[Federal Register: February 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9782-9786]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27fe06-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 011806H]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-
ice Seismic Operations in the Beaufort Sea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take
authorization; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from ASRC Energy Services,
Lynx Enterprises, Inc. (AES Lynx) for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental
to conducting on-ice vibroseis seismic operations in the Harrison Bay
portion of the western U.S. Beaufort Sea in late winter/early spring
(March through May 20, 2006). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an
authorization to AES Lynx to incidentally take, by harassment, small
numbers of two species of pinnipeds for a limited period of time this
year.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than March
29, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Steve
Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office
of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of
the contacts listed here. The mailbox address for providing email
comments is PR1.011806H@noaa.gov. Please include in the subject line of
the e-mail comment the following document identifier: 011806H. Comments
sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-
megabyte file size. A copy of the application containing a list of the
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this
address or by telephoning the first contact person listed here and is
also available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
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 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, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the
public for review.
Permission shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have
a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined
negligible impact in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``...an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
[Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
Summary of Request
On October 24, 2005, NMFS received an application from AES Lynx for
the taking, by harassment, of two species of marine mammals incidental
to conducting an on-ice seismic survey program. The seismic operations
will be conducted in the Harrison Bay portion of the western U.S.
Beaufort Sea. The proposed survey would be conducted from March through
about May 20, 2006. The operation would consist of laying seismic
cables with geophones on the frozen sea ice, employing the vibroseis
method of energy (sound source) production, and recording the seismic
signals. Water depths in the majority of the planned survey area are
less than 3 m (10 ft).
The purpose of the project is to gather information about the
subsurface of the earth by measuring acoustic waves, which are
generated on or near the surface. The acoustic waves reflect at
boundaries in the earth that are characterized by acoustic impedance
contrasts.
Description of the Activity
The seismic surveys use the ``reflection'' method of data
acquisition. Seismic exploration uses a controlled energy source to
generate acoustic waves that travel through the earth, including sea
ice and water, as well as sub-sea geologic formations, and then uses
ground sensors to record the reflected energy transmitted back to the
surface. When acoustic energy is generated, compression and shear waves
[[Page 9783]]
form and travel in and on the earth. The compression and shear waves
are affected by the geological formations of the earth as they travel
in it and may be reflected, refracted, diffracted or transmitted when
they reach a boundary represented by an acoustic impedance contrast.
Vibroseis seismic operations use large trucks with vibrators that
systematically put variable frequency energy into the earth. Sea ice
thickness of at least 1.2 m (4 ft) is required to support the various
equipment and vehicles used to transport seismic equipment offshore for
exploration activities. These ice conditions generally exist from 1
January until 31 May in the Beaufort Sea. Several vehicles are normally
associated with a typical vibroseis operation. One or two vehicles with
survey crews move ahead of the operation and mark the energy input
points. Crews with wheeled vehicles often require trail clearance with
bulldozers for adequate access to and within the site. Crews with
tracked vehicles are typically limited by heavy snow cover and may
require trail clearance beforehand.
With the vibroseis technique, activity on the surveyed seismic line
begins with the placement of sensors. All sensors are connected to the
recording vehicle by multi-pair cable sections. The vibrators move to
the beginning of the line and begin recording data. The vibrators begin
vibrating in synchrony via a simultaneous radio signal to all vehicles.
In a typical survey, each vibrator will vibrate four times at each
location. The entire formation of vibrators subsequently moves forward
to the next energy input point (e.g. 67 m, or 220 ft, in most
applications) and repeats the process. In a typical 16- to 18-hour day,
surveys will complete 6-16 km (4 to 10 linear miles) in 2-dimensional
seismic operations and 24 to 64 km (15 to 40 linear miles) in a 3-
dimensional seismic operation.
Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity
A detailed description of the Beaufort Sea ecosystem can be found
in several documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999; NMFS, 1999; Minerals
Management Service (MMS), 1992, 1996, 2001). A more detailed
description of the seismic survey activities and affected marine
mammals can be found in the AES Lynx application (see ADDRESSES). Four
marine mammal species are known to occur within the proposed study
area: ringed seal (Phoca hispida), bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus),
spotted seal (Phoca larghs), and polar bear (Ursus maritimus). The
applicant will seek a take Authorization from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the incidental taking of polar bears
because USFWS has management authority for this species. Spotted seals
are not known winter users of the project area, therefore, no
incidental take is expected for this species.
Ringed seals are widely distributed throughout the Arctic basin,
Hudson Bay and Strait, and the Bering and Baltic seas. There is no
reliable worldwide population assessment for ringed seals, however, it
is estimated to be in the millions (Reeves et al., 1992). Ringed seals
inhabiting northern Alaska belong to the subspecies P. h. hispida, and
they are year-round residents in the Beaufort Sea. The Alaska stock of
ringed seals in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort area is estimated at 1 to
1.5 (Frost, 1985) or 3.3 to 3.6 million seals (Frost et al., 1988).
Although there are no recent population estimates in the Beaufort Sea,
Bengston et al. (2000) estimated ringed seal abundance from Barrow
south to Shismaref in a portion of the Chukchi Sea to be 245,048
animals from aerial surveys flown in 1999. The NMFS 2003 Stock
Assessment Report (Angliss and Lodge, 2004) states that there are at
least that many ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea. Frost et al. (1999)
reported that observed densities within the area of industrial activity
along the Beaufort Sea coast were generally similar between 1985-87 and
1996-98, suggesting that the regional population has been relatively
stable during this 13-year period of industrial activity.
During winter and spring, ringed seals inhabit landfast ice and
offshore pack ice. Seal densities are highest on stable landfast ice
but significant numbers of ringed seals also occur in pack ice (Wiig et
al., 1999). Seals congregate at holes and along cracks or deformations
in the ice (Frost et al., 1999). Breathing holes are established in
landfast ice as the ice forms in autumn and are maintained by seals
throughout winter. Adult ringed seals maintain an average of 3.4 holes
per seal (Hammill and Smith, 1989). Some holes may be abandoned as
winter advances, probably in order for seals to conserve energy by
maintaining fewer holes (Brueggeman and Grialou, 2001). As snow
accumulates, ringed seals excavate lairs in snowdrifts surrounding
their breathing holes, which they use for resting and for the birth and
nursing of their single pups in late March to May (McLaren, 1958; Smith
and Stirling, 1975; Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990). Pups have been
observed to enter the water, dive to over 10 m (33 ft), and return to
the lair as early as 10 days after birth (Brendan Kelly, pers comm to
CPA, June 2002), suggesting pups can survive the cold water
temperatures at a very early age. Mating occurs in late April and May.
From mid-May through July, ringed seals haul out in the open air at
holes and along cracks to bask in the sun and molt. Most on-ice seismic
activity occurs from late January through May.
The seasonal distribution of ringed seals in the Beaufort Sea is
affected by a number of factors but a consistent pattern of seal use
has been documented since aerial survey monitoring began over 20 years
ago. Seal densities have historically been substantially lower in the
western than the eastern part of the Beaufort Sea (Burns and Kelly,
1982; Kelly, 1988). Frost et al. (1999) reported consistently lower
ringed seal densities in the western versus eastern sectors they
surveyed in the Beaufort Sea during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The
relatively low densities appear to be related to shallow water depths
in much of the area occurring between the shore and the barrier
islands. This area of historically low ringed seal density is the focus
of much of the recent on-ice seismic surveys.
The bearded seal has a circumpolar distribution in the Arctic, and
it is found in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas (Jefferson et
al., 1993). There are no reliable population estimates for bearded
seals in the Beaufort Sea or in the activity area (Angliss and Lodge,
2004), but numbers are considerably higher in the Bering and Chukchi
seas, particularly during winter and early spring. Early estimates of
bearded seals in the Bering and Chukchi seas range from 250,000 to
300,000 (Popov, 1976; Burns, 1981). Based on the available data there
is no evidence of a decline in the bearded seal population. Bearded
seals are generally associated with pack ice and only rarely use
shorefast ice (Jefferson et al., 1993). Bearded seals occasionally have
been observed maintaining breathing holes in annual ice and even
hauling out from holes used by ringed seals (Mansfield, 1967; Stirling
and Smith, 1977). However, since bearded seals are normally found in
broken ice that is unstable for on-ice seismic operation, bearded seals
will be rarely encountered during seismic operations.
Additional information on these species is also available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/MMSARS/sar2003akfinal.pdf with updated information available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/
/">http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/readingrm/rm/
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals
Incidental take may result from short-term disturbances by noise
and physical activity associated with on-ice seismic
[[Page 9784]]
operations. These operations have the potential to disturb and
temporarily displace some seals. Pup mortality could occur if any of
these animals were nursing and displacement were protracted. However,
it is unlikely that a nursing female would abandon her pup given the
normal levels of disturbance from the proposed activities, potential
predators, and the typical movement patterns of ringed seal pups among
different holes. Seals also use as many as four lairs spaced as far as
3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart. In addition, seals have multiple breathing
holes. Pups may use more holes than adults, but the holes are generally
closer together than those used by adults. This indicates that adult
seals and pups can move away from seismic activities, particularly
since the seismic equipment does not remain in any specific area for a
prolonged time. Given those considerations, combined with the small
proportion of the population potentially disturbed by the proposed
activity, impacts are expected to be negligible for the ringed and
bearded seal populations.
Not taking into account water depth (i.e., the activity area is
marginal seal habitat, with a majority of the water in the area less
than 3 m (10 ft) deep), the estimated number of ringed seals
potentially within the vibroseis activity area is expected to be very
low. Frost and Lowry (1999) reported an observed density of 0.61 ringed
seals per km\2\ on the fast ice from aerial surveys conducted in spring
1997 of an area (Sector B2) overlapping the activity area, which is in
the range of densities (0.28-0.66) reported for the Northstar
development from 1997 to 2001 (Moulton et al., 2001). This value (0.61)
was adjusted to account for seals hauled out but not sighted by
observers (x 1.22, based on Frost et al. (1988)) and seals not hauled
out during the surveys (x 2.33, based on Kelly and Quakenbush (1990))
to obtain the 1.73 seal per km\2\. This estimate covered an area from
the coast to about 2-20 miles beyond the activity area; and it assumed
that habitat conditions were uniform and, therefore, it was not
adjusted for water depth. Since most of the activity area is within
water less than 3 m (10 ft) deep, which Moulton et al. (2001) reported
for Northstar supported about five times fewer seals (0.12-0.13 seals/
km\2\) than was reported by Frost and Lowry (i.e., 0.61), the actually
seal density is expected to be much lower in the proposed project area.
In the winter, bearded seals are restricted to cracks, broken ice,
and other openings in the ice. On-ice seismic operations avoid those
areas for safety reasons. Therefore, any exposure of bearded seals to
on-ice seismic operations would be limited to distant and transient
exposure. Bearded seals exposed to a distant on-ice seismic operation
might dive into the water. An indication of their low numbers is
provided by the results of aerial surveys conducted east of the
activity area near the Northstar and Liberty project sites. Three to 18
bearded seals were observed in these areas compared to 1,911 to 2,251
ringed seals in the spring (May/June) of 1999 through 2001 (Moulton et
al., 2001; Moulton and Elliott, 2000; and Moulton et al., 2000).
Similarly only small numbers of bearded seals would be expected to
occur in the activity area, where habitat is even less favorable
because of the shallow water area. Consequently, no significant effects
on individual bearded seals or their population are expected, and the
number of individuals that might be temporarily disturbed would be very
low.
In addition, the area affected by seismic operations represents
only a small fraction of the Beaufort Sea pinniped habitat, any impacts
would be localized and temporary. Sea-ice surface rehabilitation is
often immediate, occurring during the first episode of snow and wind
that follows passage of the equipment over the ice.
Potential Effects on Subsistence
Residents of the village of Nuiqsut are the primary subsistence
users in the activity area. The subsistence harvest during winter and
spring is primarily ringed seals, but during the open-water period both
ringed and bearded seals are taken. Nuiqsut hunters may hunt year
round; however, most of the harvest has been in open water instead of
the more difficult hunting of seals at holes and lairs (McLaren, 1958;
Nelson, 1969). Subsistence patterns may be reflected through the
harvest data collected in 1992, when Nuiqsut hunters harvested 22 of 24
ringed seals and all 16 bearded seals during the open water season from
July to October (Fuller and George, 1997). Harvest data for 1994 and
1995 show 17 of 23 ringed seals were taken from June to August, while
there was no record of bearded seals being harvested during these years
(Brower and Opie, 1997). Only a small number of ringed seals was
harvested during the winter to early spring period, which corresponds
to the time of the proposed on-ice seismic operations.
Based on harvest patterns and other factors, on-ice seismic
operations in the activity area are not expected to have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses of ringed and bearded seals because:
(1) Operations would end before the spring ice breakup, after which
subsistence hunters harvest most of their seals.
(2) Operations would temporarily displace relatively few seals,
since most of the habitat in the activity area is marginal to poor and
supports relatively low densities of seals during winter. Displaced
seals would likely move a short distance and remain in the area for
potential harvest by native hunters (Frost and Lowry, 1988; Kelly et
al., 1988).
(3) The area where seismic operations would be conducted is small
compared to the large Beaufort Sea subsistence hunting area associated
with the extremely wide distribution of ringed seals.
In order to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the
species and the subsistence use of ringed seals, all activities will be
conducted as far as practicable from any observed ringed seal
structure. Finally, the applicant will consult with subsistence hunters
of Nuiqsut and provide the community, the North Slope Borough, and the
Inupiat Community of the North Slope with information about its planned
activities (timing and extent) before initiating any on-ice seismic
activities.
Mitigation and Monitoring
The following mitigation measures are proposed for the subject
surveys. All activities will be conducted as far as practicable from
any observed ringed or bearded seal lair and no energy source will be
placed over a ringed or bearded seal lair. Only vibrator-type energy-
source equipment shown to have similar or lesser effects than proposed
will be used. AES Lynx will provide training for the seismic crews so
they can recognize potential areas of ringed seal lairs and adjust the
seismic operations accordingly.
Ringed seal pupping occurs in ice lairs from late March to mid-to-
late April (Smith and Hammill, 1981). Prior to commencing on-ice
seismic surveys in mid-March, experienced Inupiat subsistence hunters
would be hired to screen for lairs along the planned on-ice seismic
transmission routes in areas where water depths exceed 3 m (10 ft) to
identify and determine the status of potential seal structures along
the planned on-ice transit routes. The seal structure survey will be
conducted before selection of precise transit routes to ensure that
seals, particularly pups, are not injured by equipment. The locations
of all seal structures will be recorded by Global Positioning System
[[Page 9785]]
(GPS), staked, and flagged with surveyor's tape. Surveys will be
conducted 150 m (492 ft) to each side of the transit routes. Actual
width of route may vary depending on wind speed and direction, which
strongly influence the efficiency and effectiveness of dogs at locating
seal structures. Few, if any, seals inhabit ice-covered waters
shallower than 3 m (10 ft) due to water freezing to the bottom or poor
prey availability caused by the limited amount of ice-free water.
AES Lynx will also continue to work with NMFS, other Federal
agencies, the State of Alaska, Native communities of Barrow and
Nuiqsut, and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS) to assess
measures to further minimize any impact from seismic activity. A Plan
of Cooperation will be developed between AES Lynx and Nuiqsut to ensure
that seismic activities do not interfere with subsistence harvest of
ringed or bearded seals.
The level of impacts, while anticipated to be negligible, will be
assessed by conducting a second seal structure survey shortly after the
end of the seismic surveys. A single on-ice survey will be conducted by
biologists on snow machines using a GPS to relocate and determine the
status of seal structures located during the initial survey. The status
(active vs. inactive) of each structure will be determined to assess
the level of incidental take by seismic operations. The number of
active seal structures abandoned between the initial survey and the
final survey will be the basis for enumerating possible harassment
takes. If dogs are not available for the initial survey, takings will
be estimated by using observed densities of seals on ice reported by
Moulton et al. (2001) for the Northstar development, which is
approximately 24 nm (46 km) from the eastern edge of the proposed
activity area.
In the event that seismic surveys can be completed in that portion
of the activity area with water depths greater than or equal to 3 m (10
ft) before mid-March, no field surveys would be conducted of seal
structures. Under this scenario, seismic surveys would be completed
before pups are born and disturbance would be negligible. Therefore,
take estimates would be determined for only that portion of the
activity area exposed to seismic surveys after mid-March, which would
be in water depths of 3 m (10 ft) or less. Take for this area would be
estimated by using the observed density (13/100 km\2\) reported by
Moulton et al. (2001) for water depths between 0 to 3 m (0 to 10 ft) in
the Northstar project area, which is the only source of a density
estimate stratified by water depth for the Beaufort Sea. This would be
an overestimation requiring a substantial downward adjustment to better
reflect the likely take of seals using lairs, since few if any of the
structures in these water depths would be used for birthing, and the
Moulton et al. (2001) estimate includes all seals.
Reporting
An annual report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of
completing the year's activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by issuing an incidental
harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to AES
Lynx for this on-ice seismic survey.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The information provided in Environmental Assessments (EAs)
prepared in 1993 and 1998 for winter seismic activities led NOAA to
conclude that implementation of either the preferred alternative or
other alternatives identified in the EA would not have a significant
impact on the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement was not prepared. The proposed action discussed in this
document is not substantially different from the 1993 and 1998 actions,
and a reference search has indicated that no significant new scientific
information or analyses have been developed in the past several years
that would warrant new NEPA documentation.
Preliminary Conclusions
The anticipated impact of winter seismic activities on the species
or stock of ringed and bearded seals is expected to be negligible for
the following reasons:
(1) The activity area supports a small proportion (< 1 percent) of
the ringed and bearded seal populations in the Beaufort Sea.
(2) Most of the winter-run seismic lines will be on ice over
shallow water where ringed seals are absent or present in very low
abundance. Most of the activity area is near shore and/or in water less
than 3 m (10 ft) deep, which is generally considered poor seal habitat.
Moulton et al. (2001) reported that only 6 percent of 660 ringed seals
observed on ice in the Northstar project area were in water between 0
to 3 m (0 to 10 ft) deep.
(3) For reasons of safety and because of normal operational
constraints, seismic operators will avoid moderate and large pressure
ridges, where seal and pupping lairs are likely to be most numerous.
(4) The sounds from energy produced by vibrators used during on-ice
seismic programs typically are at frequencies well below those used by
ringed seals to communicate (1000 Hz). Thus, ringed seal hearing is not
likely to be very good at those frequencies and seismic sounds are not
likely to have strong masking effects on ringed seal calls. This effect
is further moderated by the quiet intervals between seismic energy
transmissions.
(5) There has been no major displacement of seals away from on-ice
seismic operations (Frost and Lowry, 1988). Further confirmation of
this lack of major response to industrial activity is illustrated by
the fact that there has been no major displacement of seals near the
Northstar Project. Studies at Northstar have shown a continued presence
of ringed seals throughout winter and creation of new seal structures
(Williams et al., 2001).
(6) Although seals may abandon structures near seismic activity,
studies have not demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between
abandonment and seismic activity or biologically significant impact on
ringed seals. Studies by Williams et al. (2001), Kelley et al. (1986,
1988) and Kelly and Quakenbush (1990) have shown that abandonment of
holes and lairs and establishment or re-occupancy of new ones is an
ongoing natural occurrence, with or without human presence. Link et al.
(1999) compared ringed seal densities between areas with and without
vibroseis activity and found densities were highly variable within each
area and inconsistent between areas (densities were lower for 5 days,
equal for 1 day, and higher for 1 day in vibroseis area), suggesting
other factors beyond the seismic activity likely influenced seal use
patterns. Consequently, a wide variety of natural factors influence
patterns of seal use including time of day, weather, season, ice
deformation, ice thickness, accumulation of snow, food availability and
predators as well as ring seal behavior and population dynamics.
In winter, bearded seals are restricted to cracks, broken ice, and
other openings in the ice. On-ice seismic operations avoid those areas
for safety reasons. Therefore, any exposure of bearded seals to on-ice
seismic operations would be limited to distant and transient exposure.
Bearded seals exposed to a distant on-ice seismic
[[Page 9786]]
operation might dive into the water. Consequently, no significant
effects on individual bearded seals or their population are expected,
and the number of individuals that might be temporarily disturbed would
be very low.
As a result, AES Lynx believes the effects of on-ice seismic are
expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes
involving relatively small numbers of seals. NMFS has preliminarily
determined, based on information in the application and supporting
documents, that these changes in behavior will have no more than a
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of ringed and
bearded seals. Also, the potential effects of the proposed on-ice
seismic operations during 2006 are unlikely to result in more than
small numbers of seals being affected and will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses of these two species.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to AES Lynx for conducting seismic
surveys in the Harrison Bay area of the western U.S. Beaufort Sea,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that
the proposed activity would result in the harassment of small numbers
of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the
affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of species or stocks for subsistence
uses.
Information Solicited
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information
concerning this request (see ADDRESSES).
Dated: February 21, 2006.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-2740 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S