeatedly or for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002; 2005). TS can be permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is unrecoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold will recover over time (Southall et al. 2007). Since marine mammals depend on acoustic cues for vital biological functions, such as orientation, communication, finding prey, and avoiding predators, hearing impairment could result in the reduced ability of marine mammals to detect or interpret important sounds. Repeated noise exposure that causes TTS could lead to PTS.

Experiments on a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) showed that exposure to a single watergun impulse at a received level of 207 kPa (or 30 psi) peak-to-peak (p-p), which is equivalent to 228 dB (p-p) re 1 μPa, resulted in a 7 and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds returned to within 2 dB of the pre-exposure level within 4 minutes of the exposure (Finneran et al. 2002). No TTS was observed in the bottlenose dolphin. Although the source level of one hammer strike for pile driving is expected to be much lower than the single watergun impulse cited here, animals being exposed for a prolonged period to repeated hammer strikes could receive more noise exposure in terms of sound exposure level (SEL) than from the single watergun impulse (estimated at 188 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in the aforementioned experiment (Finneran et al. 2002).

Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals that utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al. 2009). Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by other sounds, often at similar frequencies. Masking generally occurs when sounds in the environment are louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal is trying to receive. Masking can interfere with detection of acoustic signals, such as communication calls, echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds important to marine mammals. Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustical sensors or environment are being severely masked could also be impaired.

Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize. Since noise generated from in-water vibratory pile removal and driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have little effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales), which may hunt California sea lion and harbor seal. However, the lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect the detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds, such as surf and prey noise. The noises may also affect communication signals when those signals occur near the noise band, and thus reduce the communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al. 2009) and cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009).

Unlike TS, masking can potentially impact the species at community, population, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could, in certain circumstances, have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels in the world's oceans have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 3 times, in terms of SPL) from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic noise sources, such as those from vessel traffic and pile removal and driving, contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels, thus intensifying masking.

Finally, in addition to TS and masking, exposure of marine mammals to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson et al. 1995), such as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities, such as socializing or feeding; visible startle response or aggressive behavior, such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping; avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries). The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography), and is therefore difficult to predict (Southall et al. 2007). The activities of workers in the project area may also cause behavioral reactions by marine mammals, such as pinnipeds flushing from the jetty or pier or moving farther from the disturbance to forage. However, observations of the area show that it is unlikely that more than 10 to 20 individuals of pinnipeds would be present in the project vicinity at any one time. Therefore, even if pinnipeds were flushed from the haul-out, a stampede is very unlikely, due to the relatively low number of animals onsite. In addition, proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the startle behavior of pinnipeds and prevent the animals from flushing into the water.

The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Some of these types of significant behavioral modifications include: Drastic change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to be causing beaked whale strandings due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar); habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and cessation of feeding or social interaction.

The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.

With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga et al. 1981) and possibly avoid predators (Wilson and Dill 2002). Experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural background noise level.

The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas et al. 1993). In general, fish react more strongly to pulses of sound rather than non-pulse signals (such as noise from pile driving) (Blaxter et al. 1981), and a quicker alarm response is elicited when the sound signal intensity rises rapidly compared to sound rising more slowly to the same level.

During the coastal construction only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where construction work is planned.

Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

For CALTRANS' proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project, CALTRANS worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, to monitor marine mammals within designated zones of influence (ZOI) corresponding to NMFS' current Level B harassment thresholds and, if marine mammals are detected within or approaching the exclusion zone, to initiate immediate shutdown or power down of the impact piling hammer, making it very unlikely potential injury or TTS to marine mammals would occur and ensuring that Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals would be reduced to the lowest level practicable.

Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.

All known and potential artificial structures could be used by pinnipeds for haul‐out that occur in the construction work area would be removed, preferably to a near‐by location outside of the work area prior to construction. These structures could include floating docks (i.e. Dock FF), rubber docks, or boats, such as those used by UCSC.

Prior to in‐water construction, the approved monitor would conduct a workers training to instruct construction crews regarding the status and sensitivity of the target species in the area and the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in the event of a target species entering the in‐water work area.

A 10-m (33 ft) radius around the piling site should be established as an exclusion zone. The commencement of pile driving activities should be delayed if marine mammals are present within the exclusion zone. This exclusion zone is based on measured source level at 10 m by CALTRANS (2012) where the noise level reached 190 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving of a 30-in diameter steel pile in similar environment. There would be no exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving. Each day prior to the start of pile‐driving, the PSO would survey the exclusion zone for marine mammals. If a pinniped is detected, impact pile driving would be delayed until the marine pinniped(s) has moved beyond the exclusion zone, verified by visual confirmation or lack of visual sighting within the next 15 minutes of the last sighting, to assume that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.

A 1,000-m (0.62-mi) radius around the piling site should be established as a preliminary zone of influence (ZOI) for impact pile driving. This distances is calculated based on practical spreading model where the edge of the ZOI correspond to received level falls to 160 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving. The preliminary ZOI would be adjusted based on a measurement of the distance to the 160 dB isopleth. CALTRANS stated that it would not be able to monitor beyond several km for marine mammal takes. Therefore, if underwater acoustic monitoring shows that the 120 dB isopleth for vibratory pile driving is beyond 1,000 m, CALTRANS would not use vibratory pile driving for this project. A summary of modeled exclusion zone and ZOI radii based on CALTRANS (2012) is listed in Table 3.

CALTRANS would implement “soft start” (or ramp up) to reduce potential startling behavioral responses from marine mammals. Soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure would be repeated two additional times. Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, CALTRANS would use the soft-start technique at the beginning of pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than one hour.

CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is sighted approaching the Level A exclusion zone. In-water construction activities shall be suspended until the marine mammal is sighted moving away from the exclusion zone, or if the animal is not sighted for 30 minutes after the shutdown.

In addition, CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued), if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.

Furthermore, CALTRANS shall implant shutdown measures if any marine mammals not authorized under the IHA (if issued) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:

• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals

• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned

• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

(3) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of pile driving and pile removal, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).

(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).

(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. CALTRANS submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application. It can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. The plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period.

Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;

(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

During in-water pile driving, CALTRANS would employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project. The PSOs would observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and after all pile removal and pile installation work. If a PSO observes a marine mammal approaching the exclusion zone, in-water impact pile driving would be ceased immediately. In addition, if a PSO observes a marine mammal within a ZOI that appears to be disturbed by the work activity, the PSO would notify the work crew to initiate shutdown measures.

Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power). The PSO(s) should be deployed in locations with the best vantage point where the entire ZOI can be monitored.

CALTRANS would also conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of its initial pile driving to establish exclusion zones and ZOIs based on acoustic measurements. CALTRANS would also submit the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for NMFS approval before the measurements are conducted. The size of these zones listed in Table 3 may be adjusted based on in situ acoustic measurements.

Data collection during marine mammal monitoring would consist of a count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior (if possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction that is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. Environmental conditions such as weather, visibility, temperature, tide level, current, and sea state would also be recorded.

CALTRANS would be required to submit a final monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, CALTRANS would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.

In addition, NMFS would require CALTRANS to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' Stranding Network within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the vicinity of the construction site. CALTRANS shall provide NMFS with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).

In the event that CALTRANS finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the vicinity of the construction area, CALTRANS would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.

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].

As discussed above, in-water pile removal and pile driving (vibratory and impact) generate loud noises that could potentially harass marine mammals in the vicinity of CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project.

As mentioned earlier in this document, currently NMFS uses 120 dB re 1 μPa and 160 dB re 1 μPa at the received levels for the onset of Level B harassment from non-impulse (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulse sources (impact pile driving) underwater, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the current NMFS marine mammal take criteria.

Numbers of marine mammals that could be incidentally harassed are calculated by estimating the maximum number of marine mammal being present within a ZOI during active pile driving based on estimates of numbers of animals identified during the marine mammal surveys. Numbers of residential harbor seals are expected to be at a maximum during the season in which surveys were conducted (outside of breeding and molting seasons).

Pile driving (in‐water and on‐land) estimates are based on the maximum number of days that pile driving could potentially occur (installation of 42 permanent bridge; installation and removal of 120 temporary piles to support a construction trestle, if used; removal and reinstallation 35 boat berth piles, and removal of 4 existing bridge piles. In total, up to 49 days of pile driving and 15.5 days of pile removal are anticipated.

For the exposure estimate, it is conservatively assumed that the highest count of sea lions, harbor seals, and sea otters observed will be foraging within the ZOI and be exposed multiple times during the Project.

The calculation for estimated marine mammal takes is:

Numbers of animals in the proposed project area are based on CALTRANS marine mammal counts conducted in September and October, 2009. Estimates include the number of anticipated instances of Level B acoustical harassment during impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal. All estimates are conservative, as pile removal/driving would not be continuous during the work day. Additionally, the number of individual marine mammals taken is anticipated to be lower than the number of estimated instances, because we expect some individuals to be taken on multiple days. Using this approach, a summary of estimated instances of takes of marine mammals incidental to CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project are provided in Table 5.

Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to both species listed in Table 5, given that the anticipated effects of CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.

CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project would involve vibratory pile removal and impact pile driving activities. Elevated underwater noises are expected to be generated as a result of these activities. The exclusion zone for Level A harassment is extremely small (10 m from the source), and with the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures described above, there would be no Level A take of marine mammals. For vibratory pile removal and pile driving, noise levels are not expected to reach the level that may cause TTS, injury (including PTS), or mortality to marine mammals.

Additionally, the sum of noise from CALTRANS's proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit activities is confined to a limited area within the Santa Cruz Harbor; therefore, the noise generated is not expected to contribute to increased ocean ambient noise outside the Harbor. In addition, due to shallow water depths in the project area, underwater sound propagation of low-frequency sound (which is the major noise source from pile driving) is expected to be poor.

In addition, CALTRANS's proposed activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit work. The entire project would involve the removal of 4 existing piles and installation of 24 in-water piles. The duration for pile removal and pile driving would be 30 days within the 10-month period. These low-intensity, localized, and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and behavioral modifications even further. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the proposed action area. Therefore, the take resulting from the proposed Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit work is not reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

The proposed project area is not a prime habitat for marine mammals, nor is it considered an area frequented by marine mammals. Behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic noise associated with CALTRANS's construction activities are expected to affect only a small number of marine mammals on an infrequent and limited basis.

The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from CALTRANS's Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Based on analyses provided above, it is estimated that approximately 710 harbor seals and 968 California sea lions could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment from the proposed construction work at the Murray Street Bridge in Santa Cruz, California. These numbers represent approximately 2.29% and 0.32% of the populations of harbor seal and California sea lion, respectively, that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment, respectively (see Table 5 above), which are small percentages relative to the total populations of the affected species or stocks. Accordingly, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the proposed project area; and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

NMFS has determined that issuance of the IHA will have no effect on listed marine mammals, as none are known to occur in the action area.

NMFS prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed issuance of an IHA, pursuant to NEPA, to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA.

As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CALTRANS for conducting the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is provided next.

1. This Authorization is valid from March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017.

2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated in-water construction work at the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofit project in Santa Cruz, California.

3. (a) The species authorized for incidental harassment takings, Level B harassment only, are: Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).

(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:

• Impact pile driving;

• Vibratory pile removal; and

• Work associated with above piling activities.

(c) The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization must be reported within 24 hours of the taking to the West Coast Administrator (206-526-6150), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at (301) 427-8401, or her designee (301-427-8401).

4. The holder of this Authorization must notify the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at least 48 hours prior to the start of activities identified in 3(b) (unless constrained by the date of issuance of this Authorization in which case notification shall be made as soon as possible).

5. Prohibitions

(a) The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 5. The taking by Level A harassment, injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.

(b) The taking of any marine mammal is prohibited whenever the required protected species observers (PSOs), required by condition 7(a), are not present in conformance with condition 7(a) of this Authorization.

6. Mitigation

(a) Time Restriction

In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.

(b) Pre-Construction Removal of Artificial Haul-out Sites.

All known and potential artificial structures could be used by pinnipeds for haul‐out that occur in the construction work area shall be removed. These structures include floating docks (i.e. Dock FF), rubber docks, or boats.

(c) Pre-Construction Workers Training

Prior to in‐water construction, construction crews should be trained regarding the status and sensitivity of the target species in the area and the actions to be taken to avoid or minimize impacts in the event of a target species entering the in‐water work area.

(d) Establish Exclusion Zones

A 10-m (33 ft) radius around the piling site should be established as an exclusion zone. This exclusion zone is based on received sound levels exceed 190 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving.

(e) Establishment of Level B Harassment Zones of Influence

A 1,000-m (0.62-mi) radius around the piling site should be established as a preliminary zone of influence (ZOI) for impact pile driving and for vibratory pile removal. The distance to the edge of the ZOI correspond to received level falls to 160 dB re 1 μPa from impact pile driving and 120 dB re 1 μPa from vibratory pile removal.

(f) Soft Start

(i) CALTRANS shall implement “soft start” (or ramp up) to reduce potential startling behavioral responses from marine mammals.

(ii) Soft start requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure would be repeated two additional times.

(iii) Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.

(iv) Each day, CALTRANS would use the soft-start technique at the beginning of pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than one hour.

(g) Shutdown Measures

(i) CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is sighted approaching the Level A exclusion zone. In-water construction activities shall be suspended until the marine mammal is sighted moving away from the exclusion zone, or if the animal is not sighted for 30 minutes after the shutdown.

(ii) CALTRANS shall implement shutdown measures if the number of any allotted marine mammal takes reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued), if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.

(iii) CALTRANS shall implant shutdown measures if any marine mammals not authorized under the IHA (if issued) are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B ZOI during in-water pile driving.

7. Monitoring:

(a) Visual Monitoring

(i) CALTRANS shall employ NMFS-approved PSO(s) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project.

(ii) Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (e.g., Zeiss, 10 x 42 power).

(iii) The PSO(s) should be deployed in locations with the best vantage point where the entire ZOI can be monitored.

(iv) The PSO(s) shall observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work.

(v) Data collection during marine mammal monitoring would consist of a count of all marine mammals by species, a description of behavior (if possible), location, direction of movement, type of construction that is occurring, time that pile replacement work begins and ends, any acoustic or visual disturbance, and time of the observation. Environmental conditions: Weather, visibility, temperature, tide level, current, and sea state shall also be recorded.

(b) Hydroacoustic Monitoring

(i) CALTRANS shall conduct hydroacoustic monitoring of its initial pile driving to establish exclusion zones and ZOIs based on acoustic measurements.

(ii) CALTRANS shall submit the hydroacoustic monitoring plan for NMFS approval before the measurements are conducted.

(iii) The size of modeled exclusion zones and ZOIs may be adjusted based on in situ acoustic measurements.

8. Reporting:

(a) CALTRANS shall provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the construction work or within 90 days of the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes first. This report shall detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed.

(b) If comments are received from the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator or NMFS Office of Protected Resources on the draft report, a final report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days thereafter. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final report.

(c) In the unanticipated event that the construction activities clearly cause the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this Authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality, CALTRANS shall immediately cease all operations and immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the following information:

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

(ii) Description of the incident;

(iii) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

(iv) Environmental conditions (including wind speed and direction, sea state, cloud cover, visibility, and water depth);

(v) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

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

(vii) The fate of the animal(s); and

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

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

(E) In the event that CALTRANS 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), CALTRANS will immediately report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators. The report must include the same information identified above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with CALTRANS to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

(F) In the event that CALTRANS 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), CALTRANS shall report the incident to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinators, within 24 hours of the discovery. CALTRANS shall provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network. CALTRANS can continue its operations under such a case.

9. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals, or if there is an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for subsistence uses.

10. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Murray Street Bridge seismic retrofits project.

On 10/30/2015 (80 FR 66880) and 11/6/2015 (80 FR 68860-68862), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entity of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

CNCS has contracted with Abt Associates to support CNCS's Office of Research and Evaluation to implement a process evaluation of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Pay for Success (PFS) Grant Program. The major data collection activities to be undertaken subject to this notice will include two surveys: (1) Grantee Survey, and (2) Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey. Survey information will be collected from current and future SIF PFS grantees and their subgrantees/subrecipients through an online survey program. The purpose of the Grantee Survey is to better understand grantees' program structure, practices in providing technical assistance and deal structuring activities. The Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey will collect data on activities, capacity, and perspectives and experiences of subgrantees/subrecipients receiving technical assistance from the grantees.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Process Evaluation of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Pay for Success (PFS) Grant Program.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: 3045.

Affected Public: Current and future CNCS-funded SIF PFS grantees (mostly nonprofit organizations) and current and future community organizations and state or local government agencies (referred to as subgrantees/subrecipients).

Total Respondents: Approximately 260. This includes approximately 18 respondents to the Grantee Survey and approximately 242 respondents to the Subgrantee/Subrecipient Survey. The exact number of respondents will depend on the number of new grantees funded by the SIF PFS program in 2015 and 2016 and the number of subrecipients/subgrantees that each grantee selects to work with each year of their grant.

Frequency: Once per year. Each respondent will complete the survey annually for one to three years depending upon the timing and duration of their funding.

Average Time per Response: 20 minutes per year.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 151 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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