27954 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

to economic, regulatory, or other 

barriers. To be eligible to participate in 

the western Pacific community 

development program, a community 

must meet the criteria set forth in 50 

CFR part 665.20, and submit a 

community development plan that 

describes the purposes and goals of the 

plan, the justification for proposed 

fishing activities, and the degree of 

involvement by the indigenous 

community members, including contact 

information. 

This collection of information 

provides NMFS and the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

with data to determine whether a 

community that submits a community 

development plan meets the regulatory 

requirements for participation in the 

program, and whether the activities 

proposed under the plan are consistent 

with the intent of the program, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, and 

other applicable laws. The information 

is also important for evaluating 

potential impacts of the proposed 

community development plan activities 

on fish stocks, endangered species, 

marine mammals, and other 

components of the affected environment 

for the purposes of compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

Endangered Species Act and other 

applicable laws. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit 

organizations; not for profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

This information collection request 

may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow 

the instructions to view Department of 

Commerce collections currently under 

review by OMB. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Dated: June 12, 2018. 

Sarah Brabson, 

NOAA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12882 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF986 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Low-Energy 

Geophysical Survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

(SIO) to take marine mammals 

incidental to a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean. 

DATES: This authorization is valid for 

one year from the date of issuance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

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 (as delegated 

to NMFS) 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. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

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). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. This action is 

consistent with categories of activities 

identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 

(incidental harassment authorizations 

with no anticipated serious injury or 

mortality) of the Companion Manual for 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have the potential for 

significant impacts on the quality of the 

human environment and for which we 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. Accordingly, 

NMFS has determined that the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

Summary of Request 

On November 20, 2017, NMFS 

received a request from SIO for an IHA 

to take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean. On February 8, 2018, 

we deemed SIO’s application for 

authorization to be adequate and 

complete. SIO’s request is for take of a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27955 

small number of 35 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment and 

Level A harassment. Neither SIO nor 

NMFS expects mortality to result from 

this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. The planned activity is not 

expected to exceed one year, hence, we 

do not expect subsequent MMPA 

incidental harassment authorizations 

would be issued for this particular 

activity. 

Description of Specified Activity 

Overview 

SIO plans to conduct a low-energy 

marine seismic survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean for approximately 25 

days during June–July 2018. The survey 

would occur in International Waters, 

between ∼33.5° and 53.5° N, and 37° 

and 49° W, at water depths ranging from 

1,800 to over 5,000 meters (m) (see 

Figure 1 in the IHA application) and 

would entail one source vessel, the R/ 

V Atlantis, which would tow a pair of 

45 cubic inch (in3) GI airguns at a depth 

of 2–4 m with a total discharge volume 

of approximately 90 in3 as an energy 

source along predetermined lines. The 

receiving system would consist of one 

hydrophone streamer, either 200 or 600 

m in length. The program consists of a 

site survey in support of a potential 

future International Ocean Discovery 

Program project and would examine 

regional seismic stratigraphy and 

provide seismic images of changing 

sediment distributions from deepwater 

production changes. The Principal 

Investigators are Drs. M. Lyle (Oregon 

State University), G. Mountain (Rutgers 

University), and K. Miller (Rutgers 

University). 

The survey would use two different 

types of airgun array configurations. The 

first would entail a pair of 45-in3

airguns spaced 8 m apart at a water 

depth of 2–4 m with a 200 m 

hydrophone streamer and with the 

vessel traveling at 8 knots (kt). The 

second would entail a pair of 45-in3

airguns, but with airguns spaced 2 m 

apart at a depth of 2–4 m with a 600 m 

hydrophone streamer and with the 

vessel traveling at 5 kt to achieve 

especially high-quality seismic 

reflection data. Data would be collected 

within six grids, and also along track 

lines between the six grid locations (see 

Figure 1 in the IHA application). A total 

of 7,911 kilometers (km) of seismic 

acquisition would occur, including 

4,334 km of data collected within the 

survey grids (2667 km at 8 kt and 1667 

km at 5 kt) and an additional 3,577 km 

of track lines connecting the grids. 

There could be additional seismic 

operations in the project area associated 

with equipment testing, re-acquisition 

due to equipment malfunction, data 

degradation during poor weather, or 

interruption due to shutdown or track 

deviation in compliance with IHA 

requirements. 

In addition to the operations of the 

airgun array, a multibeam echosounder 

(MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) 

would also be operated continuously 

throughout the survey, but not during 

transits to and from the project area. The 

MBES (a Kongsberg EM122) operates at 

10.5–13 (usually 12) kilohertz (kHz) and 

is hull-mounted, with the transmitting 

beamwidth 1 or 2° fore-aft and 150° 

athwartship. The SBP (a Knudsen 3260) 

is normally operated to provide 

information about the near seafloor 

sedimentary features and the bottom 

topography that is mapped 

simultaneously by the MBES. The beam 

of the SBP is transmitted as a 27° cone, 

which is directed downward by a 3.5- 

kHz transducer in the hull of the vessel. 

TABLE 1—SPECIFICATIONS OF THE R/V ATLANTIS AIRGUN ARRAY

Number of airguns .................................................................................... 2. 

Gun positions used ................................................................................... Two inline airguns 2- or 8-m apart. 

Tow depth of energy source .................................................................... 2–4 m. 

Dominant frequency components ............................................................. 0–188 Hz. 

Air discharge volume ................................................................................ Approximately 90 in3. 

Shot interval .............................................................................................. 9.72 seconds (2 m airgun separation survey) and 12.15 seconds (8 m 

airgun separation survey). 

A detailed description of SIO’s 

planned survey is provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 18644; April 27, 2018). 

Since that time, no changes have been 

made to SIO’s planned survey activities. 

Therefore, a detailed description is not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see ‘‘Mitigation’’ 

and ‘‘Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on April 27, 

2018 (83 FR 18644). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

a comment letter from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission). 

NMFS has posted the comments online 

at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. NMFS addresses any 

comments specific to SIO’s application 

related to the statutory and regulatory 

requirements or findings that NMFS 

must make under the MMPA in order to 

issue an Authorization. The following is 

a summary of the public comments and 

NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

expressed concerns regarding SIO’s 

method to estimate the extent of the 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

and the numbers of marine mammal 

takes. The Commission stated that the 

model is not the best available science 

because it assumes spherical spreading, 

a constant sound speed, and no bottom 

interactions for surveys in deep water, 

and that the model provides results to 

a water depth of 2,000 m while SIO’s 

planned survey would occur in waters 

from 1,800 to more than 5,000 m in 

depth. In light of their concerns, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

require SIO, in collaboration with 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (LDEO) (which 

performed the modeling of Level A and 

Level B harassment zones) to re-estimate 

the Level A and Level B harassment 

zones and associated takes of marine 

mammals using (1) operational 

(including number/type/spacing of 

airguns, tow depth, source level/ 

operating pressure, operational volume) 

and site-specific environmental 

(including sound speed profiles, 

bathymetry, and sediment 

characteristics at a minimum) 

parameters; (2) a comprehensive source 

model (i.e., Gundalf Optimizer or 

AASM) and (3) an appropriate sound 

propagation model for the proposed 

IHA. Specifically, the Commission 

states that LDEO should be using the 

ray-tracing sound propagation model 

BELLHOP, rather than the MATLAB 

code currently used. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27956 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

NMFS Response: NMFS 

acknowledges the Commission’s 

concerns about LDEO’s current 

modeling approach for estimating Level 

A and Level B harassment zones and 

takes. SIO’s application (LGL, 2018) and 

the Federal Register notice of the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 18644; April 27, 

2018) describe the applicant’s approach 

to modeling Level A and Level B 

harassment zones. The model LDEO 

currently uses does not allow for the 

consideration of environmental and sitespecific parameters as requested by the 

Commission. 

SIO’s application (LGL, 2018) 

describes their approach to modeling 

Level A and Level B harassment zones. 

In summary, LDEO acquired field 

measurements for several array 

configurations at shallow, intermediate, 

and deep-water depths during acoustic 

verification studies conducted in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico in 2007 and 

2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the 

empirical data from those studies, LDEO 

developed a sound propagation 

modeling approach that predicts 

received sound levels as a function of 

distance from a particular airgun array 

configuration in deep water. For this 

survey, LDEO modeled Level A and 

Level B harassment zones based on the 

empirically-derived measurements from 

the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey 

(Appendix H of NSF–USGS 2011). 

LDEO used the deep-water radii 

obtained from model results down to a 

maximum water depth of 2,000 m 

(Figure 2 and 3 in Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS 2011). 

In 2015, LDEO explored the question 

of whether the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration data described above 

adequately informs the model to predict 

exclusion isopleths in other areas by 

conducting a retrospective sound power 

analysis of one of the lines acquired 

during L–DEO’s seismic survey offshore 

New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). 

NMFS presented a comparison of the 

predicted radii (i.e., modeled exclusion 

zones) with radii based on in situ 

measurements (i.e., the upper bound 

[95th percentile] of the cross-line 

prediction) in a previous notice of 

issued Authorization for LDEO (see 80 

FR 27635, May 14, 2015, Table 1). 

Briefly, the analysis presented in Crone 

(2015), specific to the survey site 

offshore New Jersey, confirmed that insitu, site specific measurements and 

estimates of 160 decibel (dB) and 180 

dB isopleths collected by the 

hydrophone streamer of the R/V Marcus 

Langseth in shallow water were smaller 

than the modeled (i.e., predicted) zones 

for two seismic surveys conducted 

offshore New Jersey in shallow water in 

2014 and 2015. In that particular case, 

Crone’s (2015) results showed that 

LDEO’s modeled 180 dB and 160 dB 

zones were approximately 28 percent 

and 33 percent smaller, respectively, 

than the in-situ, site-specific 

measurements, thus confirming that 

LDEO’s model was conservative in that 

case. 

The following is a summary of two 

additional analyses of in-situ data that 

support LDEO’s use of the modeled 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

in this particular case. In 2010, LDEO 

assessed the accuracy of their modeling 

approach by comparing the sound levels 

of the field measurements acquired in 

the Gulf of Mexico study to their model 

predictions (Diebold et al., 2010). They 

reported that the observed sound levels 

from the field measurements fell almost 

entirely below the predicted mitigation 

radii curve for deep water (i.e., greater 

than 1,000 m; 3280.8 ft) (Diebold et al., 

2010). In 2012, LDEO used a similar 

process to model distances to isopleths 

corresponding to Level A and Level B 

harassment thresholds for a shallowwater seismic survey in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean offshore Washington 

State. LDEO conducted the shallowwater survey using a 6,600 in3 airgun 

configuration aboard the R/V Marcus 

Langseth and recorded the received 

sound levels on both the shelf and slope 

using the Langseth’s 8 km hydrophone 

streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed 

those received sound levels from the 

2012 survey and confirmed that in-situ, 

site specific measurements and 

estimates of the 160 dB and 180 dB 

isopleths collected by the Langseth’s 

hydrophone streamer in shallow water 

were two to three times smaller than 

LDEO’s modeling approach had 

predicted. While the results confirmed 

the role of bathymetry in sound 

propagation, Crone et al. (2014) were 

also able to confirm that the empirical 

measurements from the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration survey (the same 

measurements used to inform LDEO’s 

modeling approach for the planned 

surveys in the northwest Atlantic 

Ocean) overestimated the size of the 

exclusion and buffer zones for the 

shallow-water 2012 survey off 

Washington State and were thus 

precautionary, in that particular case. 

NMFS continues to work with LDEO 

to address the issue of incorporating 

site-specific information for future 

authorizations for seismic surveys. 

However, LDEO’s current modeling 

approach (supported by the three data 

points discussed previously) represents 

the best available information for NMFS 

to reach determinations for this IHA. As 

described earlier, the comparisons of 

LDEO’s model results and the field data 

collected at multiple locations (i.e., the 

Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington 

State, and offshore New Jersey) illustrate 

a degree of conservativeness built into 

LDEO’s model for deep water, which 

NMFS expects to offset some of the 

limitations of the model to capture the 

variability resulting from site-specific 

factors. Based upon the best available 

information (i.e., the three data points, 

two of which are peer-reviewed, 

discussed in this response), NMFS finds 

that the Level A and Level B harassment 

zone calculations are appropriate for use 

in this particular IHA. 

LDEO has conveyed to NMFS that 

additional modeling efforts to refine the 

process and conduct comparative 

analysis may be possible with the 

availability of research funds and other 

resources. Obtaining research funds is 

typically accomplished through a 

competitive process, including those 

submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The 

use of models for calculating Level A 

and Level B harassment zones and for 

developing take estimates is not a 

requirement of the MMPA incidental 

take authorization process. Further, 

NMFS does not provide specific 

guidance on model parameters nor 

prescribe a specific model for applicants 

as part of the MMPA incidental take 

authorization process at this time, 

although we do review methods to 

ensure adequate for prediction of take. 

There is a level of variability not only 

with parameters in the models, but also 

the uncertainty associated with data 

used in models, and therefore, the 

quality of the model results submitted 

by applicants. NMFS considers this 

variability when evaluating applications 

and the take estimates and mitigation 

measures that the model informs. NMFS 

takes into consideration the model used, 

and its results, in determining the 

potential impacts to marine mammals; 

however, it is just one component of the 

analysis during the MMPA 

authorization process as NMFS also 

takes into consideration other factors 

associated with the activity (e.g., 

geographic location, duration of 

activities, context, sound source 

intensity, etc.). 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS better 

evaluate the numbers of Level A and B 

harassment takes it plans to propose for 

authorization by considering both 

ecological/biological information and 

implementation of mitigation measures 

for all proposed authorizations prior to 

submitting them for publication in the 

Federal Register. The Commission 

specifically questioned the proposed 

authorization of 42 Level A takes of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27957 

harbor porpoises and recommended that 

NMFS reduce the numbers of Level A 

takes for that particular species. 

NMFS Response: We appreciate the 

Commission’s concern with authorizing 

appropriate numbers of take and their 

suggestion regarding the specific 

number of Level A takes that it deems 

appropriate in this instance. We base 

take analyses on the best available 

information; in this case, as SIO’s 

survey is planned in a geographic area 

where data on marine mammal 

abundance and density is relatively 

limited, the best available information 

on cetacean density (including harbor 

porpoise density) was represented by 

density modeling by Mannocci et al. 

(2017). We relied on this information to 

calculate the estimated numbers of takes 

(including Level A takes of harbor 

porpoise), as described in the proposed 

IHA. We also acknowledged in the 

proposed IHA that harbor porpoises 

would be expected to be relatively 

uncommon in the proposed survey area, 

and that take estimates are conservative. 

That said, given the fact that Mannocci 

et al. (2017) predict relatively high 

densities of harbor porpoises in offshore 

waters north of ∼40° N (where much of 

the survey would occur) and given the 

relative lack of information regarding 

the marine mammals that may be 

encountered by SIO’s survey, we do not 

think a reduction in the number of Level 

A takes of harbor porpoises is necessary 

in this instance, given the applicant’s 

request. 

Comment 3: the Commission 

questioned the necessity of the 100 m 

exclusion zone, specifically for midfrequency (MF) cetaceans, noting that 

the Level A harassment zone is 

estimated to be less than 1 m for MF 

cetaceans. The Commission stated that 

NMFS should ensure that marine 

mammals are sufficiently protected from 

Level A harassment and that activities 

can be completed in an appropriate 

manner and within an appropriate 

timeframe, and recommended that 

NMFS more thoroughly assess the 

proposed exclusion zones that are to be 

implemented for this authorization and 

for future proposed incidental take 

authorizations, prior to publication in 

the Federal Register. 

NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with 

the Commission that mitigation 

measures should ensure sufficient 

protection of marine mammals while 

facilitating the timely completion of the 

specified activities so as to minimize the 

overall duration of those activities and 

their impacts on marine mammals. It is 

for this reason that NMFS has included 

a waiver to the shutdown requirement 

specifically for small delphinoids 

(which are expected to constitute the 

vast majority of MF cetaceans 

encountered by SIO’s survey) that 

would otherwise result in a shutdown of 

SIO’s survey. The shutdown 

requirement referenced by the 

Commission will be in place for marine 

mammals with the exception of small 

delphinoids (which are all in the MF 

functional hearing group) under certain 

circumstances. The small delphinoid 

group is intended to encompass those 

members of the Family Delphinidae 

most likely to voluntarily approach the 

source vessel for purposes of interacting 

with the vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., 

bow riding). The exception to the 

shutdown requirement applies solely to 

specific genera of small dolphins— 

Tursiops, Steno, Stenella, 

Lagenorhynchus and Delphinus. We 

have included this exception because 

shutdown requirements for small 

delphinoids under all circumstances 

represent practicability concerns 

without likely commensurate benefits 

for the animals in question, as 

referenced by the Commission. Small 

delphinoids are generally the most 

commonly observed marine mammals 

in the specific geographic region and 

would typically be the only marine 

mammals likely to intentionally 

approach the vessel. As referenced by 

the Commission, auditory injury is 

extremely unlikely to occur for MF 

cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this 

group is relatively insensitive to sound 

produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

for the onset of auditory injury. We refer 

the reader to the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 18644; 

April 27, 2018) for further discussion of 

sound metrics and thresholds and 

marine mammal hearing. 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 

2012). As referenced by the 

Commission, the potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Atlantis to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, potentially resulting in an increase 

in the total duration over which the 

survey is active in a given area and an 

overall increase in the total sound 

energy input to the marine environment. 

Although other mid-frequency hearing 

specialists (e.g., large delphinoids) are 

no more likely to incur auditory injury 

than are small delphinoids, they are 

much less likely to approach vessels. 

Therefore, contrary to the Commission’s 

concerns, retaining a shutdown 

requirement for large delphinoids 

would not have similar impacts in terms 

of either practicability for the applicant 

or corollary increase in sound energy 

output and time on the water. We also 

anticipate some benefit for a shutdown 

requirement for large delphinoids in 

that it simplifies somewhat the total 

range of decision-making for protected 

species observers (PSOs) and may 

preclude any potential for physiological 

effects other than to the auditory system 

as well as some more severe behavioral 

reactions for any such animals in close 

proximity to the source vessel. 

Shutdown requirements, including the 

waiver to shutdown requirements for 

small delphinoids, are discussed in 

greater detail in the Mitigation section 

below. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

expressed concern that the method used 

to estimate the numbers of takes, which 

summed fractions of takes for each 

species across project days, does not 

account for and negates the intent of 

NMFS’ 24-hour reset policy, and 

recommended that NMFS provide the 

draft criteria for take calculation in a 

timely manner. 

NMFS Response: We appreciate the 

Commission’s ongoing concern in this 

matter. Calculating predicted takes is 

not an exact science and there are 

arguments for taking different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations, and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. We 

believe, however, that the methodology 

used for take calculation in this IHA 

remains appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24-hour reset policy the 

Commission references. We will share 

draft guidance on this issue as soon as 

possible with the Commission. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

expressed concern that information was 

missing or incorrect in the proposed 

IHA and SIO’s application, including 

information on the proposed activities 

related to the proposed source levels, 

shot intervals, and source velocities and 

mitigation measures. Therefore the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

review more thoroughly applications 

prior to deeming them complete and 

NMFS’ draft notices prior to submitting 

them for publication in the Federal 

Register. 

NMFS Response: We appreciate the 

Commission pointing out the 

deficiencies in the notice of proposed 

IHA. In response to the Commission’s 

concerns we have ensured source levels, 

shot intervals, source velocities and 

mitigation measures are accurately 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

described in this notice and are 

accurately factored into harassment 

zones and authorized take numbers. 

Resultant changes to harassment zones 

and take estimates are minimal and are 

described in the Take Estimate section 

below. NMFS thoroughly reviews all 

applications prior to deeming them 

complete, and thoroughly reviews draft 

notices prior to publishing in the 

Federal Register, and will continue to 

do so. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

requested clarification regarding certain 

issues associated with NMFS’ notice 

that one-year renewals could be issued 

in certain limited circumstances and 

expressed concern that the process 

would bypass the public notice and 

comment requirements. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

refrain from implementing its proposed 

renewal process and instead use 

abbreviated Federal Register notices 

and reference existing documents to 

streamline the incidental harassment 

authorization process. The Commission 

suggested that NMFS should discuss the 

possibility of renewals through a more 

general route, such as a rulemaking, 

instead of notice in a specific 

authorization. The Commission further 

recommended that if NMFS did not 

pursue a more general route, that the 

agency provide the Commission and the 

public with a legal analysis supporting 

our conclusion that this process is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. 

NMFS Response: The process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Importantly, such renewals 

would be limited to circumstances 

where: The activities are identical or 

nearly identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. The option for 

issuing renewal IHAs has been in 

NMFS’s incidental take regulations 

since 1996. We will provide any 

additional information to the 

Commission and consider posting a 

description of the renewal process on 

our website before any renewal is issued 

utilizing this process. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activity 

Sections 3 and 4 of SIO’s IHA 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion) and more general information 

about these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/speciesdirectory). 

The populations of marine mammals 

considered in this document do not 

occur within the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) and are therefore 

not assigned to stocks and are not 

assessed in NMFS’ Stock Assessment 

Reports (SAR). As such, information on 

potential biological removal (PBR; 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population) 

and on annual levels of serious injury 

and mortality from anthropogenic 

sources are not available for these 

marine mammal populations. 

Abundance estimates for marine 

mammals in the survey location are 

lacking; therefore the abundance 

estimates presented here are based on 

the U.S. Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., 

2017) and on the Canadian Trans-North 

Atlantic Sighting Survey which 

provided full coverage of the Atlantic 

Canadian coast (Lawson and Gosselin, 

2009), as these sources are considered 

the best available information on 

potential abundance of marine 

mammals in the area. However, as 

described above, the marine mammals 

encountered by the proposed survey are 

not assigned to stocks. All abundance 

estimate values presented in Table 2 are 

the most recent available at the time of 

publication and are available in the 

2017 U.S. Atlantic draft SARs (e.g., 

Hayes et al. 2017) available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments, except 

where noted otherwise. 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the survey 

area and with the potential to be taken 

as a result of the proposed survey, and 

summarizes information related to the 

population, including regulatory status 

under the MMPA and ESA. For 

taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA AND THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

Species Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Abundance 2

Relative 

occurrence in 

project area 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family: Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale 3 (Megaptera novaeangliae) ................................................... n/a -/-; N 12,312 Uncommon. 

Minke whale 4 (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ....................................................... n/a -/-; N 20,741 Uncommon. 

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei) .................................................................. n/a -/-; N unknown Uncommon. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ...................................................................... n/a E/D; Y 357 Uncommon. 

Fin whale 4 (Balaenoptera physalus) .................................................................. n/a E/D; Y 3,522 Uncommon. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27959 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA AND THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Abundance 2

Relative 

occurrence in 

project area 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ................................................................. n/a E/D; Y 440 Uncommon. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family: Physeteridae 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ............................................................ n/a E/D; Y 2,288 Uncommon. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family: Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale 5 (Kogia breviceps) ............................................................ n/a -/-; N 3,785 Rare. 

Dwarf sperm whale 5 (Kogia sima) ..................................................................... n/a -/-; N 3,785 Rare. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family delphinidae 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ................................................................................. n/a -/-; N unknown Uncommon. 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ......................................................... n/a -/-; N 442 Uncommon. 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) ............................................................... n/a -/-; N unknown Rare. 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) .................................... n/a -/-; N 21,515 Uncommon. 

Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) ................................................... n/a -/-; N 5,636 Uncommon. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ............................................................. n/a -/-; N 79,833 Uncommon. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ............................................................. n/a -/-; N 77,532 Uncommon. 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoala) ................................................................ n/a -/-; N 54,807 Uncommon. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ..................................................................... n/a -/-; N 18,250 Uncommon. 

Common dolphin 4 (Delphinus delphis) .............................................................. n/a -; N 173,486 Uncommon. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) ............................... n/a -; N 48,819 Uncommon. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) ........................................................ n/a -; N 44,715 Uncommon. 

Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuate) ................................................ n/a -; N 3,333 Uncommon. 

White beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) .......................................... n/a -; N 2,003 Uncommon. 

Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ...................................................... n/a -; N 271 Rare. 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family: Ziphiidae 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) ....................................................... n/a -/-; N 6,532 Uncommon. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 6 (Mesoplodon densirostris) ....................................... n/a -; N 7,092 Uncommon. 

True’s beaked whale 6 (Mesoplodon mirus) ....................................................... n/a -/-; N 7,092 Rare. 

Gervais beaked whale 6 (Mesoplodon europaeus) ............................................. n/a -; N 7,092 Uncommon. 

Sowerby’s beaked whale 6 (Mesoplodon bidens) ............................................... n/a -; N 7,092 Uncommon. 

Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) ........................................ n/a -; N unknown Uncommon. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) ..................................................................... n/a -; N 592,100 Rare. 

Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) ................................................................ n/a -; N 7,100,000 Rare. 

Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) 7 .............................................................................. n/a -; N unknown Rare. 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2Abundance estimates are from the NMFS 2017 draft Atlantic SAR (Hayes et al., 2017) unless otherwise noted. We note that marine mammals in the survey area would not belong to NMFS stocks, as the survey area is outside the geographic boundaries for stock assessments, thus 

stock abundance estimates are provided for comparison purposes only. 3 NMFS defines a stock of humpback whales only on the basis of the Gulf of Maine feeding population; however, multiple feeding populations 

originate from the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) that is expected to occur in the proposed survey area (the West Indies DPS). As West Indies DPS whales from multiple feeding populations may be encountered in the proposed survey area, the total abundance of the West Indies 

DPS best reflects the abundance of the population that may encountered by the proposed survey. The West Indies DPS abundance estimate 

shown here reflects the latest estimate as described in the NMFS Status Review of the Humpback Whale under the Endangered Species Act 

(Bettridge et al., 2015). 4Abundance for these species is from the 2007 TNASS, which provided full coverage of the Atlantic Canadian coast (Lawson and Gosselin, 

2009). Abundance estimates from TNASS were corrected for perception and availability bias, when possible. In general, where the TNASS survey effort provided superior coverage of a stock’s range (as compared with NOAA shipboard survey effort), we elect to use the resulting abundance estimate over the current NMFS abundance estimate (derived from survey effort with inferior coverage of the stock range). 5Abundance estimate represents pygmy and dwarf sperm whales combined. 

6Abundance estimate represents all species of Mesoplodon in the Atlantic. 7 NMFS does not have a defined stock of ringed seals in the Atlantic Ocean. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

Four marine mammal species that are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) may be present in the survey area 

and are included in the take request: 

The fin whale, sei whale, blue whale 

and sperm whale. Though marine 

mammal species other than those 

described in Table 2 are known to occur 

in the North Atlantic Ocean, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

several of these species is such that take 

of these species is not expected to occur, 

and they are therefore not discussed 

further beyond the explanation 

provided here. Four cetacean species, 

although present in the wider North 

Atlantic Ocean, likely would not be 

found near the proposed project area 

because their ranges generally do not 

extend as far north: Clymene dolphin, 

Fraser’s dolphin, spinner dolphin, and 

melon-headed whale. Another cetacean 

species, the North Atlantic right whale, 

occurs in nearshore waters off the U.S. 

coast, and its range does not extend as 

far offshore as the proposed project area. 

Another three cetacean species occur in 

arctic waters, and their ranges generally 

do not extend as far south as the 

proposed project area: The bowhead 

whale, narwhal, and beluga. Two 

additional cetacean species, the Atlantic 

humpback dolphin (which occurs in 

coastal waters of western Africa) and the 

long-beaked common dolphin (which 

occurs in coastal waters of South 

America and western Africa) do not 

occur in deep offshore waters. Several 

pinniped species also are known to 

occur in North Atlantic waters, but are 

not expected to occur in deep offshore 

waters of the proposed project area, 

including the gray seal, harbor seal, and 

bearded seal. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by SIO’s survey, 

including brief introductions to the 

species and relevant stocks as well as 

available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

18644; April 27, 2018); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

repeated here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

species-directory) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Information concerning marine 

mammal hearing, including marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, was 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (83 FR 18644; April 

27, 2018), therefore that information is 

not repeated here; please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for this 

information. For further information 

about marine mammal functional 

hearing groups and associated frequency 

ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a 

review of available information. Thirtythree marine mammal species (thirty 

cetacean and three pinniped (all phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities (Table 2). Of the cetacean 

species that may be present, six are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), twenty-two 

are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species, 

beaked whales, and sperm whale), and 

three are classified as a high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise, pygmy 

and dwarf sperm whales). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

SIO’s survey activities have the 

potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The Federal 

Register notice of the proposed IHA (83 

FR 18644; April 27, 2018) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, therefore 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for that information. No instances 

of hearing threshold shifts, injury, 

serious injury, or mortality are expected 

as a result of the planned activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

seismic airguns have the potential to 

result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for high frequency 

cetaceans. Auditory injury is unlikely to 

occur for low- and mid-frequency 

cetaceans given very small modeled 

zones of injury for those species. The 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

expected to minimize the severity of 

such taking to the extent practicable. As 

described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the exposure estimate 

and associated numbers of take 

authorized. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al. 2011). Based on 

the best available science and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider to fall under Level B 

harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for continuous (e.g. vibratory pileVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Jun 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM 15JNN1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27961 

driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. SIO’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

impulsive seismic sources. Therefore, 

the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is 

applicable for analysis of level B 

harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources— NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). As described above, SIO’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

intermittent and impulsive seismic 

sources. These thresholds are provided 

in Table 3. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2016 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .............................................................. Lpk,flat: 219 dB LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ... LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ............................................................. Lpk,flat: 230 dB LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .. LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ............................................................ Lpk,flat: 202 dB LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ... LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ..................................................... Lpk,flat: 218 dB LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .. LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ..................................................... Lpk,flat: 232 dB LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .. LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

Note:* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a nonimpulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds 

should also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The survey would entail the use of a 

2-airgun array with a total discharge of 

90 in3 at a tow depth of 2–4 m. The 

distances to the predicted isopleths 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment (160 dB re 1 mPa) were 

calculated for both array configurations 

based on results of modeling performed 

by LDEO. Received sound levels were 

predicted by LDEO’s model (Diebold et 

al. 2010) as a function of distance from 

the airgun array. The LDEO modeling 

approach uses ray tracing for the direct 

wave traveling from the array to the 

receiver and its associated source ghost 

(reflection at the air-water interface in 

the vicinity of the array), in a constantvelocity half-space (infinite 

homogeneous ocean layer unbounded 

by a seafloor). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from a 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

been reported in deep water (∼1,600 m), 

intermediate water depth on the slope 

(∼600–1100 m), and shallow water (∼50 

m) in the Gulf of Mexico in 2007–2008 

(Tolstoy et al. 2009; Diebold et al. 2010). 

The estimated distances to Level B 

harassment isopleths for the two 

configurations of the Atlantis airgun 

array are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V ATLANTIS 90 IN3

SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETH CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Array configuration 

Predicted 

distance to 

threshold (160 

dB re 1 μPa) 

2 m airgun separation .......... 578 m 

8 m airgun separation .......... 539 m 

For modeling of radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds in deep water 

(>1,000 m), LDEO used the deep-water 

radii for various Sound Exposure Levels 

obtained from LDEO model results 

down to a maximum water depth of 

2,000 m (see Figures 2 and 3 in the IHA 

application). LDEO’s modeling 

methodology is described in greater 

detail in the IHA application (LGL, 

2018) and we refer to the reader to that 

document rather than repeating it here. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups (Table 3), were calculated based 

on modeling performed by LDEO using 

the Nucleus software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

(NMFS, 2016) were presented as dual 

metric acoustic thresholds using both 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and peak sound pressure level 

metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that the 

requirement to calculate Level A 

harassment ensonified areas could be 

more technically challenging to predict 

due to the duration component and the 

use of weighting functions in the new 

SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Atlantis airgun array were 

derived from calculating the modified 

farfield signature (Table 5). The farfield 

signature is often used as a theoretical 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27962 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), 

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

(Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at 

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the array effect near 

the source and is calculated as a point 

source, the modified farfield signature is 

a more appropriate measure of the 

sound source level for distributed sound 

sources, such as airgun arrays. Though 

the array effect is not expected to be as 

pronounced in the case of a 2-airgun 

array as it would be with a larger airgun 

array, the modified farfield method is 

considered more appropriate than use of 

the theoretical farfield signature. 

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS (dB) FOR R/V ATLANTIS 90 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY

Functional hearing group 

8-kt survey 

with 

8-m airgun 

separation: 

Peak SPLflat

8-kt survey 

with 

8-m airgun 

separation: 

SELcum

5-kt survey 

with 

2-m airgun 

separation: 

Peak SPLflat

5-kt survey 

with 

2-m airgun 

separation: 

SELcum

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................... 228.8 .......... 207 232.8 206.7 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ............................ N/A ............. 206.7 229.8 206.9 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) .......................... 233 ............. 207.6 232.9 207.2 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) .................. 230 ............. 206.7 232.8 206.9 

Otariid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) .................. N/A ............. 203 225.6 207.4 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Atlantis’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) was used 

to make adjustments (dB) to the 

unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the 

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation, a source velocity 

of 2.57 m/second (for the 2 m airgun 

separation survey) and 4.12 m/second 

(for the 8 m airgun separation survey), 

and a shot interval of 9.72 seconds (for 

the 2 m airgun separation survey) and 

12.15 seconds (for the 8 m airgun 

separation survey) (LGL, 2018), 

potential radial distances to auditory 

injury zones were calculated for SELcum

thresholds, for both array 

configurations. Inputs to the User 

Spreadsheet are shown in Table 5. 

Outputs from the User Spreadsheet in 

the form of estimated distances to Level 

A harassment isopleths are shown in 

Table 6. As described above, the larger 

distance of the dual criteria (SELcumor 

Peak SPLflat) is used for estimating takes 

by Level A harassment. The weighting 

functions used are shown in Table 3 of 

the IHA application. 

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) FROM R/V ATLANTIS 90 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING

TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

(Level A harassment thresholds) 

8-kt survey 

with 

8-m airgun 

separation: 

Peak SPLflat

8-kt survey 

with 

8-m airgun 

separation: 

SELcum

5-kt survey 

with 

2-m airgun 

separation: 

Peak SPLflat

5-kt survey 

with 

2-m airgun 

separation: 

SELcum

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................ 3.08 2.4 4.89 6.5 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ........................ 0 0 0.98 0 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ...................... 1 35.53 0 1 35.13 0 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) .............. 4.02 0 5.51 0.1 

Otariid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) ............... 0 0 0.48 0 

1 Distances to isopleths corresponding to Level A harassment threshold for HF cetaceans (peak SPL) have been revised from those shown in 

the proposed IHA based on use of radial distances (vs radii) to estimate Level A isopleths for high frequency cetaceans. 

We note that radial distances to 

isopleths corresponding to the Level A 

harassment threshold for high frequency 

cetaceans shown in Table 6, for the peak 

SPL metric, are slightly different than 

the distances that were presented in the 

proposed IHA. The proposed IHA 

presented the radii (versus radial 

distances) to the Level A isopleth for 

high frequency cetaceans, for the peak 

SPL metric, as shown in Table 6 of the 

IHA application (the distances to radii 

are 34.62 m for the 2-m airgun 

separation survey and 34.84 m for the 8- 

m airgun separation survey). However, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27963 

as radial distances to the Level A 

isopleth for high frequency cetaceans, 

for the peak SPL metric, are slightly 

larger than the radii, we determined 

that, to be conservative, the radial 

distances (as shown in Table 6) should 

be used to calculate ensonified areas 

and to estimate take. 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as the 

proposed seismic survey, the User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which a stationary animal 

would not incur PTS if the sound source 

traveled by the animal in a straight line 

at a constant speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific information 

was considered in conducting marine 

mammal exposure estimates (the basis 

for estimating take). For all cetacean 

species, densities calculated by 

Mannocci et al. (2017) were used. These 

represent the most comprehensive and 

recent density data available for 

cetacean species in the survey area. 

Mannocci et al. (2017) modeled marine 

mammal densities using available line 

transect survey data and habitat-based 

covariates and extrapolated model 

predictions to unsurveyed regions, 

including the proposed survey area. The 

authors considered line transect surveys 

that used two or more protected species 

observers and met the assumptions of 

the distance sampling methodology as 

presented by Buckland et al. (2001), and 

included data from shipboard and aerial 

surveys conducted from 1992 to 2014 by 

multiple U.S. organizations (details 

provided in Roberts et al. (2016)). The 

data underlying the model predictions 

for the proposed survey area originated 

from shipboard survey data presented in 

Waring et al. (2008). To increase the 

success of model transferability to new 

regions, the authors considered 

biological covariates expected to be 

related directly to cetacean densities 

(Wenger & Olden, 2012), namely 

biomass and production of epipelagic 

micronekton and zooplankton predicted 

with the Spatial Ecosystem and 

Population DYnamics Model 

(SEAPODYM) (Lehodey et al. 2010). 

Zooplankton and epipelagic 

micronekton (i.e., squid, crustaceans, 

and fish) constitute potential prey for 

many of the cetaceans considered, in 

particular dolphins and mysticetes 

(Pauly et al. 1998), and all these 

covariates correlate with cetacean 

distributions (e.g., Ferguson et al. 2006; 

Doniol-Valcroze et al. 2007; Lambert et 

al. 2014). There is some uncertainty 

related to the estimated density data and 

the assumptions used in their 

calculations, as with all density data 

estimates. However, the approach used 

is based on the best available data. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

B harassment or Level A harassment, 

radial distances to predicted isopleths 

corresponding to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds are calculated, as described 

above (Table 7). Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A and Level B harassment 

thresholds. The areas estimated to be 

ensonified in a single day of the survey 

are then calculated, based on the areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

array and the estimated trackline 

distance traveled per day (Table 8). This 

number is then multiplied by the 

number of survey days (i.e., 7.5 days for 

the 5-kt survey with 2-m airgun 

separation and 17.5 days for the 8-kt 

survey with 8-m airgun separation). The 

product is then multiplied by 1.25 to 

account for an additional 25 percent 

contingency for potential additional 

seismic operations due to airgun testing, 

mechanical failure, etc. This results in 

an estimate of the total areas (km2) 

expected to be ensonified to the Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds. For purposes of Level B take 

calculations, areas estimated to be 

ensonified to Level A harassment 

thresholds are subtracted from total 

areas estimated to be ensonified to Level 

B harassment thresholds in order to 

avoid double counting the animals 

taken (i.e., if an animal is taken by Level 

A harassment, it is not also counted as 

taken by Level B harassment). Areas 

estimated to be ensonified over the 

duration of the survey are shown in 

Table 9. The marine mammals predicted 

to occur within these respective areas, 

based on estimated densities, are 

assumed to be incidentally taken. 

Estimated takes for all marine mammal 

species are shown in Table 10. 

TABLE 7—DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Survey 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

Level A harassment threshold 1

All marine 

mammals 

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

5-kt survey with 2-m airgun separation ... 539 6.5 0.98 2 35.13 5.51 0.48 

8-kt survey with 8-m airgun separation ... 578 3.08 0 2 35.53 4.02 0 

1 Level A ensonified areas are estimated based on the greater of the distances calculated to Level A isopleths using dual criteria (SELcum and 

peak SPL). 2 Distances to isopleths corresponding to Level A harassment threshold for HF cetaceans have been revised from those shown in the proposed IHA based on use of radial distances (vs radii) to estimate Level A isopleths for high frequency cetaceans, as described above. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27964 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 8—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS PER DAY

Survey 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

Level A harassment threshold 1

All marine 

mammals 

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

5-kt survey with 2-m airgun separation ... 240.68 2.90 0.44 2 15.63 2.45 0.21 

8-kt survey with 8-m airgun separation ... 412.10 2.19 0 2 25.28 2.86 0 

1 Level A ensonified areas are estimated based on the greater of the distances calculated to Level A isopleths using dual criteria (SELcum and 

peak SPL). 2 Ensonified areas have been revised from those shown in the proposed IHA based on use of radial distances (vs radii) to estimate Level A 

isopleths for high frequency cetaceans, as described above. 

Note: Estimated areas shown for single day do not include additional 25 percent contingency. 

TABLE 9—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS OVER

DURATION OF SURVEY

Survey 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

Level A harassment threshold 1

All marine 

mammals 

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

5-kt survey with 2-m airgun separation ... 2256.33 27.10 4.09 2146.57 22.97 2.0 

8-kt survey with 8-m airgun separation ... 9014.56 47.84 0 2552.93 62.50 0 

1 Level A ensonified areas are estimated based on the greater of the distances calculated to Level A isopleths using dual criteria (SELcum and 

peak PL). 2Ensonified areas have been revised from those shown in the proposed IHA based on use of radial distances (vs radii) to estimate Level A 

isopleths for high frequency cetaceans, as described above. 

Note: Estimated areas shown include additional 25 percent contingency. 

TABLE 10—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km 2) 

Estimated 

Level A takes 

Authorized 

Level A takes 

Estimated 

Level B takes 

Authorized 

Level B takes 

Total takes 

authorized 

Total 

instances of 

takes as a 

percentage of 

SAR 

abundance 1

Humpback whale 2 ....... 10 1 0 112 113 113 * 0.9 

Minke whale ................. 4 0 0 45 45 45 * 0.2 

Bryde’s whale ............... 0.1 0 0 1 1 1 unknown 

Sei whale 2 ................... 10 1 0 112 113 113 31.4 

Fin whale ...................... 8 1 0 89 90 90 * 2.6 

Blue whale ................... 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2 

Sperm whale ................ 40 0 0 451 451 451 19.7 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 3 60 0 0 135 135 135 2.0 

Northern bottlenose 

whale 4 ...................... 0.8 0 0 9 9 9 unknown 

True’s beaked whale 3 60 0 0 135 135 135 1.9 

Gervais beaked whale 3 60 0 0 135 135 135 1.9 

Sowerby’s beaked 

whale 3 ...................... 60 0 0 135 135 135 1.9 

Blainville’s beaked 

whale 3 ...................... 60 0 0 135 135 135 1.9 

Rough-toothed dolphin 3 0 0 34 34 34 12.5 

Bottlenose dolphin 4 ..... 60 0 0 676 676 676 0.9 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ........................... 10 0 0 113 113 113 3.4 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 40 0 0 451 451 451 1.0 

Striped dolphin ............. 80 0 0 902 902 902 1.6 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 4 ......................... 60 0 0 676 676 676 1.4 

White-beaked dolphin .. 1 0 0 11 11 11 0.6 

Common dolphin .......... 800 3 0 9014 9017 9017 * 5.2 

Risso’s dolphin 4 ........... 20 0 0 225 225 225 1.2 

Pygmy killer whale 5 ..... 1.5 0 0 17 17 17 unknown 

False killer whale ......... 2 0 0 23 23 23 5.2 

Killer whale 5 6 ........ 0.2 0 0 2 5 5 unknown 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27965 

TABLE 10—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED—Continued 

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km 2) 

Estimated 

Level A takes 

Authorized 

Level A takes 

Estimated 

Level B takes 

Authorized 

Level B takes 

Total takes 

authorized 

Total 

instances of 

takes as a 

percentage of 

SAR 

abundance 1

Long-finned/shortfinned Pilot 

whale 7 ................ 200 1 0 2253 2254 2254 8.3 

Pygmy/dwarf sperm 

whale ........................ 0.6 0 0 7 7 7 0.2 

Harbor porpoise 8 ......... 60 42 42 634 634 676 0.8 

Ringed seal 5 ................ 0 0 0 0 1 1 unknown 

Hooded seal ................. 0 0 0 0 1 1 <0.1 

Harp seal ...................... 0 0 0 0 1 1 <0.1 

1 While we have in most cases provided comparisons of the instances of takes as a percentage of SAR abundance as the best available information regarding population abundance, we note that these are likely underestimates of the relevant North Atlantic populations, as the proposed 

survey area is outside the U.S. EEZ. 

* Instances of takes are shown as a percentage of abundance as described by TNASS or NMFS Status Review, as described above. 

2 Level A takes of these species were estimated based on NMFS’ take calculation methodology, but NMFS has determined Level A take of 

these species is not likely to occur, as described in more detail in the text below. To avoid undercounting the takes estimated to occur, the number of takes by Level A harassment that had been estimated for these species, but that NMFS has determined are unlikely to occur as described 

below, are therefore assumed to be Level B harassment takes. Thus the number of Level A harassment takes that had been calculated for these 

species has been added to the number of Level B takes authorized for the species. 3 Density value represents the density for all beaked whale species combined. Requested take and take authorized are based on the proportion of all beaked whales expected to be taken (thus 677 total estimated beaked whale takes were calculated based on the density of all beaked 

whales combined, and this number has been divided by 5 (for the 5 species of beaked whales expected to be taken) for a total of 135 takes per 

species of beaked whale. 4 Number of take authorized has been revised slightly from that shown in proposed IHA due to math error. 

5The population abundance for the species is unknown. 

6Authorized take number for killer whales has been increased from the calculated take to mean group size for the species. Source for mean 

group size is Waring et al. (2008). 7Values for density, take number, and percentage of population authorized are for short-finned and long-finned pilot whales combined. 8 Number of Level A and Level B takes authorized is slightly different than shown in proposed IHA due to use of radial distance (vs radii) to 

level A isopleth as described above. 

For some marine mammal species, we 

authorize a different number of 

incidental takes than the number of 

incidental takes requested by SIO (see 

Table 8 in the IHA application for 

requested take numbers). For instance, 

SIO requested 1 take of a North Atlantic 

right whale and 3 takes of bowhead 

whales; however, we have determined 

the likelihood of the survey 

encountering these species is so low as 

to be discountable, therefore we do not 

authorize takes of these species. Also, 

SIO requested Level A takes of 

humpback whales, sei whales, fin 

whales, common dolphins, and pilot 

whales; however, due to very small 

zones corresponding to Level A 

harassment for low-frequency and midfrequency cetaceans (Table 6) we have 

determined the likelihood of Level A 

take occurring for species from these 

functional hearing groups is so low as 

to be discountable, therefore we do not 

authorize Level A take of these species. 

Note that the Level A takes that were 

calculated for these species (humpback 

whales, sei whales, fin whales, common 

dolphins, and pilot whales) have been 

included in the number of Level B takes. 

Finally, SIO requested 2,254 takes of 

short-finned pilot whales and 2,254 

takes of long-finned pilot whales (total 

4,508 pilot whale takes requested); 

however, as Mannocci et al. (2017) 

presents one single density estimate for 

all pilot whales (the pilot whale 

‘‘guild’’), a total of 2,254 takes of pilot 

whales were calculated as potentially 

taken by the proposed survey. Thus 

SIO’s request take number is actually 

double the number of take that was 

calculated. We do not think doubling 

the take estimate is warranted, thus we 

authorize a total of 2,254 takes of pilot 

whales (short-finned and long-finned 

pilot whales combined). We note that 

numbers of take authorized for 

bottlenose dolphin, Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin, and Risso’s dolphin have 

changed slightly (each has been reduced 

by one take) from the numbers of take 

presented in the proposed IHA due to a 

math error. We note also that the 

number of instances of authorized Level 

A take of harbor porpoise has increased 

by one, and the number of instances of 

authorized Level B take of harbor 

porpoise has decreased by one, versus 

the numbers of take presented in the 

proposed IHA, due to the slight change 

in the estimate of the Level A ensonified 

area for high frequency cetaceans as 

described above; the total number of 

harbor porpoise takes has not changed 

from the total presented in the proposed 

IHA. 

Species with Take Estimates Less than 

Mean Group Size: Using the approach 

described above to estimate take, the 

take estimate for killer whales was less 

than the average group size estimated 

for the species (Waring et al., 2008). 

Information on the social structure and 

life history of the species indicates it is 

common for the species to be 

encountered in groups. The results of 

take calculations support the likelihood 

that SIO’s survey may encounter and 

incidentally take the species, and we 

believe it is likely that the species may 

be encountered in groups; therefore it is 

reasonable to conservatively assume 

that one group of the species will be 

taken during the proposed survey. We 

therefore authorize the take of the 

average (mean) group size for the 

species to account for the possibility 

that SIO’s survey encounters a group of 

killer whales. 

Species with No Available Density 

Data: No density data were available for 

the blue whale; however, blue whales 

have been observed in the survey area 

(Waring et al., 2008), thus we 

determined there is a possibility that the 

proposed survey may encounter one 

blue whale and that one blue whale may 

be taken by Level B harassment by the 

proposed survey; we therefore authorize 

one take of blue whale as requested by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27966 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

SIO. No density data were available for 

ringed seal, hooded seal or harp seal; 

however based on the ranges of these 

species we have determined it is 

possible they may be encountered and 

taken by Level B harassment by the 

proposed survey, therefore we authorize 

one take of each species as requested by 

SIO. 

It should be noted that the take 

numbers shown in Table 10 are believed 

to be conservative for several reasons. 

First, in the calculations of estimated 

take, 25 percent has been added in the 

form of operational survey days 

(equivalent to adding 25 percent to the 

proposed line km to be surveyed) to 

account for the possibility of additional 

seismic operations associated with 

airgun testing, and repeat coverage of 

any areas where initial data quality is 

sub-standard. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

SIO has reviewed mitigation measures 

employed during seismic research 

surveys authorized by NMFS under 

previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

(1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and 

Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), 

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of mitigation measures into their 

project description based on the above 

sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, SIO has 

proposed to implement the following 

mitigation measures for marine 

mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Establishment of a marine 

mammal exclusion zone (EZ); 

(3) Shutdown procedures; 

(4) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(5) Vessel strike avoidance measures. 

In addition to the measures proposed 

by SIO, NMFS has incorporated the 

following mitigation measure: 

Establishment of a marine mammal 

buffer zone. 

PSO observations will take place 

during all daytime airgun operations 

and nighttime start-ups (if applicable) of 

the airguns. If airguns are operating 

throughout the night, observations will 

begin 30 minutes prior to sunrise. If 

airguns are operating after sunset, 

observations will continue until 30 

minutes following sunset. Following a 

shutdown for any reason, observations 

will occur for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the planned start of airgun 

operations. Observations will also occur 

for 30 minutes after airgun operations 

cease for any reason. Observations will 

also be made during daytime periods 

when the Atlantis is underway without 

seismic operations, such as during 

transits, to allow for comparison of 

sighting rates and behavior with and 

without airgun operations and between 

acquisition periods. Airgun operations 

will be suspended when marine 

mammals are observed within, or about 

to enter, the designated EZ (as described 

below). 

During seismic operations, three 

visual PSOs will be based aboard the 

Atlantis. PSOs will be appointed by SIO 

with NMFS approval. During the 

majority of seismic operations, two 

PSOs will monitor for marine mammals 

around the seismic vessel. A minimum 

of one PSO must be on duty at all times 

when the array is active. PSO(s) will be 

on duty in shifts of duration no longer 

than 4 hours. Other crew will also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

Before the start of the seismic survey, 

the crew will be given additional 

instruction in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements. 

The Atlantis is a suitable platform 

from which PSOs will watch for marine 

mammals. Standard equipment for 

marine mammal observers will be 7 × 50 

reticule binoculars and optical range 

finders. At night, night-vision 

equipment will be available. The 

observers will be in communication 

with ship’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory, so they can advise promptly 

of the need for avoidance maneuvers or 

seismic source shutdown. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort, 

record observational data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of marine mammals and mitigation 

requirements. PSO resumes will be 

provided to NMFS for approval. At least 

one PSO must have a minimum of 90 

days at-sea experience working as PSOs 

during a seismic survey. One 

‘‘experienced’’ visual PSO will be 

designated as the lead for the entire 

protected species observation team. The 

lead will serve as primary point of 

contact for the vessel operator. The 

PSOs must have successfully completed 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

a written and/or oral examination 

developed for the training program, and 

must have successfully attained a 

bachelor’s degree from an accredited 

college or university with a major in one 

of the natural sciences and a minimum 

of 30 semester hours or equivalent in 

the biological sciences and at least one 

undergraduate course in math or 

statistics. The educational requirements 

may be waived if the PSO has acquired 

the relevant skills through alternate 

training, including (1) secondary 

education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous 

work experience as a PSO; the PSO 

should demonstrate good standing and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27967 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of critical 

behaviors. The PSOs will establish a 

minimum EZ with a 100 m radius for 

the airgun array. The 100 m EZ will be 

based on radial distance from any 

element of the airgun array (rather than 

being based on the center of the array 

or around the vessel itself). With certain 

exceptions (described below), if a 

marine mammal appears within, enters, 

or appears on a course to enter this 

zone, the acoustic source will be shut 

down (see Shutdown Procedures 

below). 

The 100 m radial distance of the 

standard EZ is precautionary in the 

sense that it would be expected to 

contain sound exceeding injury criteria 

for all marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 6) while also providing a 

consistent, reasonably observable zone 

within which PSOs would typically be 

able to conduct effective observational 

effort. In this case, the 100 m radial 

distance would also be expected to 

contain sound that would exceed the 

Level A harassment threshold based on 

sound exposure level (SELcum) criteria 

for all marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 6). In the 2011 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

marine scientific research funded by the 

National Science Foundation or the U.S. 

Geological Survey (NSF–USGS 2011), 

Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative) 

conservatively applied a 100 m EZ for 

all low-energy acoustic sources in water 

depths >100 m, with low-energy 

acoustic sources defined as any towed 

acoustic source with a single or a pair 

of clustered airguns with individual 

volumes of ≤250 in3. Thus the 100 m EZ 

for this survey is consistent with the 

PEIS. 

Our intent in prescribing a standard 

EZ distance is to (1) encompass zones 

within which auditory injury could 

occur on the basis of instantaneous 

exposure; (2) provide additional 

protection from the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, 

antipredator response) for marine 

mammals at relatively close range to the 

acoustic source; (3) provide consistency 

for PSOs, who need to monitor and 

implement the EZ; and (4) define a 

distance within which detection 

probabilities are reasonably high for 

most species under typical conditions. 

PSOs will also establish and monitor 

a 200 m buffer zone. During use of the 

acoustic source, occurrence of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the EZ) will be communicated 

to the operator to prepare for potential 

shutdown of the acoustic source. The 

buffer zone is discussed further under 

Ramp Up Procedures below. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter the 

EZ, the airguns will be shut down before 

the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, 

if a marine mammal is already within 

the EZ when first detected, the airguns 

will be shut down immediately. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 100 m EZ. The 

animal will be considered to have 

cleared the 100 m EZ if the following 

conditions have been met: 

• It is visually observed to have 

departed the 100 m EZ; or 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds; or 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 30 min in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy and dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales. 

This shutdown requirement will be in 

place for all marine mammals, with the 

exception of small delphinoids under 

certain circumstances. As defined here, 

the small delphinoid group is intended 

to encompass those members of the 

Family Delphinidae most likely to 

voluntarily approach the source vessel 

for purposes of interacting with the 

vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow 

riding). This exception to the shutdown 

requirement will apply solely to specific 

genera of small dolphins—Tursiops, 

Steno, Stenella, Lagenorhynchus and 

Delphinus—and will only apply if the 

animals were traveling, including 

approaching the vessel. If, for example, 

an animal or group of animals is 

stationary for some reason (e.g., feeding) 

and the source vessel approaches the 

animals, the shutdown requirement 

applies. An animal with sufficient 

incentive to remain in an area rather 

than avoid an otherwise aversive 

stimulus could either incur auditory 

injury or disruption of important 

behavior. If there is uncertainty 

regarding identification (i.e., whether 

the observed animal(s) belongs to the 

group described above) or whether the 

animals are traveling, the shutdown will 

be implemented. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because shutdown 

requirements for small delphinoids 

under all circumstances represent 

practicability concerns without likely 

commensurate benefits for the animals 

in question. Small delphinoids are 

generally the most commonly observed 

marine mammals in the specific 

geographic region and would typically 

be the only marine mammals likely to 

intentionally approach the vessel. As 

described below, auditory injury is 

extremely unlikely to occur for midfrequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), 

as this group is relatively insensitive to 

sound produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., 

permanent threshold shift). Please see 

the Federal Register notice of proposed 

IHA (83 FR 18644; April 27, 2018) for 

further discussion of sound metrics and 

thresholds and marine mammal hearing. 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Atlantis to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinoids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids would not have similar 

impacts in terms of either practicability 

for the applicant or corollary increase in 

sound energy output and time on the 

water. We do anticipate some benefit for 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

somewhat the total range of decisionmaking for PSOs and may preclude any 

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

Shutdown of the acoustic source will 

also be required upon observation of 

any of the following: 

• A large whale (i.e., sperm whale or 

any baleen whale) with a calf observed 

at any distance; 

• an aggregation of six or more large 

whales of any species (i.e., sperm whale 

or any baleen whale) that does not 

appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, 

socializing, etc.) observed at any 

distance; or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27968 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

• a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes are 

met, observed approaching or within the 

Level A or B harassment zone. 

Ramp-up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a shutdown, 

enabling animals to move away from the 

source if the signal is sufficiently 

aversive prior to its reaching full 

intensity. Ramp-up will be required 

after the array is shut down for any 

reason. Ramp-up will begin with the 

activation of one 45 in3 airgun, with the 

second 45 in3 airgun activated after 5 

minutes. 

At least two PSOs will be required to 

monitor during ramp-up. During ramp 

up, the PSOs will monitor the EZ, and 

if marine mammals were observed 

within the EZ or buffer zone, a 

shutdown will be implemented as 

though the full array were operational. 

If airguns have been shut down due to 

PSO detection of a marine mammal 

within or approaching the 100 m EZ, 

ramp-up will not be initiated until all 

marine mammals have cleared the EZ, 

during the day or night. Criteria for 

clearing the EZ will be as described 

above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

observation are required prior to rampup for any shutdown of longer than 30 

minutes (i.e., if the array were shut 

down during transit from one line to 

another). This 30 minute pre-clearance 

period may occur during any vessel 

activity (i.e., transit). If a marine 

mammal were observed within or 

approaching the 100 m EZ during this 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up will not 

be initiated until all marine mammals 

cleared the EZ. Criteria for clearing the 

EZ will be as described above. If the 

airgun array has been shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for a period of 

less than 30 minutes, it may be activated 

again without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant visual observation 

and no detections of any marine 

mammal have occurred within the EZ or 

buffer zone. Ramp-up will be planned to 

occur during periods of good visibility 

when possible. However, ramp-up is 

allowed at night and during poor 

visibility if the 100 m EZ and 200 m 

buffer zone have been monitored by 

visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up. 

The operator is required to notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up. A designated PSO 

must be notified again immediately 

prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 

and the operator must receive 

confirmation from the PSO to proceed. 

The operator must provide information 

to PSOs documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. Following 

deactivation of the array for reasons 

other than mitigation, the operator is 

required to communicate the near-term 

operational plan to the lead PSO with 

justification for any planned nighttime 

ramp-up. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures 

Vessel strike avoidance measures are 

intended to minimize the potential for 

collisions with marine mammals. These 

requirements do not apply in any case 

where compliance creates an imminent 

and serious threat to a person or vessel 

or to the extent that a vessel is restricted 

in its ability to maneuver and, because 

of the restriction, cannot comply. 

The measures include the following: 

Vessel operator and crew will maintain 

a vigilant watch for all marine mammals 

and slow down or stop the vessel or 

alter course to avoid striking any marine 

mammal. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel will monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone around the vessel 

according to the parameters stated 

below. Visual observers monitoring the 

vessel strike avoidance zone will be 

either third-party observers or crew 

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties will be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance 

measures will be followed during 

surveys and while in transit. 

The vessel will maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 100 m from large 

whales (i.e., baleen whales and sperm 

whales). If a large whale is within 100 

m of the vessel the vessel will reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral, 

and will not engage the engines until 

the whale has moved outside of the 

vessel’s path and the minimum 

separation distance has been 

established. If the vessel is stationary, 

the vessel will not engage engines until 

the whale(s) has moved out of the 

vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. The 

vessel will maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 50 m from all 

other marine mammals (with the 

exception of delphinids of the genera 

Tursiops, Steno, Stenella, 

Lagenorhynchus and Delphinus that 

approach the vessel, as described 

above). If an animal is encountered 

during transit, the vessel will attempt to 

remain parallel to the animal’s course, 

avoiding excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in course. Vessel speeds will be 

reduced to 10 knots or less when 

mother/calf pairs or large assemblages of 

cetaceans (what constitutes ‘‘large’’ will 

vary depending on species) are observed 

within 500 m of the vessel. Mariners 

may use professional judgment as to 

when such circumstances warranting 

additional caution are present. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA 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 authorizations 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. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27969 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

SIO submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring and reporting plan in their 

IHA application. Monitoring that is 

designed specifically to facilitate 

mitigation measures, such as monitoring 

of the EZ to inform potential shutdowns 

of the airgun array, are described above 

and are not repeated here. 

SIO’s monitoring and reporting plan 

includes the following measures: 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

will take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start-ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, three visual PSOs 

will be based aboard the Atlantis. PSOs 

will be appointed by SIO with NMFS 

approval. During the majority of seismic 

operations, one PSO will monitor for 

marine mammals around the seismic 

vessel. PSOs will be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than 4 hours. Other 

crew will also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals and in 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). During daytime, PSOs will 

scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7×50 Fujinon) and with the naked 

eye. At night, PSOs will be equipped 

with night-vision equipment. 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially ‘taken’ by harassment (as 

defined in the MMPA). They will also 

provide information needed to order a 

shutdown of the airguns when a marine 

mammal is within or near the EZ. When 

a sighting is made, the following 

information about the sighting will be 

recorded: 

(1) Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace; and 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

All observations and shutdowns will 

be recorded in a standardized format. 

Data will be entered into an electronic 

database. The accuracy of the data entry 

will be verified by computerized data 

validity checks as the data are entered 

and by subsequent manual checking of 

the database. These procedures will 

allow initial summaries of data to be 

prepared during and shortly after the 

field program and will facilitate transfer 

of the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. The time, location, 

heading, speed, activity of the vessel, 

sea state, visibility, and sun glare will 

also be recorded at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

(1) The basis for real-time mitigation 

(e.g., airgun shutdown); 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS; 

(3) Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted; 

(4) Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity; 

and 

(5) Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

survey. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring and will summarize the 

dates and locations of seismic 

operations, and all marine mammal 

sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities). The report will also include 

estimates of the number and nature of 

exposures that occurred above the 

harassment threshold based on PSO 

observations, including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(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., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of 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 harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

2, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned 

seismic survey to be similar in nature. 

Where there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality will occur as a result 

of SIO’s planned seismic survey, even in 

the absence of mitigation. Thus the 

authorization does not authorize any 

mortality. As discussed in the Potential 

Effects section, non-auditory physical 

effects, stranding, and vessel strike are 

not expected to occur. 

We authorize a limited number of 

instances of Level A harassment (Table 

10) for one species. However, we believe 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

that any PTS incurred in marine 

mammals as a result of the planned 

activity would be in the form of only a 

small degree of PTS and not total 

deafness that would not be likely to 

affect the fitness of any individuals, 

because of the constant movement of 

both the Atlantis and of the marine 

mammals in the project area, as well as 

the fact that the vessel is not expected 

to remain in any one area in which 

individual marine mammals would be 

expected to concentrate for an extended 

period of time (i.e., since the duration of 

exposure to loud sounds will be 

relatively short). Also, as described 

above, we expect that marine mammals 

would be likely to move away from a 

sound source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the Atlantis’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. We expect that the majority of 

takes would be in the form of short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of temporary avoidance of the area 

or decreased foraging (if such activity 

were occurring), reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see Potential Effects of 

the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat). Marine 

mammal habitat may be impacted by 

elevated sound levels, but these impacts 

would be temporary. Feeding behavior 

is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as marine mammals appear to 

be less likely to exhibit behavioral 

reactions or avoidance responses while 

engaged in feeding activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the project area; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, and 

the lack of important or unique marine 

mammal habitat, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. In addition, there are no 

feeding, mating or calving areas known 

to be biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. 

As described above, though marine 

mammals in the survey area would not 

be assigned to NMFS stocks, for 

purposes of the small numbers analysis 

we rely on stock numbers from the U.S. 

Atlantic SARs as the best available 

information on the abundance estimates 

for the species of marine mammals that 

could be taken. The activity is expected 

to impact a very small percentage of all 

marine mammal populations that would 

be affected by SIO’s planned survey 

(less than 32 percent each for all marine 

mammal stocks, when compared with 

stocks from the U.S. Atlantic as 

described above). Additionally, the 

acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the proposed 

survey would be very small relative to 

the ranges of all marine mammals that 

would potentially be affected. Sound 

levels would increase in the marine 

environment in a relatively small area 

surrounding the vessel compared to the 

range of the marine mammals within the 

proposed survey area. The seismic array 

would be active 24 hours per day 

throughout the duration of the proposed 

survey. However, the very brief overall 

duration of the proposed survey (25 

days) would further limit potential 

impacts that may occur as a result of the 

proposed activity. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by allowing for detection of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

vessel by visual and acoustic observers, 

and by minimizing the severity of any 

potential exposures via shutdowns of 

the airgun array. Based on previous 

monitoring reports for substantially 

similar activities that have been 

previously authorized by NMFS, we 

expect that the mitigation measures will 

be effective in preventing at least some 

extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of mitigation measures. 

Of the marine mammal species under 

our jurisdiction that are likely to occur 

in the project area, the following species 

are listed as endangered under the ESA: 

fin, sei, blue, and sperm whales. There 

are currently insufficient data to 

determine population trends for these 

species (Hayes et al., 2017); however, 

we are authorizing very small numbers 

of takes for these species (Table 10), 

relative to their population sizes (again, 

when compared to U.S. Atlantic stocks, 

for purposes of comparison only), 

therefore we do not expect populationlevel impacts to any of these species. 

The other marine mammal species that 

may be taken by harassment during 

SIO’s seismic survey are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. There is no designated critical 

habitat for any ESA-listed marine 

mammals within the project area; of the 

non-listed marine mammals for which 

we authorize take, none are considered 

‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS 

under the MMPA. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species due to SIO’s 

seismic survey would result in only 

short-term (temporary and short in 

duration) effects to individuals exposed, 

or some small degree of PTS to a very 

small number of individuals of four 

species. Marine mammals may 

temporarily avoid the immediate area, 

but are not expected to permanently 

abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat 

use, distribution, or foraging success are 

not expected. NMFS does not anticipate 

the take estimates to impact annual rates 

of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would primarily be temporary 

behavioral changes due to avoidance of 

the area around the survey vessel. The 

relatively short duration of the proposed 

survey (25 days) would further limit the 

potential impacts of any temporary 

behavioral changes that would occur; 

• The number of instances of PTS 

that may occur are expected to be very 

small in number (Table 10). Instances of 

PTS that are incurred in marine 

mammals would be of a low level, due 

to constant movement of the vessel and 

of the marine mammals in the area, and 

the nature of the survey design (not 

concentrated in areas of high marine 

mammal concentration); 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the proposed survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• The proposed project area does not 

contain areas of significance for feeding, 

mating or calving; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

proposed survey would be temporary 

and spatially limited; and 

• The mitigation measures, including 

visual and acoustic monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 27971 

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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the specified activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Due to the location of SIO’s survey, 

some of the marine mammals 

potentially taken by the proposed 

survey would not be expected to 

originate from the U.S. Atlantic stocks 

as defined by NMFS (Hayes et al., 2017). 

Population abundance data for marine 

mammal species in the survey area is 

not available. Therefore, in most cases 

the U.S. Atlantic SARs represent the 

best available information on marine 

mammal abundance in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean. For certain species (i.e., 

fin whale, minke whale and common 

dolphin) the 2007 Canadian TransNorth Atlantic Sighting Survey 

(TNASS), which provided full coverage 

of the Atlantic Canadian coast (Lawson 

and Gosselin, 2009) represents the best 

available information on abundance, as 

noted previously. Abundance estimates 

from TNASS were corrected for 

perception and availability bias, when 

possible. In general, where the TNASS 

survey effort provided more extensive 

coverage of a stock’s range (as compared 

with NOAA shipboard survey effort), we 

elected to use the resulting abundance 

estimate over the current NMFS 

abundance estimate (derived from 

survey effort with more limited coverage 

of the stock range). For the humpback 

whale, NMFS defines a stock of 

humpback whales in the Atlantic only 

on the basis of the Gulf of Maine feeding 

population; however, multiple feeding 

populations originate from the DPS of 

humpback whales that is expected to 

occur in the proposed survey area (the 

West Indies DPS). As West Indies DPS 

whales from multiple feeding 

populations may be encountered in the 

proposed survey area, the total 

abundance of the West Indies DPS best 

reflects the abundance of the population 

that may encountered by the proposed 

survey. The West Indies DPS abundance 

estimate used here reflects the latest 

estimate as described in the NMFS 

Status Review of the Humpback Whale 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(Bettridge et al., 2015). Therefore, we 

use abundance data from the SARs in 

most cases, as well as from the TNASS 

and NMFS Status Review, for purposes 

of the small numbers analysis. 

The numbers of takes that we 

authorize are less than 10 percent of the 

population abundance for the majority 

of species and stocks, and 20 percent for 

sperm whales and 31 percent for fin 

whales, when compared to abundance 

estimates from U.S. Atlantic SARs and 

TNASS and NMFS Status Review (Table 

10). We again note that while some 

animals from U.S. stocks may occur in 

the proposed survey area, the proposed 

survey area is outside the geographic 

boundaries of the U.S. Atlantic SARs, 

thus populations of marine mammals in 

the proposed survey area would not be 

limited to the U.S. stocks and those 

populations may in fact be larger than 

the U.S. stock abundance estimates. In 

addition, it should be noted that take 

numbers represent instances of take, not 

individuals taken. Given the relatively 

small survey grids (Figure 1 in the IHA 

application), it is reasonable to expect 

that some individuals may be exposed 

more than one time, which would mean 

that the number of individuals taken is 

somewhat smaller than the total 

instances of take indicated in Table 10. 

No known current regional 

population estimates are available for 

five marine mammal species that could 

be incidentally taken as a result of the 

planned survey: the Bryde’s whale, 

killer whale, pygmy killer whale, 

Northern bottlenose whale, and ringed 

seal. NMFS has reviewed the geographic 

distributions of these species in 

determining whether the numbers of 

takes authorized are likely to represent 

small numbers. Bryde’s whales are 

distributed worldwide in tropical and 

sub-tropical waters (Kato and Perrin, 

2009). Killer whales are broadly 

distributed in the Atlantic from the 

Arctic ice edge to the West Indies 

(Waring et al., 2015). The pygmy killer 

whale is distributed worldwide in 

tropical to sub-tropical waters (Jefferson 

et al. 1994). Northern bottlenose whales 

are distributed in the North Atlantic 

from Nova Scotia to about 70° N in the 

Davis Strait, along the east coast of 

Greenland to 77° N and from England, 

Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands 

to the south coast of Svalbard (Waring 

et al., 2015). The harp seal occurs 

throughout much of the North Atlantic 

and Arctic Oceans (Lavigne and Kovacs 

1988). Based on the broad spatial 

distributions of these species relative to 

the areas where the proposed survey 

would occur, NMFS concludes that the 

authorized take of these species 

represent small numbers relative to the 

affected species’ overall population 

sizes, though we are unable to quantify 

the authorized take numbers as a 

percentage of population. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the specified activity 

(including the mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS finds that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the population size of the affected 

species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated 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. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division is authorizing the incidental 

take of 4 species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA: The sei 

whale, fin whale, blue whale and sperm 

whale. Under Section 7 of the ESA, we 

requested initiation of Section 7 

consultation with the NMFS OPR 

Interagency Cooperation Division for the 

issuance of this IHA. In June, 2018, the 

NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation 

Division issued a Biological Opinion 

with an incidental take statement, 

which concluded that the issuance of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
27972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Notices 

the IHA was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the sei whale, fin 

whale, blue whale and sperm whale. 

The Biological Opinion also concluded 

that the issuance of the IHA would not 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat for these species. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to SIO for 

the potential harassment of small 

numbers of 35 marine mammal species 

incidental to a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: June 12, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12907 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Proposed Additions 

and Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Proposed additions to and 

deletions from the Procurement List. 

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing 

to add products and a service to the 

Procurement List that will be furnished 

by nonprofit agencies employing 

persons who are blind or have other 

severe disabilities, and deletes products 

and a service previously furnished by 

such agencies. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before: July 15, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, 

Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information or to submit 

comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, 

Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 

603–0655, or email CMTEFedReg@

AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

Additions 

If the Committee approves the 

proposed additions, the entities of the 

Federal Government identified in this 

notice will be required to procure the 

products and service listed below from 

nonprofit agencies employing persons 

who are blind or have other severe 

disabilities. 

The following products and service 

are proposed for addition to the 

Procurement List for production by the 

nonprofit agencies listed: 

Products 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

8405–00–NIB–0542—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 131⁄2 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0543—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 30 

8405–00–NIB–0544—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 31 

8405–00–NIB–0545—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0546—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0547—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0548—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 141⁄2 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0549—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 30 

8405–00–NIB–0550—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0551—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0552—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 14 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0553—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 30 

8405–00–NIB–0554—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 31 

8405–00–NIB–0555—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0556—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0557—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0558—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0559—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 151⁄2 x 36 

8405–00–NIB–0560—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 30 

8405–00–NIB–0561—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 31 

8405–00–NIB–0562—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0563—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0564—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0565—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0566—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 36 

8405–00–NIB–0567—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 15 x 37 

8405–00–NIB–0568—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 31 

8405–00–NIB–0569—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0570—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0571—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0572—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0573—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 36 

8405–00–NIB–0574—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 161⁄2 x 37 

8405–00–NIB–0575—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 31 

8405–00–NIB–0576—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0577—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0578—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0579—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0580—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 16 x 36 

8405–00–NIB–0581—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 171⁄2 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0582—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 171⁄2 x 33 

8405–00–NIB–0583—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 171⁄2 x 34 

8405–00–NIB–0584—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 171⁄2 x 35 

8405–00–NIB–0585—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 171⁄2 x 36 

8405–00–NIB–0586—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 32 

8405–00–NIB–0587—Kit, Pre-Cut Fabric, 

Pinpoint Dress Shirt, Coast Guard, 

Men’s, Long Sleeve, White, 17 x 33 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES