[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 146 (Friday, July 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41384-41391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19462]



[[Page 41384]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 040799A]


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 Western Geophysical/Western Atlas International of 
Houston, Texas (Western Geophysical).

DATES: Effective from July 20, 1999, until November 1, 1999, unless 
extended.

ADDRESSES: The application, authorization, monitoring plan, 
environmental assessment (EA), and a list of references used in this 
document are available by writing to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine 
Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one 
of the contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, (301) 
713-2055, Brad Smith, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.

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 (Secretary) 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.
    Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a 
negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
stock(s) for subsistence uses and if the permissible methods of taking 
and requirements pertaining to the 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 24, 1999, NMFS received an application from Western 
Geophysical requesting an 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 Beaufort Sea 
between western Camden Bay and Harrison Bay off northern Alaska. 
Weather permitting, the survey is expected to take place between 
approximately July 1 and mid- to late-October, 1999. However, only a 
small portion of the area between western Camden Bay and Harrison Bay 
will be surveyed this year. A detailed description of the work proposed 
for 1999 is contained in the application (Western Geophysical, 1999) 
and is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by 
this activity. Support vessels and aircraft will provide a potential 
secondary source of noise. The physical presence of vessels and 
aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals 
involving visual or other cues.
    Seismic surveys are used to obtain data about geological formations 
several thousands of feet deep. The proposed seismic operation is an 
ocean bottom cable (OBC) survey. For this activity, OBC surveys involve 
dropping cables from a ship to the ocean bottom, forming a patch 
consisting of 4 parallel cables 8.9 kilometers (km) (4.8 nautical miles 
(nm)) long, separated by approximately 600 meters (m) (1,968 feet (ft)) 
from each other. Hydrophones and geophones, attached to the cables, are 
used to detect seismic energy reflected back from underground rock 
strata. The source of this energy is a submerged acoustic source, 
called a seismic airgun array, that releases compressed air into the 
water, creating an acoustical energy pulse that is directed downward 
toward the seabed. The source level planned for this project - a 
maximum of 247 dB re 1 Pa-m or 22.3 bar-meters (zero to peak), 
or a maximum of 252 dB re 1 Pa-m or 39 bar-meters (peak-to-
peak) - will be from an airgun array with a air discharge volume of 
1,210 in3. This compares to the 1,500 in3 array 
used on Western Geophysical's primary source vessel in 1998 and will be 
the only airgun array used by Western Geophysical in the Beaufort Sea 
this year.
    It is anticipated that 34 seismic lines will be run for each patch, 
covering an area 5.0 km by 15.7 km (2.7 nm by 8.1 nm), centered over 
the patch. Source lines for one patch will overlap with those for 
adjacent patches.
    After sufficient data have been recorded to allow accurate mapping 
of the rock strata, the cables are lifted onto the deck of a cable-
retrieval vessel, moved to a new location (ranging from several hundred 
to a few thousand feet away), and placed onto the seabed again. For a 
more detailed description of the seismic operation, please refer to the 
1999 application from Western Geophysical.
    Depending upon ambient noise conditions and the sensitivity of the 
receptor, underwater sounds produced by open water seismic operations 
may be detectable a substantial distance away from the activity. Any 
sound that is detectable is (at least in theory) capable of eliciting a 
disturbance reaction by a marine mammal or of masking a signal of 
comparable frequency (Western Geophysical, 1999). An incidental 
harassment take is presumed to occur when marine mammals in the 
vicinity of the seismic source, the seismic vessel, other vessels, or 
aircraft react to the generated sounds or to visual cues.
    Seismic pulses are known to cause strong avoidance reactions by 
many of the bowhead whales occurring within a distance of several 
kilometers and may sometimes cause avoidance or other changes in 
bowhead behavior at considerably greater distances (Richardson et al., 
1995; Rexford, 1996; MMS, 1997). It is also possible that seismic 
pulses may disturb some other marine mammal species occurring in the 
area.
    Although some limited masking of low-frequency sounds (e.g., whale 
calls) is a possibility, the intermittent nature of seismic source 
pulses (<1 second in duration every 16 to 24 seconds) will limit the 
extent of masking. Bowhead whales are known to continue calling in the 
presence of seismic survey sounds, and their calls can be heard between 
seismic pulses (LGL and Greeneridge, 1997, 1998, 1999a; Richardson et 
al., 1986). Masking effects are expected to

[[Page 41385]]

be absent in the case of belugas, given that sounds important to them 
are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds 
(Western Geophysical, 1999).
    Hearing damage is not expected to occur during the project. It is 
not positively known whether the hearing systems of marine mammals very 
close to an airgun might be subject to temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment (Richardson et al., 1995). However, planned monitoring and 
mitigation measures (described later in this document) are designed to 
avoid sudden onsets of seismic pulses at full power, to detect marine 
mammals occurring near the array, and to avoid exposing them to sound 
pulses that have any possibility of causing hearing impairment.
    When the received levels of noise exceed some behavioral reaction 
threshold, cetaceans will show disturbance reactions. The levels, 
frequencies, and types of noise that will elicit a response vary 
between and within species, individuals, locations, and seasons. 
Behavioral changes may be subtle alterations in surface, respiration, 
and 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.

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. In studies prior to 1996, 
bowheads exposed to seismic pulses from vessels more than 7.5 km (4.0 
nm) 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 
(Western Geophysical, 1999).
    Within a 6- to 99-km (3.2 to 53.5 nm) 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 (Western Geophysical, 
1999). However, in three studies of bowhead whales and one of gray 
whales, surfacing-dive cycles have been unusually rapid in the presence 
of seimic noise, with fewer breaths per surfacing and longer intervals 
between breaths (Richardson et al., 1986; Koski and Johnson, 1987; 
Ljungblad et al., 1988; Malme et al., 1988). This pattern of subtle 
effects was evident among bowheads 6 km to at least 73 km (3.2 to 39 
nm) from seismic vessels. However, in the pre-1996 studies, active 
avoidance usually was not apparent unless the seismic vessel was closer 
than about 6 to 8 km (3.2 to 4.3 nm)(Western Geophysical, 1999).
    Inupiat whalers believe that migrating bowheads are sometimes 
displaced at distances considerably greater than 6 to 8 km (3.3 to 4.3 
nm)(Rexford, 1996). Also, whalers have mentioned that bowheads 
sometimes seem more ``skittish'' and more difficult to approach when 
seismic exploration is underway in the area. Results from the 1996-1998 
BP Exploration (Alaska)(BP) and Western Geophysical seismic monitoring 
program indicate that most bowheads avoided an area within about 20 km 
(12.4 mi) of nearshore seismic operations (Miller et al., 1998, 1999). 
The received levels of the seismic pulse at 20 km range were about 115-
130 dB re 1 Parms @ 1 m). It is possible that, when 
additional data are available and analyzed, it may be demonstrated that 
isolated bowheads avoid seismic vessels at distance beyond 20 km (10.8 
nm). Also, the ``skittish'' behavior may be related to the observed 
subtle changes in the behavior of bowheads exposed to seismic pulses 
from distant seismic vessels (Richardson et al., 1986).

Gray Whales

    The reactions of gray whales to seismic pulses are similar to those 
of bowheads, but apparently are limited to animals exposed to higher 
levels of seismic pulses. Migrating gray whales along the California 
coast were noted to slow their speed of swimming, turn away from 
seismic noise sources, and increase their respiration rates. Malme et 
al. (1983, 1984, 1988) concluded that approximately 50 percent showed 
avoidance when the average received pulse level was 170 dB (re 1 
Pa). By some behavioral measures, clear effects were evident 
at average pulse levels of 160+dB; less consistent results were 
suspected at levels of 140-160 dB. Recent research on migrating gray 
whales showed responses similar to those observed in the earlier 
research when the source was moored in the migration corridor 2 km (1.1 
nm) from shore. However, when the source was placed offshore (4 km (2.2 
nm) from shore) of the migration corridor, the avoidance response was 
not evident on track plots (Tyack and Clark, 1998).

Beluga

    The beluga is the only species of toothed whale (Odontoceti) 
expected to be encountered in the Beaufort Sea. Because the beluga 
hearing threshold at frequencies below 100 Hz (where most of the energy 
from airgun arrays is concentrated) is poor (125 dB re 1 Pa) 
or more depending upon frequency (Johnson et al., 1989; Richardson et 
al., 1991, 1995), beluga are not predicted to be strongly influenced by 
seismic noise. However, because of the high source levels of seismic 
pulses, airgun sounds sometimes may be audible to beluga at distances 
of 100 km (54 nm)(Richardson and Wursig, 1997). The reaction distance 
for beluga, although presently unknown, is expected to be less than 
that for bowheads, given the presumed poorer sensitivity of belugas 
than that of bowheads for low-frequency sounds (Western Geophysical, 
1999).

Ringed, Largha and Bearded Seals

    No detailed studies of reactions by seals to noise from open water 
seismic exploration have been published (Richardson et al., 1995). 
However, there are some data on the reactions of seals to various types 
of impulsive sounds (LGL and Greeneridge, 1997, 1998, 1999a; J. Parsons 
as quoted in Greene, et al. 1985; Anon., 1975; Mate and Harvey, 1985). 
These studies indicate that ice seals typically either tolerate or 
habituate to seismic noise produced from open water sources.
    Underwater audiograms have been obtained using behavioral methods 
for three species of phocinid seals: ringed, harbor, and harp seals 
(Pagophilus groenlandicus). These audiograms were reviewed in 
Richardson et al. (1995) and Kastak and Schusterman (1998). Below 30-50 
kHz, the hearing threshold of phocinids is essentially flat down to at 
least 1 kHz and ranges between 60 and 85 dB (re 1 Pa @ 1 m). 
There are few data on hearing sensitivity of phocinid seals below 1 
kHz. NMFS considers harbor seals to have a hearing threshold of 70-85 
dB at 1 kHz (60 FR 53753, October 17, 1995), and recent measurements 
for a harbor seal indicate that, below 1 kHz, its thresholds 
deteriorate gradually to 96 dB (re 1 Pa @ 1 m) at 100 Hz 
(Kastak and Schusterman, 1998).
    Recent studies have provided some data are available on the 
reactions of seals to various types of impulsive sounds (see LGL and 
Greeneridge, 1997,

[[Page 41386]]

1998, 1999a; Thompson et al. 1998). These references indicate that it 
is unlikely that pinnipeds would be harassed or injured by low 
frequency sounds from a seismic source unless they were within 
relatively close proximity of the seismic array. For permanent injury, 
pinnipeds would likely need to remain in the high-noise field for 
extended periods of time. Existing evidence also suggests that, while 
seals may be capable of hearing sounds from seismic arrays, they appear 
to tolerate intense pulsatile sounds without known effect once they 
learn that there is no danger associated with the noise (see, for 
example, NMFS/Washington Department of Wildlife, 1995). In addition, 
they will apparently not abandon feeding or breeding areas due to 
exposure to these noise sources (Richardson et al., 1991) and may 
habituate to certain noises over time. Since seismic work is fairly 
common in Beaufort Sea waters, pinnipeds have been previously exposed 
to seismic noise and may not react to it after initial exposure.
    For a discussion on the anticipated effects of ships, boats, and 
aircraft, on marine mammals and their food sources, please refer to the 
application (Western Geophysical, 1999). Information on these effects 
is incorporated in this document by citation.
    Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected to be Taken
    Western Geophysical estimates that the following numbers of marine 
mammals may be subject to Level B harassment, as defined in 50 CFR 
216.3:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Harassment Takes in 1999
             Species                Population -------------------------
                                       Size       Possible     Probable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead                                  9,900
160 dB criterion                             -        1,000         <500
20 km criterion                              -        2,500        1,250
Gray whale                              26,600          <10            0
Beluga                                  39,258          250         <150
Ringed seal*                             1-1.5          400         <200
                                       million
Spotted seal*                         >200,000           10           <2
Bearded seal*                         >300,000           50          <15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some individual seals may be harassed more than once.

Effects of Seismic Noise and Other Activities on Subsistence Needs

    The disturbance and potential displacement of marine mammals by 
sounds from seismic activities are the principle concerns related to 
subsistence use of the area. The harvest of marine mammals (mainly 
bowhead whales, ringed seals, and bearded seals) is central to the 
culture and subsistence economies of the coastal North Slope 
communities. In particular, if migrating bowhead whales are displaced 
farther offshore by elevated noise levels, the harvest of these whales 
could be more difficult and dangerous for hunters. The harvest could 
also be affected if bowheads become more skittish when exposed to 
seismic noise.
    Nuiqsut is the community closest to the area of the proposed 
activity, and it harvests bowhead whales only during the fall whaling 
season. In recent years, Nuiqsut whalers typically take two to four 
whales each season (Western Geophysical, 1999). Nuiqsut whalers 
concentrate their efforts on areas north and east of Cross Island, 
generally in water depths greater than 20 m
    (65 ft). Cross Island, the principal field camp location for 
Nuiqsut whalers, is located within the general area of the proposed 
seismic area. Thus, the possibility and timing of potential seismic 
operations in the Cross Island area requires Western Geophysical to 
provide NMFS with either a Plan of Cooperation with North Slope Borough 
residents or to identify measures that have been or will be taken to 
avoid any unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence needs. Western 
Geophysical's application has identified those measures that will be 
taken to minimize any adverse effect on subsistence. In addition, the 
timing of seismic operations in and east of the Cross Island area has 
been addressed in a Conflict and Avoidance Agreement (C&AA) with the 
Nuiqsut whalers and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC).
    Whalers from the village of Kaktovik search for whales east, north, 
and west of the village. Kaktovik is located 60 km (32.4 nm) east of 
the easternmost end of Western Geophysical's planned 1999 seismic 
exploration area. The westernmost reported harvest location was about 
21 km (11.3 nm) west of Kaktovik, near 70o10'N, 
144oW (Kaleak, 1996). That site is approximately 40 km (21.6 
nm) east of the closest part of Western Geophysical's planned seismic 
exploration area for 1999 (Western Geophysical, 1999).
    Whalers from the village of Barrow search for bowhead whales much 
further from the planned seismic area, >200 km (>108 nm) west (Western 
Geophysical, 1999).
    The location of the proposed seismic activity is south of the 
center of the westward migration route of bowhead whales, but there is 
some overlap. Seismic monitoring results from 1996-1998 indicate that 
most bowheads avoid the area within about 20 km (11 nm) around the 
array when it is operating. In addition, bowheads may be able to hear 
the sounds emitted by the seismic array out to a distance of 50 km (27 
nm) or more, depending on the ambient noise level and the efficiency of 
sound propagation along the path between the seismic vessel and the 
whale (Miller et al., 1997). Western Geophysical (1999) believes it is 
unlikely that changes in migration route will occur at distances 
greater than 25 km (13 nm) from an array of maximum volume of 1,210 
in3 operating in water less than 30 m (100 ft) deep. 
However, subtle changes in behavior might occur out to longer 
distances. Inupiat whalers believe that bowheads begin to divert from 
their normal migration path more than 35 miles (56 km) away (MMS, 
1997).
    It is recognized that it is difficult to determine the maximum 
distance at which reactions occur (Moore and Clark, 1992). As a result, 
Western Geophysical are participating in a C&AA with the whalers to 
reduce any potential interference with the hunt. Also, it is believed 
that the monitoring plan proposed by Western Geophysical (1999; also 
see LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc, 1999b) will provide 
information that will help resolve uncertainties about the effects of 
seismic exploration on the accessibility of bowheads to hunters.
    Many Nuiqsut hunters hunt seals intermittently year-round. However, 
during recent years, most seal hunting

[[Page 41387]]

has been during the early summer in open water. In summer, boat crews 
hunt ringed, spotted and bearded seals. The most important sealing area 
for Nuiqsut hunters is off the Colville delta, extending as far west as 
Fish Creek and as far east as Pingok Island. This area overlaps with 
the westernmost portion of the planned seismic area. In this area, 
during summer, sealing occurs by boat when hunters apparently 
concentrate on bearded seals. However, these subsistence hunters have 
not perceived any interference from recent open-water seismic 
activities in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Therefore, because Western 
Geophysical is proposing similar mitigation and consultation procedures 
this year, it is unlikely that seismic activities would have more than 
a negligible impact on Nuiqsut seal hunting.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization 
was published on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28992), and a 30-day public 
comment period was provided on the application and proposed 
authorization. During the comment period, comments regarding this 
application were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), LGL 
Ltd. environmental research associates on behalf of the applicant, and 
Greenpeace Alaska (Greenpeace).

MMPA Concerns

    Comment 1: LGL Ltd provided information updating and correcting the 
Federal Register notice that Western has no intention to use an array 
larger than 1,210 in3 during 1999.
    Response: Thank you for providing this information.
     Comment 2: LGL Ltd questioned the statement in the Federal 
Register document that the proposed seismic activity occurs in waters 
generally too shallow and distant from the edge of the pack ice for 
most marine mammals, and that this statement is not consistent with the 
IHA Application and the EA. LGL notes that 5 of the 6 marine mammal 
species requested for taking occur within the seismic area; only the 
beluga remains (with a few exceptions) far offshore near the ice edge.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 3: Greenpeace believes that NMFS and Western Geophysical 
have failed to provide the evidence necessary to justify issuance of 
the IHA by relying on outdated, incomplete and inaccurate information 
on the zone of influence of seismic operations on bowhead whales.
    Response: To make a determination of negligible impact on marine 
mammal stocks or a finding of not having an unmitigable adverse impact 
on subsistence uses of marine mammals, NMFS relies on the best 
scientific information available. The latest scientific information has 
been obtained through a 3-year program of data collection and analysis, 
including aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring. Greenpeace does not 
identify any additional sources of information not already considered 
by NMFS or Western Geophysical. Western Geophysical's IHA application 
and the notice of proposed authorization note that, in addition to the 
known responses of bowhead whales out to a distance of several 
kilometers, less conspicuous and/or less frequent effects may extend to 
greater distances. The draft final monitoring report describing the 
1996 through 1998 monitoring results (Richardson [ed.], 1999) shows 
that (1) 1996, 1997 and 1998 seismic programs did not greatly influence 
the position of the overall migration corridor; (2) the aerial surveys 
showed avoidance of the area within 20 km (12 mi) of seismic 
operations, plus partial avoidance of the area 20-30 km (12-19 mi) 
away, and (3) based on 1998 research, there is no evidence that bowhead 
disturbance extended 37 km (23 mi) offshore of the northern edge of the 
seismic exploration area. For additional information on the estimated 
zones that seismic airgun noise may have an effect on bowhead whales, 
please refer to the proposed authorization notice mentioned in this 
document.
    Scientists, at least, recognize that it is difficult (for to 
determine the maximum distance at which disturbance and avoidance 
reactions may have an adverse impact on subsistence needs (Moore and 
Clark, 1992). Inupiat whalers, on the other hand, believe that whales 
exhibit avoidance reactions as far as 30 miles (48 km) away (MMS, 
1997). As a result, Western Geophysical has developed a C&AA with the 
whalers to reduce any potential interference with the hunt.
    Also, it is believed that the monitoring plan proposed by Western 
Geophysical (LGL Ltd., LGL Alaska Research Associates, and Greeneridge, 
1999), revised on the basis of comments received during this public 
comment period and at the Peer-Review Workshop, will provide 
information that will help resolve uncertainties about the effects of 
seismic exploration on the bowhead whales and the accessibility of 
bowheads to hunters.
     Comment 4: Greenpeace believes the scientific evidence remains 
inadequate to determine whether hearing or behavior of marine mammals 
may be damaged temporarily or permanently by seismic operations. This 
makes it impossible to put adequate mitigation measures into place when 
there is inadequate knowledge about the impacts of seismic operations 
on cetaceans' hearing and behavior.
    Response: The impact of airguns on bowhead hearing and behavior has 
been addressed in several documents, including Western Geophysical's 
application, the supporting EA, and in LGL Ltd and Greeneridge Sciences 
(1998) and most recently in LGL Ltd, LGL Alaska Research Associates, 
and Greeneridge Sciences (1999). Without an ability to collect 
empirical information on physical impacts from airguns on large marine 
mammals, scientists must rely on surrogate species and make 
conservative assumptions based upon findings for those species. For 
bowhead and beluga whales, NMFS and Western Geophysical use the best 
scientific information available which indicates that a safety zone set 
at the 180 dB (re 1 Pa) isopleth will protect bowhead and 
beluga whales from potential serious injury. Furthermore, the avoidance 
reactions by bowheads and the offshore migration corridor of belugas 
minimize the number of bowheads and belugas entering or approaching the 
180 dB zone. Only one bowhead and no belugas have been seen in that 
zone during the 1996, 1997, and 1998 monitoring projects (Richardson et 
al., 1999). Because there are potential behavioral effects on bowhead 
whales by seismic activities, an IHA is warranted. Under the IHA, NMFS 
will require Western Geophysical to incorporate mitigation and 
monitoring measures approved by the 1999 Peer Review Workshop 
participants to reduce potential impacts on whales and seals to the 
lowest level practicable.
     Comment 5: Greenpeace notes that NMFS fails to place restrictions 
on seismic operations during times of limited or zero visibility.
    Response: Observers monitor the safety zones and zones of potential 
harassment around the seismic source whenever visibility permits, and 
the source is either on or within 30 minutes of powering up. This year 
observers will be aided by high-intensity lighting for monitoring the 
safety zone at night. Assessments of takes by harassment will be made 
based upon the percentage of time spent observing in relation to the 
total time for seismic operations. Because: (1) relatively few marine 
mammals are expected in the area during the time of the survey, (2) the 
vessels are underway at low speeds while conducting seismic surveys, 
theoretically allowing animals sufficient time to move away from any

[[Page 41388]]

annoyances, and (3) documented observations indicate that bowhead 
whales avoid active seismic survey areas, few marine mammals, and no 
bowheads, are expected to approach the vessel. Therefore, terminating 
surveys at night and during inclement weather is not warranted, in part 
since to do so could extend the seismic season into the peak bowhead 
migration period resulting in an increased level of harassment of that 
species.
    Comment 6: Greenpeace states that the issuance of an IHA will 
result in significant and unmitigable impacts to subsistence 
communities and the Arctic marine environment.
    Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(i)(II) of the MMPA requires NMFS to 
ensure that any taking will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. NMFS 
relies on two factors in determining if there will be an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence uses: First, the impact resulting from 
the specified activity must be likely to reduce the availability of the 
species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs 
by (1) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, 
(2) directly displacing subsistence users, or (3) placing physical 
barriers between the marine mammals and subsistence hunters. Second, it 
must be an impact that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other 
measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow 
subsistence needs to be met (50 CFR 216.103). This standard of 
determining impact does not require the elimination of adverse impacts, 
but it does require mitigation sufficient to meet subsistence 
requirements. However, the MMPA also requires that, where applicable, 
the measures will ensure the least practicable impact on the 
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses. In 
previous years, these conditions were met through the AEWC/oil 
industry's C&AA which required seismic operations to move west of Cross 
Island no later than September 1 or when whalers commenced the bowhead 
hunting season, whichever was earlier. A signed C&AA allows NMFS to 
conclude that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
subsistence needs of the Arctic Slope whalers this year due to seismic 
activities.
     Comment 7: LGL Limited notes that the mitigation section of the 
Federal Register document does not mention that Western Geophysical 
plans to participate in a C&AA with the whalers in order to avoid 
interference with the autumn bowhead hunt. While the C&AA is mentioned 
in the previous section (regarding impacts on subsistence uses), 
Western Geophysical and LGL Ltd view the C&AA as one of the primary 
mitigation measures, as it addresses the requirement to identify 
measures to ensure the ``least practicable adverse impact on 
...availability for subsistence uses.''
    Response: Thank you for the comment.
    Comment 8: Greenpeace contends that Western Geophysical's proposed 
marine mammal monitoring program fails to adequately monitor the impact 
of seismic operations on marine mammals.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. 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 plans or other research proposals where 
the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock 
for taking for subsistence purposes.
    Western Geophysical's proposed monitoring plan for 1999 and the 
results from Western Geophysical's 1998 Beaufort Sea research were the 
subject of a scientific peer-review workshop held in Seattle, WA, on 
June 30 and July 1, 1999. As a result of that workshop, Western 
Geophysical is amending its monitoring plan and will submit that plan 
to NMFS for approval prior to commencement of the bowhead season. 
Modifications to the original plan for monitoring during the bowhead 
season (if seismic surveys are continuing at that time) include (1) an 
extension of the aerial survey grid by an extra 15 km (8 nm) east and 
west to approximately 65 km (35 nm) westward and 65 km eastward of the 
seismic survey; this will address the issues (a) how far west of the 
seismic area do bowhead whales remain farther offshore than usual if 
bowheads are displaced offshore by seismic and (b) where the bowhead 
whale deflection from the migration track due to seismic noise begins; 
(2) an increase in the number of aerial survey track lines from 14 to 
18; and (3) commencing the aerial surveys on September 1, rather than 
September 4; and (4) additional autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders 
offshore from the area of seismic operations.
     Comment 9: The MMC recommends that the peer-review group 
established to review the proposed monitoring and mitigation programs 
be asked to consider the following questions: (1) Whether continuation 
of the marine mammal observations in association with seismic surveys 
in the nearshore waters of the Alaska Beaufort Sea beyond 1999 is 
likely to produce significant new information on either the short- or 
long-term effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals that occur in 
the area, (2) whether the types of site-specific monitoring programs 
conducted to date are sufficient to verify that seismic surveys and 
related activities have negligible effects on the distributions, sizes, 
and populations, and (3) if the answer to either issue is no, how 
should the monitoring requirements be revised to better meet the intent 
and provisions of the MMPA?
    Response: NMFS believes that at a minimum, shipboard monitoring of 
the safety zone must continue to implement mitigation measures to 
protect marine mammals from potential serious injury. The Scientific 
Peer Review Workshop participants concluded that the current research 
and monitoring proposed here by Western Geophysical and by BPX for oil 
development at Northstar (see 64 FR 9965, March 1, 1999), coupled with 
existing projects to monitor bowhead population abundance (trends in 
abundance) should provide information necessary to determine overall 
cumulative impacts on bowhead whales. Existing projects include those 
by the North Slope Borough (spring bowhead census), the MMS autumn 
aerial survey, and the MMS-funded photo-identification of bowhead 
whales being conducted as part of an on-going (1998-2000) bowhead 
feeding study. Provided trends in bowhead abundance continue to be 
positive, NMFS presumes industrial development on the North Slope is 
not adversely affecting the bowhead population. Similar work is 
underway for ringed seals.
     Comment 10: Greenpeace believes that NMFS ignores cumulative 
impacts from oil exploration and development in the Arctic on 
subsistence communities, the bowhead whale, other marine mammals, and 
the Arctic marine environment.
    Response: Information on the cumulative impacts on the marine 
environment from Beaufort Sea oil and gas leasing and development 
activities, including seismic, in the area under discussion has been 
addressed previously in several environmental impact statements (EIS) 
prepared by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) (Final EISs for Lease 
Sale 124 and 144 completed in 1990 and 1996). More recently, cumulative 
impacts from oil exploration and development were extensively discussed 
and evaluated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Northstar Oil Development

[[Page 41389]]

Project (Corps, 1999). NMFS was a cooperating agency under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the preparation of that document. 
Additional discussion on cumulative impacts from seismic activities in 
conjunction with offshore oil and gas exploration and development can 
be found in the EA prepared for this action (NMFS, 1999). NMFS notes 
that because the Northstar Project construction has been delayed until 
after the 1999 open water season, other than commercial barge traffic, 
there are no identified activities that might cause a cumulative impact 
on the whales, seals or subsistence needs of the North Slope this 
season.
     Comment 11: Noting that the activity for which an IHA 
authorization is requested is part of an effort likely to be continued 
in subsequent years and to eventually lead to drilling and other 
activities associated with oil and gas exploration and production, the 
MMC questions whether there is sufficient basis for concluding that 
this year's activities, coupled with past and possible future 
activities will not have a non-negligible cumulative effects on any of 
the potentially affected marine mammal species or their availability to 
Alaska Natives for subsistence uses. As a result, the MMC recommends 
that NMFS, if it has not already done so, assess whether the monitoring 
required as a condition of this and possible future IHAs will be 
adequate to detect possible non-negligible cumulative effects and, if 
not, what needs to be done to ensure that any such effects will be 
detected before they reach significant levels and could be 
irreversible.
    Response: Please see response to comment 9.
    Comment 12: Greenpeace noted that the results of Western 
Geophysical's 1998 marine mammal monitoring program are not available 
for review along with its 1999 IHA application. The results of the 1998 
monitoring program should be available for public review prior to the 
close of the public comment period.
    Response: The preliminary results of the 1998 monitoring program 
are contained in the 90-day report, which was issued in January 1999, 
and in the IHA application. The draft final report for 1998 was due on 
April 30, 1999. Because the draft final report was expanded to contain 
an analysis of several previous years' data, the availability of this 
report was delayed until late May, when it was reviewed by NMFS 
scientists and participants at the peer review workshop. While 
monitoring reports are available to the public for review, there is no 
requirement for these documents to be made available for formal public 
review and comment. Reviewers are encouraged to rely on the 90-day 
report and reports from prior years if they wish to analyze the 
previous years' data. As noted by Greenpeace in their letter, the 1996 
and 1997 monitoring reports have been reviewed by them.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Concerns

    Comment 13: Without clarification, Greenpeace believes that 
issuance of the IHA would violate the ESA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees, noting that the issuance of an IHA to 
Western Geophysical triggers section 7 of the ESA, as the issuance of 
the IHA is a Federal action (please refer to the section titled ESA 
later in this document). However, the major Federal agency for offshore 
oil and gas lease activities is the MMS. Consultation under section 7 
for lease sale 144 was concluded on November 16, 1995 with a finding 
that the action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. This finding is 
consistent with the conclusions and recommendations contained within 
the Arctic Region Biological Opinion issued to MMS under section 7 of 
the ESA by NMFS on November 23, 1988.
    Reinitiation of formal consultation under section 7 is warranted 
only when there is new scientific information that has the potential to 
call into question the scientific and commercial data used in the 
previous biological opinion. At this time, NMFS does not consider the 
recent findings on impacts to listed marine species from the 
disturbance from seismic surveys sufficient to reinitiate consultation.

NEPA Concerns

    Comment 14: Greenpeace believes that the EA fails to adequately 
analyze the full scope and cumulative impacts of current and proposed 
offshore exploration and development activities in the Beaufort Sea. 
Greenpeace maintains that the impacts from seismic operations cannot be 
assessed separately from cumulative impacts from offshore exploratory 
drilling, development and transportation activities that may follow or 
are already occurring. This includes the impact of global warming on 
the Arctic environment.
    Response: Please see response to comment 10.

Mitigation

    This year, Western Geophysical will reduce its airgun array from 
the 1,500 in3 used in 1998 to 1,210 in3 and 
investigate whether it is practical to modify the design to reduce 
horizontal propagation of sound. These changes are expected to result 
in lower received levels and, therefore, smaller safety ranges and 
reduced takes by harassment than in 1998. However, because the 1,210 
in3 array is a subset (with some minor variations) of the 
1,500 in3 array (with 4 guns not firing), NMFS is limiting 
the IHA authorization for a taking by harassment to no more than 12 
airguns totaling 1,210 in3 during the 1999 open water 
seismic survey. Vessel-based observers will monitor marine mammal 
presence in the vicinity of the seismic array throughout the seismic 
program. To avoid the potential for serious injury to marine mammals, 
Western Geophysical will power down the seismic source if pinnipeds are 
sighted within the area delineated by the 190 dB isopleth or 240 m 
(787.4 ft) from the array operating at 5 m (16.4 ft) depth or 80 m 
(262.5 ft) from the array operating at 2 m (6.6 ft) depth. 
Western Geophysical will power down the seismic source if bowhead, 
gray, or beluga whales are sighted within the area delineated by the 
180 dB isopleth or within 750 m (2,460.6 ft) of the array operating at 
5 m ( 16.4 ft) depth or 360 m (1,181.1 ft) of the array operating at 2 
m (6.6 ft) depth. However, because these safety zones were based on 
measurements near the 1998 seismic array plus theoretical adjustments 
for the smaller array size in 1999, within the first 10 days of 
Beaufort Sea operations in 1999, Western Geophysical will measure and 
analyze the sounds from Western's 1999 array operating at both 5 m 
(16.4 ft) and 2 m (6.6 ft) depths. This information will be provided to 
NMFS, along with the contractor's recommendation as to whether any 
adjustments in the safety radii are needed to meet the 190 and 180 
dBrms shutdown criteria.
    In addition, Western Geophysical will ramp-up the seismic source to 
operating levels at a rate no greater than 6 dB/min anytime the array 
has not been firing for 1-2 minutes (depending upon vessel speed). 
Ramp-up will begin with an air volume discharge not exceeding 80 
in3 with additional guns added at intervals appropriate to 
limit the rate of increase to 6 dB/min.

Monitoring

    As part of its application, Western Geophysical provided a 
monitoring plan for assessing impacts to marine mammals from seismic 
surveys in the Beaufort Sea. This monitoring plan is described in 
Western Geophysical (1999) and in LGL Ltd., LGL Alaska Research 
Associates, and Greeneridge Sciences (1999). This monitoring plan

[[Page 41390]]

has been peer-reviewed by NMFS, AEWC and industry scientists and others 
at a workshop held in Seattle, WA on June 30 and July 1, 1999. 
Suggested modifications to the monitoring plan as a result of the 
workshop (most notably those summarized previously in the response to 
comment 8) will need to be incorporated into the Plan prior to formal 
acceptance by NMFS. During the 1999 open-water season, Western 
Geophysical will conduct the following:

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring

    One or two biologist-observers aboard the seismic vessel will 
search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are 
in progress, and for at least 30 minutes prior to planned start of 
shooting. These observers will scan the area immediately around the 
vessels with reticle binoculars during the daytime supplemented with 
night-vision equipment during the night (prior to mid-August, there are 
no hours of darkness). In addition, Western Geophysical will experiment 
with illumination of the safety zone with high-intensity lighting.
    A total of four observers (three trained biologists and one Inupiat 
observer/communicator) will be based aboard the seismic vessel. Use of 
four observers is an increase over 1998 and will allow two observers to 
be on duty simultaneously for up to 50 percent of the active airgun 
hours. Use of two observers will increase the probability of detecting 
marine mammals and two observers will be required to be on duty 
whenever the seismic array is ramped up. Individual watches will 
normally be limited to no more than 4 consecutive hours.
    When mammals are detected within or about to enter the safety zone 
designated to prevent injury to the animals (see Mitigation), the 
geophysical crew leader will be notified so that shutdown procedures 
can be implemented immediately.

Aerial Surveys

    If the seismic program continues after August 31, Western 
Geophysical will conduct daily aerial surveys, weather permitting, from 
September 1, 1999, for a period of 13-14 days, or, if seismic work ends 
before September 13, until one day after seismic work ends. The primary 
objective will be to document the occurrence, distribution, and 
movements of bowhead and (secondarily) beluga and gray whales in and 
near the area where they might be affected by the seismic pulses. These 
observations will be used to estimate the level of harassment takes and 
to assess the possibility that seismic operations affect the 
accessibility of bowhead whales for subsistence hunting. Pinnipeds will 
be recorded when seen. Aerial surveys will be at an altitude of 300 m 
(1,000 ft) above sea level. Western Geophysical will fly at 457 m (1500 
ft) altitude over areas where whaling is occurring on that date to 
avoid direct overflights of whaleboats and Cross Island, where whalers 
from Nuiqsut are based during their fall whale hunt.
    The daily aerial surveys are proposed to cover a grid of 18 north-
south lines spaced 8 km (4.3 nm) apart and will extend seaward to about 
the 100 m (328 ft) depth contour (typically about 65 km (35 nm) 
offshore. This grid will extend from about 65 km (35 nm) east to 65 km 
(35 nm) west of the area in which seismic operations are underway on 
that date. This design will provide extended coverage to the west to 
determine the westward extent of the offshore displacement of whales by 
seismic. In 1999, the additional ``intensive'' grid survey will not be 
conducted as in previous years.
    Detailed information on the survey program can be found in Western 
Geophysical (1999) and in LGL Ltd., LGL Alaska Research Associates, and 
Greeneridge Sciences Inc. (1999), which are incorporated in this 
document by citation.

Acoustical Measurements

    The acoustic measurement program for 1999 is designed to continue 
the acoustic work conducted in 1996 through 1998 (see LGL and 
Greeneridge Sciences Inc., 1997, 1998, 1999). The acoustic measurement 
program is planned to include (1) vessel-based acoustic measurements, 
(2) OBC-based acoustic measurements, and, if seismic operations 
continue into September, (3) use of air-dropped sonobuoys and (4) 
bottom-mounted acoustical recorders.
    (1) A vessel-based acoustical measurement program will be conducted 
for a few days early in the seismic program. The objectives of this 
survey will be as follows: (a) to measure the levels and other 
characteristics of the horizontally propagating seismic survey sounds 
from the type of airgun array to be used in 1999 as a function of 
distance and aspect relative to the seismic source vessel and in 
relation to the operating depth of the airguns, and (b) to measure the 
levels and frequency composition of the vessel sounds emitted by 
vessels used regularly during the 1999 program in those cases when 
these vessels have not previously been measured adequately.
    (2) Western Geophysical and Greeneridge Sciences will use recorded 
signals from Western's OBC system to help document horizontal 
propagation of the seismic survey pulses.
    (3) Sonobuoys will be dropped and monitored from bowhead survey 
aircraft during September 1 through 13, 1999 (if the seismic operations 
are continuing at that time). Sonobuoys will provide data on 
characteristics of seismic pulses (and signal-to-ambient ratios) at 
offshore locations, including some of those places where bowhead whales 
are observed.
    (4) Autonomous seafloor acoustic recorders will be placed on the 
sea bottom at two locations offshore of the seismic operation area, and 
at one location about 40 km (25 mi) to the east, to record low-
frequency sounds nearly continuously for up to 3 weeks at a time during 
September (if seismic operations are continuing at that time). 
Information includes characteristics of the seismic pulses, ambient 
noise, and bowhead calls.
    For a more detailed description of planned monitoring activities, 
please refer to the application and supporting document (Western 
Geophysical, 1999; LGL Ltd., LGL Alaska Research Associates, and 
Greeneridge Sciences, 1999).

Estimates of Marine Mammal Take

    Estimates of takes by harassment will be made through vessel and, 
if seismic operations continue into September, aerial surveys. Western 
Geophysical will estimate the number of (a) marine mammals observed 
within the area ensonified strongly by the seismic vessel; (b) marine 
mammals observed showing apparent reactions to seismic pulses (e.g., 
heading away from the seismic vessel in an atypical direction); (c) 
marine mammals subject to take by type (a) or (b) when no monitoring 
observations were possible; and (d) bowheads displaced seaward from the 
main migration corridor.

Reporting

    Western Geophysical will provide an initial report on 1999 
activities to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of the seismic 
program. This report will provide dates and locations of seismic 
operations, details of marine mammal sightings, estimates of the amount 
and nature of all takes by harassment, and any apparent effects on 
accessibility of marine mammals to subsistence users.
    A final technical report will be provided by Western Geophysical 
within 20 working days of receipt of the document from the contractor, 
but no later than April 30, 2000. The final

[[Page 41391]]

technical report will contain a description of the methods, results, 
and interpretation of all monitoring tasks. This report will be subject 
to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS will 
need to be addressed in the final report prior to formal acceptance by 
NMFS.

Consultation

    Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultation on the 
issuance of this authorization.

NEPA

    In conjunction with the 1996 notice of proposed authorization (61 
FR 26501, May 28, 1996) for open water seismic operations in the 
Beaufort Sea, NMFS released an EA that addressed the impacts on the 
human environment from issuance of the authorization and the 
alternatives to the proposed action. No comments were received on that 
document and, on July 18, 1996, NMFS concluded that neither 
implementation of the proposed 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 U.S. 
Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that action would significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment. As a result, the 
preparation of an EIS on this action is not required by section 102(2) 
of NEPA or its implementing regulations.
    While this year's activity is a continuation of the seismic work 
conducted between 1996 and 1998, NMFS determined that a new EA was 
warranted based on the proposed construction of the Northstar project, 
the collection of data from 1996 through 1998 on Beaufort Sea marine 
mammals and the impacts of seismic activities on these mammals, and the 
analysis of scientific data indicating that bowheads avoid nearshore 
seismic operations by up to about 20 km (10.8 nm). Accordingly, a 
review of the impacts expected from the issuance of an IHA has been 
assessed in detail in the EA and in this document, and NMFS has 
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 subsistence 
communities, provided the mitigation measures required under the 
authorization are implemented. As a result, NMFS has again determined 
that neither implementation of the 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 U.S. 
Beaufort Sea nor the alternatives to that action would significantly 
affect the quality of the human environment. As a result, the 
preparation of an EIS on this action is not required by section 102(2) 
of NEPA or its implementing regulations.

Conclusions

    Based on the evidence provided in the application, the EA, and this 
document, and taking into consideration the comments submitted on the 
EA, application, and proposed authorization notice, NMFS has determined 
that there will be no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals 
from the issuance of the harassment authorization to Western 
Geophysical and that there will not be any unmitigable adverse impacts 
to subsistence communities, provided the mitigation measures required 
under the authorization are implemented. NMFS has determined that the 
short-term impact of conducting seismic surveys in the U.S. Beaufort 
Sea will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by 
certain species of cetaceans and possibly pinnipeds. While behavioral 
and avoidance reactions may be made by these species in response to the 
resultant noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a 
negligible impact on the animals.
    While 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, the number of potential harassment takings is 
estimated to be small. In addition, no take by death and/or serious 
injury is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment will be avoided through the incorporation of the 
mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required by the 
authorization. No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated 
feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals 
occur within or near the planned area of operations during the season 
of operations.
    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 bowhead whales or the subsistence hunting of 
bowhead whales prior to that date. After September 1, 1999, if seismic 
activities continue beyond that date, aerial survey flights for bowhead 
whale assessments will be initiated. Depending upon the date of 
cessation of seismic activities (expected to be no later than September 
10, 1999), NMFS estimates that fewer than 750 bowheads will be harassed 
incidental to seismic-related activities.
    Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an unmitigable adverse 
impact on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence needs have 
been the subject of consultation between Western Geophysical and 
subsistence users. This C&AA, which consists of three main components: 
(1) Communications, (2) conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute resolution, 
has been concluded for the 1999 open-water seismic season.
    Also, while open-water seismic exploration in the U.S. Beaufort Sea 
has some potential to influence seal hunting activities by residents of 
Nuiqsut, because (1) the peak sealing season is during the winter 
months, (2) the main summer sealing is off the Colville Delta, and (3) 
the zone of influence by seismic sources on seals and beluga is fairly 
small, NMFS believes that Western Geophysical's 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 would 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, would 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) of 
the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

Authorization

    Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to Western Geophysical for the 
herein described seismic survey during the 1999 open water season 
provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements 
described in this document and in the IHA are undertaken.

    Dated: July 20, 1999.
Art Jeffers,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 99-19462 Filed 7-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F