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

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

3 at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;

(b) Within 130 m (426 ft) of that array

operating at 120 in3 and

3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft) depth;

(d) Within 60 m (197 ft) of that array operating at 3.

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 3 operating at >2.5m (8.3 ft) depth; or

(b) Within 640 m (2100 ft) of that array operating at 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