[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38263-38267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 062597B]


Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Offshore Seismic 
Activities in the Beaufort Sea

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

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of bowhead whales 
and other marine mammals by harassment incidental to conducting seismic 
surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea in state and federal waters has 
been issued to BP Exploration (Alaska) (BPXA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This authorization is effective from July 11, 1997, 
until November 1, 1997, unless extended.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, monitoring plan, and 1996 
environmental assessment (EA) are available by writing to the Chief, 
Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of 
the contacts listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska 
Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, 
the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
public for review.
    Permission may 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, and the permissible methods of taking 
and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking are set forth.
    On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an interim rule 
establishing, among other things, procedures for issuing incidental 
harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA in 
Arctic waters. For additional information on the procedures to be 
followed for this authorization, please refer to that document.

Summary of Request

    On March 5, 1997, NMFS received an application from BPXA, 900 East 
Benson Boulevard, Anchorage, AK 99519, requesting a 1-year renewal of 
their authorization for the harassment of small numbers of several 
species of marine mammals incidental to conducting seismic surveys 
during the open water season in the Western Beaufort Sea between 
approximately 145o 30'W and 150o 30'W, in U.S. 
waters. Weather permitting, the survey

[[Page 38264]]

is expected to take place between approximately July 1 and October 20, 
1997. A detailed description of the work planned is contained in the 
application (BPXA 1997) and is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

    A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization 
was published on April 22, 1997 (62 FR 19553), and a 30-day public 
comment period was provided on the application and proposed 
authorization. During the comment period, comments received were from 
the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), LGL Limited on behalf of BPXA, the 
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and Greenpeace Alaska 
(Greenpeace). Some of LGL's comments pertained to minor corrections to 
the proposed authorization notice and are not discussed below, others 
are discussed. Information on the activity and authorization request 
that are not subject to reviewer comments can be found in the proposed 
authorization notice and is not repeated here.

General concerns

    Comment 1: LGL requested clarification that the proposed seismic 
area extends east and west of the Northstar Unit proper.
    Response: NMFS notes that the application refers to a primary 
survey area that includes the Northstar area and other waters west of 
148o W long. However, ice conditions could preclude seismic 
operations in that area at some times. As a result, BPXA has selected 
other locations of interest in order to allow more options for 
operations to continue in areas of open water. Essentially the areas of 
interest to BPXA lie between Harrison Bay and Flaxman Island in the 
Western Beaufort Sea. These areas were noted in Figure 3 of the 
application.
    Comment 2: LGL notes that the closest point of approach of the 
planned seismic area to places where Kaktovik whalers are known to have 
taken bowhead whales is about 32 mi (51 km).
    Response: NMFS notes that Flaxman Island is located at 
approximately 146o W long., while Figure 3 of the BPXA 
application (BPXA 1997) indicates the seismic survey area continues 
east of Flaxman to approximately 145o 30'W. The location of 
the westernmost Kaktovik whaling location is 144o 11'W (BPXA 
1997). Therefore, the last sentence in 62 FR 19555, third column, third 
to last paragraph (April 22, 1997), was incorrect.
    Comment 3: LGL requested clarification between NMFS' statements in 
the proposed authorization notice where NMFS stated: ``An incidental 
harassment take is presumed to occur when marine mammals * * *react to 
the generated sounds or visual cues.'' and statements found in 61 FR 
64338 (December 4, 1996):

    ``Until new policy is implemented, NMFS' working definition is 
that incidental harassment has not taken place (sufficient to 
warrant an incidental small take authorization) if the marine mammal 
indicates simple alert, startle, or dive reaction in response to a 
single noise event. For airborne events, only if marine mammals move 
away from the noise or other harassment source, either towards the 
water if on land, or an obvious directional change seaward if 
already in the surf zone, does NMFS consider a harassment event to 
have taken place.''

    Response: NMFS is presently reviewing the issue of noise in marine 
waters and its effect on marine mammals. Based upon that review, NMFS 
expects to propose policy and guidance on what does and what does not 
constitute a take by harassment and thereby subject to authorization 
under the MMPA. Until such time, NMFS recommends potential applicants 
take a conservative interpretation of the statutory definition of 
harassment (e.g., 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).

Marine mammal concerns

    Comment 4: Greenpeace believes that there is an increasing amount 
of scientific literature which illustrates that seismic testing 
significantly impacts marine mammals and other species, such as fish. 
Greenpeace states that it is well known that marine mammals communicate 
by using sound and that it is clear that many species are extremely 
sensitive to both sound and physical disturbance. Based on the 
precautionary principle therefore, Greenpeace believes that when there 
is evidence to indicate that there could be harm, an activity should 
not be carried out. Greenpeace provides a reference (i.e., Chapter 6 in 
Greenpeace: Oil in Arctic Waters: The Untold Story of Offshore Drilling 
in Alaska) as evidence contrary to the applicant's scientific evidence 
of negligible impact.
    Response: One of the primary concerns with marine seismic surveys 
in Arctic waters is for those animals that might be within close 
proximity of the source when it is powered up. While permanent hearing 
damage is not expected to occur as a result of the project, to reduce 
the potential for any ear injury to the greatest extent practicable, 
BPXA will be required, as a condition of the IHA, to use biological 
observers to monitor marine mammal presence in the vicinity of the 
seismic array. To avoid the potential for serious injury to marine 
mammals, BPXA will power down the seismic source if pinnipeds are 
sighted:
    (a) Within 260 m (853 ft) of an array of >720 in3 and 
<1,320 in3 at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
    (b) Within 130 m (426 ft) of that array 
operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
    (c) Within 130 m (426 ft) of an array of >120 in3 and 
<720 in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;
    (d) Within 60 m (197 ft) of that array operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft) 
depth; and
    (e) Within 60 m (197 ft) of a single airgun or an array of <120 
in3.
    BPXA will power down the seismic source if bowhead, gray, or 
belukha whales are sighted:
    (a) Within either 1020 m (3346 ft) of an array >720 in3 
and <1,320 in3 operating at >2.5m (8.3 ft) depth; or
    (b) Within 640 m (2100 ft) of that array operating at <2.5 m (8.3 
ft) depth or of any smaller airgun source operating at any depth (BPXA 
1997).
    At the above referenced distances, the seismic source will be 
powered down whenever pinnipeds or cetaceans could be exposed to sound 
pressure levels equal to or greater than 190 dB and 180 dB (re 1 
Pa), respectively. These distances are considered conservative 
(e.g., give greater protection to marine mammals) in comparison to 
mitigation required on other seismic surveys holding small take 
authorizations (see for example 60 FR 53753, October 17, 1995). For 
additional discussion on this issue, please refer to BPXA's 1996 
application (61 FR 26501, May 28, 1996)).
    In addition, BPXA will ramp-up the seismic source to operating 
levels at a rate no greater than 6 dB/min. If the array includes 
airguns of different sizes, the smallest gun will be fired first. 
Additional guns will be added at intervals appropriate to limit the 
rate of increase in source level to a maximum of 6 dB/min. This will 
allow sufficient opportunity for any unseen marine mammals to move away 
from the source before being exposed to sounds from the full seismic 
array.
    When the received levels of noise exceed some behavioral reaction 
threshold, cetaceans will show disturbance reactions (BPXA 1997). The 
levels, frequencies, and types of noise that will elicit a response 
vary between and within species, individuals, locations and season. 
Behavioral

[[Page 38265]]

changes may be subtle alterations in surface-respiration-dive cycles. 
More conspicuous responses include changes in activity or aerial 
displays, movement away from the sound source, or complete avoidance of 
the area. The reaction threshold and degree of response are related to 
the activity of the animal at the time of the disturbance. Whales 
engaged in active behaviors such as feeding, socializing or mating are 
less likely than resting animals to show overt behavioral reactions, 
unless the disturbance is directly threatening (BPXA 1997).
    It should be noted that masking effects on marine mammal calls and 
other natural sounds are expected to be limited in the case of bowhead 
and gray whales, given the fact that seismic sounds are short pulses 
occurring for less than 1 sec every 6-12 sec. Bowheads are known to 
continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses; their calls can be 
heard between the seismic pulses (Richardson et al. 1986). Masking 
effects are expected to be absent in the case of belukhas, given that 
sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies 
than are the airgun sounds.
    The best scientific information available indicates that fish will 
often react to sounds, especially strong and/or intermittent sounds of 
low frequency (BPXA 1997). Sound pulses at received levels of 160 dB 
(re 1 Pa) may cause subtle changes in behavior. Pulses at 
levels of 180 dB may cause noticeable changes in behavior (Chapman and 
Hawkins 1969, Pearson et al. 1992, Skalski et al. 1992). It also 
appears that fish often habituate to repeated strong sounds rather 
rapidly, on time scales of minutes to an hour. However, the habituation 
does not endure, and resumption of the disturbing activity may again 
elicit disturbance responses from the same fish (BPXA 1997). Therefore, 
fish near the airguns are likely to dive to the bottom or exhibit some 
other kind of behavioral response. This would likely have little or no 
impact on marine mammal feeding.
    Zooplankters that are very close to the source may react to the 
seismic shock wave. Little, if any, mortality is expected. Bowheads 
feed on concentrations of zooplankton (Thomson and Richardson 1987). A 
reaction by zooplankton to a seismic impulse would only be relevant to 
bowheads if it caused a concentration of zooplankton to scatter. 
Pressure changes of sufficient magnitude to cause this type of reaction 
would probably occur only very close to the source. Impacts on 
zooplankton behavior are predicted to be negligible and this would 
translate into negligible impacts on feeding bowheads.

Subsistence concerns

    Comment 5: LGL notes that Inupiat whalers believe that avoidance 
reactions by bowhead whales can extend to longer distances, at least 
for actively migrating whales. Greenpeace notes that the whaling 
captains have presented compelling evidence that the (bowhead) whales 
are displaced from their migratory route and feeding areas by seismic 
and drilling operations and quote NSB whalers testimony that the zone 
of influence of seismic operations on the bowhead whale as much greater 
than that documented by visiting scientists. Greenpeace claims NMFS 
ignores the whaling captains' discussion of subtle behavioral effects 
on the bowhead whale (e.g., spookiness). The AEWC notes that hunters, 
at the March 5, 1997, Minerals Management Service's (MMS) Barrow, AK 
seismic workshop, stressed repeatedly that seismic noise causes Fall 
migrating bowheads to begin to deflect from their path at great 
distances (up to 35 miles (mi)).
    Response: A primary focus for monitoring marine seismic surveys in 
Arctic waters is to determine the zone of influence for seismic noise 
on marine mammals, especially as it may affect the subsistence hunting 
of bowhead whales. Various studies (Reeves et al. 1984, Fraker et al. 
1985, Richardson et al. 1986, Ljungblad et al. 1988) have reported 
that, when an operating seismic vessel approaches within a few 
kilometers, most bowhead whales exhibit strong avoidance behavior and 
changes in surfacing, respiration, and dive cycles. Bowheads exposed to 
seismic pulses from vessels more than 4.5 mi (7.5 km) away rarely 
showed observable avoidance of the vessel, but their surface, 
respiration, and dive cycles appeared altered in a manner similar to 
that observed in whales exposed at a closer distance (BPXA 1996).
    Within a 3.7-60 mi (6-99 km) range, it has not been possible to 
determine a specific distance at which subtle behavioral changes no 
longer occur (Richardson and Malme 1993), given the high variability 
observed in bowhead whale behavior (BPX 1996).
    Analysis of the results from BPXA's 1996 seismic monitoring program 
has not provided conclusive evidence about the radius of avoidance of 
bowheads to the seismic program. In that year, the peak number of 
bowhead sightings was 6.2-12.3 mi (10-20 km) from shore during no-
seismic periods and 20-30 km (12.3-18.6 mi) from shore during periods 
that may have been influenced by seismic noise. This difference was not 
statistically significant, but the low numbers of sightings precluded 
meaningful interpretation (BPXA 1997). One of the objectives of the 
1997 proposed monitoring plan (LGL 1997) will be to continue this 
investigation.
    While the location of the proposed seismic activity is south of the 
main westward migration route of bowhead whales, whalers believe that 
some migrating bowheads are deflected by seismic operations at 
distances greater than those documented by scientific studies done to 
date (MMS 1997). Scientists believe that although whales may be able to 
hear the sounds emitted by the seismic array out to a distance of 30 mi 
(50 km) or more, it is unlikely that changes in migration route will 
occur at distances of >15 miles (>25 km) (BPXA 1997).
    It is recognized that it is difficult to determine the maximum 
distance at which reactions occur (Moore and Clark 1992). As a result, 
BPXA is developing a CAA with the whalers (see response to comment 8 
below) to reduce any potential interference with the hunt. Also, it is 
believed that the monitoring plan proposed by BPXA (LGL and Greeneridge 
1997) will provide information that will help resolve uncertainties 
about the effects of seismic exploration on the accessibility of 
bowheads to hunters. This will be subject for review and discussion at 
the monitoring peer review workshop on July 16 and 17, 1997.

Monitoring concerns

    Comment 6: Greenpeace believes that BPXA's 1996 and 1997 monitoring 
plans are not scientifically sufficient to determine impacts to Arctic 
pinniped and cetacean species. If the application is approved (against 
Greenpeace's recommendation), Greenpeace wants NMFS to require a 
comprehensive monitoring plan that is fully subjected to independent 
peer design and review. The AEWC also recommends that if the seismic 
survey continues after September 1 the monitoring plan must be (1) as 
comprehensive as that done during 1996; (2) peer-reviewed and revised 
as necessary in response to the peer-review; and (3) account for 
material presented at the March 5, 1997, MMS seismic workshop held in 
Barrow, Alaska.
    Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(II) of the MMPA requires 
authorizations issued under this section to prescribe, where 
applicable, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of 
such taking by harassment, including requirements for independent peer 
review of proposed monitoring

[[Page 38266]]

plans or other research proposals where the proposed activity may 
affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for 
subsistence purposes.
    A draft monitoring plan for BPXA's 1996 seismic survey was reviewed 
by NMFS, AEWC and other scientists in conjunction with a workshop held 
in Seattle, WA on May 20 and 21, 1996. An amended monitoring plan was 
prepared by BPXA in June 1996 and submitted to NMFS for approval. 
Subsequently, NMFS issued an IHA to BPXA on July 18, 1996, and BPXA 
implemented its monitoring plan for that year.
    On March 15, 1997, BPXA submitted a draft monitoring plan to NMFS 
for the seismic survey in 1997. This document supplemented the 
information contained in section XIII of BPXA's March 5, 1997 
application. Both documents were subsequently provided to reviewers 
beginning on April 22, 1997, at the start of the public comment period. 
The draft report on the 1996 monitoring and research program and the 
draft monitoring program for 1997 will be reviewed by NMFS, AEWC and 
independent scientists at a workshop to be held in Seattle, WA on July 
16 and 17, 1997. As required in their IHA, an amended monitoring plan 
will need to be prepared by BPXA and submitted to NMFS for review and 
approval prior to August 20, 1997, in order for the IHA's period of 
validity to be extended after September 1, 1997.
    Comment 7: The AEWC recommends (1) that NMFS should not approve any 
monitoring plan or issue an IHA until the results of the 1996 
monitoring study have been peer-reviewed. A major aspect of the peer-
review should be to determine the extent to which the 1996 monitoring 
effort met the objectives of the 1996 monitoring plan.
    Response: NMFS agrees in part. However, because of the delay in 
completing a Plan of Cooperation (Conflict and Avoidance Agreement) 
between BPXA and the AEWC, and the effect of this delay on determining 
the appropriate monitoring for assessing whether the survey would have 
an unmitigable adverse impacts on native subsistence needs, a workshop 
for peer-reviewing the monitoring plan has been delayed. As a result, 
NMFS will not delay the issuance of the IHA until completion of a 
review of the 1997 monitoring plan, or the results of the 1996 
monitoring plan, but will require both to be completed to the 
satisfaction of NMFS prior to the beginning of the bowhead whale 
migration and the start of the Western Beaufort Sea subsistence harvest 
(e.g., September 1, 1997).
    Comment 8: Greenpeace also believes (1) the monitoring plan must be 
designed to substantiate the ``zone of influence,'' however distant; 
(2) operations must cease well before the fall bowhead migration and 
not continue during the fall bowhead hunt; and (3) no seismic 
operations should be allowed to continue east of Cross Island after the 
end of August. The MMC recommends that NMFS be satisfied that the 
proposed monitoring program is adequate to verify that only small 
numbers of marine mammals are taken, that the taking is by harassment 
only, and that the impacts on the affected species/stocks are 
negligible.
    Response: Recognizing that Greenpeace recommendations (2) and (3) 
are mitigation recommendations and not monitoring recommendations, NMFS 
notes that both are presently subject to negotiations between BPXA and 
the AEWC/NSB. Resolution of these measures will be contained in a 
Conflict and Avoidance Agreement (CAA) signed by these parties. A 
signed CAA supports NMFS determination that there are no unmitigable 
adverse impacts for subsistence needs.
    While implementation of these mitigation measures would be expected 
to reduce the number of harassment takes on bowhead whales, it would 
also significantly reduce the limited time available in the Western 
Beaufort Sea for survey work.
    As mentioned above, the requirements and design of the monitoring 
plan will be the subject of the peer-review workshop this month. A task 
of that workshop will be to ensure that the monitoring program can, to 
the extent practicable, make the findings necessary to support the 
determinations made herein.
    Comment 9: The MMC recommends that the plan be reviewed to take 
into account appropriate comments provided by the peer review panel on 
the 1997 monitoring plan. The panel should review the report to assure 
that the objectives are met and, if they are not, that the monitoring 
program for 1997 is revised accordingly.
    Response: Thank you for this recommendation.

Cumulative impacts concerns

    Comment 10: Greenpeace believes NMFS is ignoring cumulative impacts 
from oil exploration and development in the Arctic, including global 
warming and climate change perpetuated by the continued production and 
burning of fossil fuels.
    Response: NMFS would like to clarify that it does not authorize the 
activity (i.e., conducting the seismic survey); such authorization is 
provided by the MMS and is not within the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary. NMFS' responsibility is limited to issuance or denial of an 
authorization for the short-term, incidental harassment of a small 
number of marine mammals by BPXA while conducting a seismic survey 
within an authorized lease sale area.
    Furthermore, 3-D seismic surveys do not involve any oil drilling or 
production activities. The survey would provide subsurface data that 
would enable BPXA to more accurately assess the oil-bearing strata to 
more efficiently develop the Northstar field. Geological and 
geophysical work to gather seismic data is authorized by BPXA's lease.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concerns

    Comment 11: Greenpeace notes that the proposed action would have 
significant and unmitigable impacts to subsistence communities and the 
Arctic marine environment and therefore NMFS fails to meet NEPA 
standards for making a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 
Greenpeace urges NMFS to prepare a full environmental impact statement 
(EIS) that considers the comprehensive environmental and human impacts 
of BPXA's seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea in the context of 
other present and future oil industry exploration and development 
activities in the region.
    Response: In conjunction with the 1996 notice of proposed 
authorization for BPXA's application (61 FR 26501, May 28, 1996), NMFS 
released an EA that addressed the impacts on the human environment from 
issuance of an IHA to BPXA to conduct a seismic survey in the Western 
Beaufort Sea, and the alternatives to that proposed action. No comments 
were received on that document and, on July 18, 1996, NMFS concluded 
that neither implementation of the proposed authorization to BPXA for 
the harassment of small numbers of several species of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting seismic surveys during the open water season 
in the Northstar Unit and nearby waters in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, nor 
the alternatives to that action, would significantly affect the quality 
of the human environment. This year's activity is a continuation of the 
seismic work conducted in 1996. For BPXA's 1997 application, NMFS has 
conducted a review of the impacts expected from the issuance of an IHA 
in comparison to those evaluated in 1996. As described in detail 
herein, NMFS has again determined that there will be no more than a 
negligible impact on marine mammals from the issuance of the harassment 
authorization and that there will not be any unmitigable impacts to

[[Page 38267]]

subsistence communities provided the mitigation measures required under 
the authorization are implemented. Because the activity is the same 
conducted in 1996, and no new impacts on the environment have been 
identified, a new EA is not warranted and therefore, the preparation of 
an EIS on this action is not required by section 102(2) of NEPA or its 
implementing regulations. A copy of the EA is available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS notes that the responsibility for reviewing an activity under 
NEPA belongs primarily to the responsible Federal agency, if that 
activity is Federal, federally-funded, or federally-permitted. The MMS 
of the U.S. Department of the Interior has responsibility for leasing 
and subsequent exploration and development activities under the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act. As a result, MMS published draft and final 
EISs under NEPA regarding leasing of offshore oil and gas exploration 
in this area (Lease Sale Area 144). Seismic surveys are covered under 
those documents. In addition, a multi-agency NEPA document is currently 
under development by the Corps of Engineers. This document will analyze 
the proposal for oil and gas development at Northstar and the 
alternatives to that proposal. A notice of NEPA scoping was published 
for public comment in November 1995; a draft EIS is planned for release 
later this year. Presumably, an analysis of concerns regarding 
potential future oil and gas industry and other environmental issues 
will be found in this document.

Consultation

    Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has completed 
consultations on the issuance of this authorization.

Conclusions

    NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of conducting 
seismic surveys in the Western Beaufort Sea will result, at worst, in a 
temporary modification in behavior by certain species of cetaceans. 
While behavioral modifications may be made by these species of 
cetaceans to avoid the resultant noise, this behavioral change is 
expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. The number of 
potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution 
and abundance of marine mammals (which vary annually due to variable 
ice conditions and other factors) in the area of seismic operations. 
Due to the distribution and abundance of marine mammals during the 
projected period of activity and the location of the proposed seismic 
activity in waters generally too shallow and distant from the edge of 
the pack ice for most marine mammals of concern, the number of 
potential harassment takings is estimated to be small (see 62 FR 19553, 
April 22, 1997 for potential levels of take). In addition, no take by 
injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or 
permanent hearing impairment will be avoided through incorporation of 
the mitigation measures described in the authorization.
    Because bowhead whales are east of the seismic area in the Canadian 
Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, seismic activities are 
not expected to impact subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to 
that date. After September 1, 1997, BPXA will initiate aerial survey 
flights for bowhead whale assessments, and take other actions to avoid 
having an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses. Appropriate 
mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs is the subject of 
consultation between BPXA and subsistence users. As a result of 
discussions between the two parties, a Conflict and Avoidance Agreement 
is, at this time, near completion. This Agreement consists of three 
main components: (1) Communications, (2) conflict avoidance, and (3) 
dispute resolution.
    Summer seismic exploration in and near the Northstar Unit has a 
small potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of 
Nuiqsut. However, NMFS believes that because (1) the peak sealing 
season is during the winter months, (2) the main summer sealing is off 
the Colville delta (west and inshore of Northstar), and (3) the zone of 
influence by seismic sources on beluga and seals is fairly small, the 
1997 BPXA seismic survey will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of these stocks for subsistence uses.
    Since NMFS is assured that the taking will not result in more than 
the incidental harassment (as defined by the MMPA Amendments of 1994) 
of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals, would have only 
a negligible impact on these stocks, will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of these stocks for subsistence 
uses, and would result in the least practicable impact on the stocks, 
NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) have 
been met and the authorization can be issued.

Authorization

    Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to BPXA for the above described 
seismic survey during the 1997 open water season provided the 
mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements described in the 
authorization are undertaken.

    Dated: July 11, 1997.
Patricia A. Montanio,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-18862 Filed 7-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F