Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Notices 67627 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and 

describes how the refuge will be 

managed for the next 15 years. The 

compatibility determinations for big 

game hunting, small game hunting, 

migratory bird hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation, trapping of selected 

furbearers, and horseback riding are also 

available within the plan. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the plan may be 

obtained by writing to the D’Arbonne 

National Wildlife Refuge, 11372 

Highway 143, Farmerville, Louisiana 

71241. The plan may also be accessed 

and downloaded from the Service’s Web 

site http://southeast.fws.gov/planning/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, 

established in 1975, is located within 

the Lower Mississippi River floodplain 

in north Louisiana, approximately six 

miles of West Monroe, Louisiana. The 

refuge’s 17,421 acres include deep 

overflow swamp, bottomland hardwood 

forest, and upland mixed-pine/ 

hardwoods. D’Arbonne Refuge provides 

habitat for thousands of wintering 

waterfowl, wading and waterbirds, and 

year-round habitat for nesting wood 

ducks, squirrels, deer, river otters, and 

raccoons. Hunting and fishing 

opportunities are permitted on most 

areas of the refuge, which is open yearround for wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography. 

The availability of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for a 30-day 

public review and comment period was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18348). The plan 

and environmental assessment 

identified and evaluated three 

alternatives for managing the refuge 

over the next 15 years. Alternative A, 

the proposed alternative, emphasized 

natural ecological processes, 

enhancement of the biological program, 

restoration of biological integrity with 

management for endangered species, 

and more use of adaptive management 

primarily to benefit migratory birds and 

forests. Alternative B would focus 

resources toward obtaining biological 

information while providing an artificial 

habitat for the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker. There would be a 

reduction in visitor services. Alternative 

C, the ‘‘status quo’’ alternative, would 

continue management and public use. 

Based on the environmental 

assessment and the comments received, 

the Service adopted Alternative A as its 

preferred alternative. This alternative 

was considered to be the most effective 

for meeting the purposes of the refuge—

that of conserving bottomland 

hardwood forest for migratory birds and 

for providing wildlife-dependent public 

use. Alternative A best achieves 

national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific 

goals and objectives and positively 

addresses significant issues and 

concerns expressed by the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelby Ouchley, Refuge Manager, 

D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge, 

telephone: 318/726–4222; fax: 318/726–

4667; e-mail: Kelby_Ouchley@fws.gov; 

or by writing to the Refuge Manager at 

the addresses in the ADDRESSES section. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: June 29, 2006. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 06–9344 Filed 11–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National 

Wildlife Refuge in Jackson County, 

Mississippi; Availability of Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service 

announces that a Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Mississippi Sandhill 

Crane National Wildlife Refuge are 

available for review and comment. This 

draft plan and environmental 

assessment were prepared pursuant to 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The draft plan describes the Service’s 

proposal for management of the refuge 

for 15 years. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the postal or electronic 

addresses listed below no later than 

December 22, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: To provide written 

comments or to obtain a copy of the 

draft plan and environmental 

assessment, please write to the 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National 

Wildlife Refuge, 7200 Crane Lane, 

Gautier, Mississippi 39553; Telephone 

601/497–6322. Comments may also be 

submitted via electronic mail to 

mike_dawson@fws.gov. The plan and 

environmental assessment may be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Internet site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), requires the Service to 

develop a plan for each refuge. The 

purpose in developing a comprehensive 

conservation plan is to provide refuge 

managers with a 15-year strategy for 

achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, plans identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

A meeting will be held to present the 

plan to the public. Mailings, newspaper 

articles, and posters will be the avenues 

to inform the public of the date and time 

for the meeting. 

After the review and comment period 

for the draft plan and environmental 

assessment, all comments will be 

analyzed and considered by the Service. 

All comments received from individuals 

on the draft plan and environmental 

assessment become part of the official 

public record. Requests for such 

comments will be handled in 

accordance with the Freedom of 

Information Act and Service and 

Departmental policies and procedures. 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane National 

Wildlife Refuge was established in 1975 

to safeguard the critically endangered 

Mississippi sandhill crane and its 

unique disappearing habitat. 

Significant issues addressed in the 

draft plan include: Threatened and 

endangered species; waterfowl 

management; neotropical migratory 

birds; savanna restoration; visitor 

services (e.g., fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and 

interpretation); staffing; and cultural 

resources. The Service developed four 

alternatives for managing the refuge and 

chose Alternative D as the proposed 

alternative. 

Under Alternative A, the No Action 

Alternative, present management would 

continue. Current approaches to 

managing and protecting cranes, other 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
67628 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Notices 

wildlife and habitats, and allowing for 

public use would remain unchanged. 

With regard to the endangered 

Mississippi sandhill crane, the refuge’s 

objective would be to maintain a 

population of 110–130 individuals, 

including 20–25 nesting pairs, while 

fledging 2–4 young annually. Staff 

would cultivate 15–40 acres of chufa in 

multiple food plots to provide foraging 

areas for the cranes. The refuge would 

also maintain 14 existing ponds; these 

provide roosting, feeding, and release 

pen habitat for cranes. Predator control 

would need to continue, since predation 

is one of the key factors in retarding 

successful recruitment of young and 

achievement of a self-sustaining 

population. The refuge’s objective 

would be to conduct sufficient predator 

control to allow for 40 percent hatching 

success, 25 percent fledging success, 

and 75 percent survival of after-hatchyear birds. Two to three red-tailed 

hawks, one of the principal predators of 

nestling and juvenile cranes, would be 

removed annually. 

The refuge would continue to furnish 

incidental benefits for other native 

wildlife species. It would also maintain 

the current habitat mix for the benefit of 

other migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, and 

landbirds. Staff would continue existing 

amphibian surveys to monitor long-term 

population trends and health of these 

vertebrates. Managers would continue to 

record casual sightings of invertebrates, 

while maintaining incidental benefits to 

invertebrates from various management 

actions. 

Habitat objectives are oriented toward 

providing benefits to wildlife, and thus 

overlap wildlife objectives to some 

extent. The main habitat the refuge 

strives to restore and manage is pine 

savanna, particularly wet pine savanna. 

Under Alternative A, refuge 

management would continue to provide 

8,000–10,000 acres of savanna habitat to 

benefit the Mississippi sandhill crane 

and priority grassland bird species. The 

staff would maintain the current habitat 

mix to provide incidental benefits to 

other migratory birds, including 

waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh birds, and 

landbirds. Fire management, in 

particular prescribed fire, is an 

important ecological tool in maintaining 

savanna habitat against encroachment 

by woody vegetation and trees. The 

refuge would continue to aim for 

conducting prescribed fires on all 

compartments on a 2–3 year rotation, 

although attaining this objective would 

depend on weather conditions. Other 

habitats on the refuge would be 

maintained at current levels and in the 

same locations as at present: 

Approximately 9,000 acres in pine 

flatwood forest; 1,300 acres in forested 

wetlands; and 600 acres in open water. 

Resource protection would continue 

to be carried out as it is currently. One 

hundred acres of cogongrass would be 

targeted for annual spraying to reduce 

infestations of this non-native weed. 

Tallow trees and other invasives would 

be controlled or eliminated as 

opportunities arise. The refuge’s Private 

Lands program would remain the same, 

with passive management of 12 Farm 

Service Agency tracts totaling 2,203 

acres (1,975 acres in fee title and 228 

acres in easement). At present, the 

refuge has one collateral duty officer 

(0.25 FTE) and shares a law enforcement 

officer with Grand Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge. The refuge would 

follow standard Service protocol and 

procedures in conducting cultural 

resource surveys. 

Existing public use and 

environmental education programs 

would be maintained. The refuge would 

continue to serve the public without 

being guided by a Visitor Services 

Management Plan, relying instead on 

experience and general Service 

mandates and practices. A new 

headquarters/visitor center would be 

constructed. 

Current wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography programs and 

facilities would be maintained. These 

include guided crane tours in vans 

every January and February, two hiking/ 

nature trails, and observation/ 

photography blinds. The refuge would 

maintain environmental education and 

interpretation at their current levels, 

including participation in community 

events, on-site and off-site 

environmental education, guided tours, 

and interpretive trails. The refuge would 

technically remain closed to sport 

hunting and fishing, though the latter 

would continue to be available to 

anglers in watercraft (e.g., boats, canoes, 

and kayaks) entering the refuge on 

bayous under State jurisdiction and 

management. 

Under Alternative B, the refuge would 

emphasize its biological program by 

applying maximum efforts to enhance 

habitat conditions and increase wildlife 

populations, particularly the 

endangered crane. The visitor services 

program would remain as it is at 

present. An assistant refuge manager 

would be hired for supervisory and 

administrative support. 

With regard to the endangered 

Mississippi sandhill crane, the refuge’s 

objective would be to provide for a selfsustaining crane population of 130 to 

170 individuals, including 30–35 

nesting pairs, fledging 10–15 young 

annually for at least 10 years. Chufa 

cultivation would expand to 40–60 

acres, and winter cover crops and 

legumes would be planted on up to 20 

acres within food plots. Staff would also 

create a food plot in the Fontainbleau 

Unit in addition to exploring 

opportunities with partners to protect 

existing and extend potential foraging 

areas off-refuge would continue to 

maintain 14 existing ponds, which 

provide roosting, feeding, and release 

pen habitat for cranes. In addition to 

these 14 ponds, 10 new small, shallow 

ponds would be created. Staff would 

clear overgrown interiors of five Grady 

ponds. An additional equipment 

operator would be hired to assist with 

construction and maintenance. 

Under Alternative B, predator 

management for Mississippi sandhill 

crane survival would increase to allow 

for 60 percent hatching success, 67 

percent fledging success, and over 80 

percent survival of after-hatch-year 

birds. Up to 10 red-tailed hawks would 

be removed annually. 

The refuge would also continue to 

furnish incidental benefits to other 

native wildlife species. It would provide 

15,000–17,000 acres of savanna habitat 

to benefit priority grassland bird 

species, as well as the Mississippi 

sandhill crane. This would be an 

increase of 7,000 acres over Alternative 

A. Alternative B would aim to increase 

the refugee’s knowledge about other 

migratory birds by developing and 

implementing monitoring programs. 

Staff would continue existing 

amphibian surveys to monitor long-term 

population trends and health of these 

vertebrates. The refuge would maintain 

and develop habitats and promote 

management actions that would support 

viable populations of both amphibians 

and reptiles. 

The refuge would conduct periodic 

sampling to evaluate incidental benefits 

to invertebrates from various 

management actions. Management of 

invertebrates would increase overall by 

maintaining the native diversity of 

butterfly and dragonfly species as 

indicators of biodiversity, and by 

providing for high-quality orthoptera 

and related species numbers for food by 

the sandhill cranes and their young. 

Under Alternative B, pine savanna 

acreage would increase. Fire 

management, particularly prescribed 

fire, is an important ecological tool in 

maintaining savanna habitat against 

encroachment by woody vegetation and 

trees. Under Alternative B, the refuge 

would continue to aim for conducting 

prescribed fires on all compartments on 

a 2–3 year rotation, although attaining 

this objective would depend on weather 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Notices 67629 

conditions. Pine flatwood forests would 

be reduced to 2,000–5,000 acres (from 

9,000 acres currently), because the 

majority of this habitat would be 

converted to pine savanna (i.e., opened 

up and thinned out), which is more 

desirable to cranes and other indigenous 

species of management concern. 

Forested wetlands would be maintained 

at current levels (1,300 acres) and the 

acreage of open water, that is, bayous 

and ponds, would increase somewhat 

from the construction of 10 new ponds. 

Under Alternative B, resource 

protection would be intensified. The 

main invasive species at present is 

cogongrass, and the refuge’s objective 

would be to reduce cogongrass by 90 

percent within 5 years, to total no more 

than 15 acres. A program would also be 

developed to control tallow trees and 

other invasive species. In the refuge’s 

Private Lands Program, staff would 

work with private landowners of the 12 

Farm Service Agency tracts to manage 

and improve habitats. Staff would also 

reduce cogongrass on these areas and 

explore opportunities with partners to 

protect existing and extend potential 

foraging areas off-refuge. The refuge 

would partner with The Nature 

Conservancy and other nearby 

landowners on fire management issues 

and biological assistance. 

Current wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation programs 

would be maintained under the 

Alternative B. As in Alternative A, the 

refuge would technically remain closed 

to sport hunting and fishing. 

Under Alternative C, management 

would focus on maximizing 

opportunities for public visitation, 

increasing both facilities and activities 

throughout the 15-year duration of the 

plan. Current approaches to managing 

and protecting cranes and other wildlife 

and habitats would remain unchanged. 

An assistant refuge manager would be 

hired for supervisory and administrative 

support. 

One difference between Alternatives 

C and A is in the area of law 

enforcement: Alternative C would 

provide a full-time law enforcement 

officer to protect refuge resources and 

the public. With regard to cultural 

resources, including those of an 

archaeological or historical nature, 

within 15 years of the plan’s approval, 

the refuge would develop and begin to 

implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

Public use and environmental 

education would increase under 

Alternative C. Within 3 years of plan 

completion, the refuge would develop a 

Visitor Services Management Plan to be 

used in expanding public use facilities 

and opportunities on the refuge. This 

step-down management plan would 

provide overall, long-term direction and 

guidance in developing and running a 

larger public use program. The Service 

would construct a new headquarters 

and a separate visitor center. The new 

visitor center would include a small 

auditorium for use in talks, meetings, 

films, videos, and other audiovisual 

presentations. 

Alternative C would also increase 

opportunities for visitors by adding 

facilities such as photo-blinds, 

observation sites, and trails, including 

boardwalks. Two on-refuge auto tours 

would be developed as well. 

Over the 15-year life of the plan, the 

staff would increase emphasis on 

environmental education and 

interpretation to lead to a better 

understanding of the importance of 

wildlife and habitat resources, 

especially sandhill cranes, savanna, fire 

ecology, invasive species, endangered 

species, and migratory birds. A public 

use specialist would be hired. Within 5 

years of plan approval, the refuge would 

prepare a Fishing Plan that would 

outline permissible fishing 

opportunities within the refuge and a 

Hunting Plan that would allow for a 

limited deer hunt. The refuge would 

construct a fishing pier and canoe and 

kayak trail with access point. 

Under Alternative D, the proposed 

alternative, the refuge would strive to 

optimize both its biological program and 

its visitor services program. Thus it 

would include certain elements of 

Alternative B, which emphasizes the 

biological program, and Alternative C, 

which focuses on the visitor services 

program. Alternative D recognizes that 

there may be tradeoffs and opportunity 

costs between the various elements of 

the biological and visitor services 

programs. Hence, Alternative D stresses 

the principle of optimization rather than 

maximization of wildlife, habitat, and 

public use outputs. An assistant refuge 

manager would be hired for supervisory 

and administrative support. 

With regard to the endangered 

Mississippi sandhill crane, the refuge’s 

objective would be the same as 

Alternative B. Also, objectives to furnish 

incidental benefits to other native 

wildlife species would be the same as 

Alternative B. The main habitat the 

refuge strives to restore and manage is 

pine savanna, particularly wet pine 

savanna. Under Alternative D, savanna 

acreage would increase. 

Under Alternative D, resource 

protection at the refuge would be 

intensified from the level now 

maintained in Alternative A. Efforts to 

control invasive species would increase. 

The main invasive species at present is 

cogongrass, and the refuge’s objective 

would be to reduce the species by 80 

percent within 5 years. Tallow trees and 

other invasive species would continue 

to be controlled or eliminated as 

opportunities are available. In the 

refuge’s Private Lands Program, staff 

would work with private landowners of 

the 12 Farm Service Agency tracts to 

manage and improve habitats. Staff 

would also explore opportunities with 

partners to protect existing and extend 

potential foraging areas off-refuge. The 

refuge would partner with The Nature 

Conservancy and other nearby 

landowners on fire management issues 

and biological assistance. 

Alternative D would provide a fulltime law enforcement officer, an 

equipment operator, a maintenance 

mechanic, and a wildlife technician. 

The refuge would develop and begin to 

implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. Until such time as 

the plan is completed and implemented, 

the refuge would follow standard 

Service protocol and procedures in 

conducting cultural resource surveys. 

Public use and environmental 

education would increase under 

Alternative D. Within 3 years of the 

plan’s completion, the refuge would 

develop a Visitor Services Plan to be 

used in expanding public use facilities 

and opportunities on the refuge. This 

step-down management plan would 

provide overall, long-term direction and 

guidance in developing and running a 

larger public use program. Within the 

15-year planning horizon, the Service 

would construct a new visitor center 

near the existing one and convert the 

existing visitor center into a refuge 

headquarters. The new visitor center 

would include a small auditorium for 

use in talks, meetings, films, videos, and 

other audiovisual presentations. 

Alternative D would also increase 

opportunities for visitors by adding 

facilities such as photoblinds, 

observation sites, and trails, but would 

not include boardwalks. One or more 

on-refuge auto tours would be 

developed as well. 

Over the 15-year life of the plan, the 

staff would increase emphasis on 

environmental education and 

interpretation to lead to a better 

understanding of the importance of 

wildlife and habitat resources, 

especially sandhill cranes, savanna, fire 

ecology, invasive species, endangered 

species, and migratory birds. Within 5 

years of the plan’s approval, the refuge 

would prepare a Fishing Plan that 

would outline permissible fishing 

opportunities within the refuge. The 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
67630 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Notices 

refuge would also construct a fishing 

pier on the bayou and a canoe and 

kayak trail with access point. Staff 

would investigate opportunities for 

limited hunting possibilities. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: October 11, 2006. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 06–9343 Filed 11–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submitted for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of revision of an 

information collection (1010–0154). 

SUMMARY: To comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), MMS is notifying the public that 

it has submitted to OMB an information 

collection request (ICR) to renew 

approval of the paperwork requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act 

Biological Opinions, issued by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries (NOAA 

Fisheries) and are titled: ‘‘Notices to 

Lessees and Operators (NTLs)—

Implementation of Seismic Survey 

Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program; Vessel Strike 

Avoidance and Injured/Dead Protected 

Species Reporting; and, Marine Trash 

and Debris Awareness and 

Elimination.’’ This notice also provides 

the public a second opportunity to 

comment on the paperwork burden of 

these regulatory requirements. 

DATES: Submit written comments by 

December 22, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this information collection directly 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Department of the 

Interior via OMB e-mail: 

(OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov); or by 

fax (202) 395–6566; identify with (1010–

0154). 

Submit a copy of your comments to 

the Department of the Interior, MMS, 

via: 

• Public Connect on-line commenting 

system, https://ocsconnect.mms.gov. 

Follow the instructions on the website 

for submitting comments. 

• E-mail MMS at 

rules.comments@mms.gov. Identify with 

Information Collection Number 1010–

0154 in the subject line. 

• Fax: 703–787–1093. Identify with 

Information Collection Number 1010–

0154. 

• Mail or hand-carry comments to the 

Department of the Interior; Minerals 

Management Service; Attention: Rules 

Processing Team (RPT); 381 Elden 

Street, MS–4024; Herndon, Virginia 

20170–4817. Please reference 

‘‘Information Collection 1010–0154’’ in 

your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and 

Standards Branch, (703) 787–1607. You 

may also contact Cheryl Blundon to 

obtain a copy, at no cost, of the NTLs 

that require the subject collection of 

information. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Notices to Lessees and 

Operators (NTLs)—Implementation of 

Seismic Survey Mitigation Measures 

and Protected Species Observer 

Program; Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting; and, Marine Trash and 

Debris Awareness and Elimination. 

OMB Control Number: 1010–0154. 

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 

1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to prescribe rules and regulations to 

administer leasing of the OCS. Such 

rules and regulations will apply to all 

operations conducted under a lease. 

Operations on the OCS must preserve, 

protect, and develop oil and natural gas 

resources in a manner that is consistent 

with the need to make such resources 

available to meet the Nation’s energy 

needs as rapidly as possible; to balance 

orderly energy resource development 

with protection of human, marine, and 

coastal environments; to ensure the 

public a fair and equitable return on the 

resources of the OCS; and to preserve 

and maintain free enterprise 

competition. 

As a Federal agency, we have a 

continuing affirmative duty to comply 

with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

This includes a substantive duty to 

carry out any agency action in a manner 

that is not likely to jeopardize protected 

species as well as a procedural duty to 

consult with the FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries before engaging in a 

discretionary action that may affect a 

protected species. 

The MMS follows these procedural 

requirements by conducting formal 

consultations with FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries prior to lease sales. 

Consultations on OCS lease sales 181, 

184, and the 5-year multisale (2002–

2007) program in the Central and 

Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico (GOM) resulted in no-jeopardy 

biological opinions from the FWS and 

NOAA Fisheries. In their biological 

opinions, NOAA Fisheries determined 

that some activities associated with the 

proposed action (lease sale and related 

exploration, development, and 

production activities) may adversely 

affect (harm) sperm whales and sea 

turtles in the action area and that certain 

reasonable and prudent measures are 

necessary to minimize the potential for 

incidental take of these animals. To be 

exempt from the prohibitions of Section 

9 of the ESA (which prohibits taking 

listed species), MMS must implement 

and enforce nondiscretionary terms and 

conditions. The ESA also requires 

monitoring and reporting. Monitoring 

programs resulting from ESA 

interagency consultations are designed 

to (1) detect adverse effects resulting 

from a proposed action, (2) assess the 

actual level of incidental take in 

comparison with the level of anticipated 

incidental take documented in the 

biological opinion, (3) detect when the 

level of anticipated take is exceeded, 

and (4) determine the effectiveness of 

reasonable and prudent alternatives and 

their implementing terms and 

conditions. 

To provide supplementary guidance 

and procedures, MMS issues Notices to 

Lessees and Operators (NTLs) on a 

regional or national basis. Regulation 30 

CFR 250.103 allows MMS to issue NTLs 

to clarify, supplement, or provide more 

detail about certain requirements. To 

implement the nondiscretionary terms 

and conditions of these biological 

opinions, the MMS issued three NTLs, 

as follows (note that the NTL numbers 

were removed since they will be 

reissued after renewal): 

• Implementation of Seismic Survey 

Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program, 

• Vessel Strike Avoidance and 

Injured/Dead Protected Species 

Reporting, 

• Marine Trash and Debris Awareness 

and Elimination. 

It should be noted that it has now 

become common practice for OCS 

lessees and operators to subcontract the 

marine mammal observation and 

monitoring activities associated with the 

requirements of the Seismic Survey 

Mitigation Measures and Protected 

Species Observer Program NTL. 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES