Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices 40505

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

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs

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 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 that the

permissible methods of taking and

requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking

are set forth.

Application

On March 26, 1998, NMFS received

an application from BPXA requesting a

1-year renewal of its 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 Harrison Bay

and Camden Bay/Flaxman Island, AK.

Weather permitting, the survey was

expected to take place between

approximately July 1 and October 20,

1998. A detailed description of the work

proposed for 1998 is contained in the

application and need not be repeated

here. A notice of receipt of the

application and proposed authorization

was published on May 6, 1998 (63 FR

25015), and a 30-day public comment

period was provided on the application

and proposed authorization. Several

comments were received during the 30-

day comment period. While those

comments no longer require response by

NMFS, because similar comments were

submitted during the review and

comment period for an IHA application

by Western Geophysical for seismic

operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea,

readers are encouraged to review the

authorization notice for that applicant

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.

Dated: July 22, 1998.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20279 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D.061498A]

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 23, 1998,

until November 1, 1998, 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 the Chief,

Marine Mammal Division, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3225, or by telephoning one of

the contacts listed here.

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

Sections 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, 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 that 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 April 15, 1998, 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 Harrison Bay and Flaxman

Island, AK. Weather permitting, the

survey is expected to take place from

middle- to late-July and to extend until

approximately October 20, 1998.

Disturbance by seismic noise is the

principal means of taking by this

activity. Support vessels and aircraft

will provide a secondary source of

noise. The physical presence of vessels

and aircraft could also lead to nonacoustic effects involving visual or other

cues.

Seismic surveys are used to obtain

data about formations several thousands

of feet deep. The proposed seismic

operation is an ocean bottom cable

(OBC) survey. OBC surveys involve

dropping cables from a ship to the ocean

bottom, forming a patch consisting of

four parallel cables 10 kilometers (km)

(6.2 mi) long, separated 750 m (2,500 ft)

from each other. Sensors (hydrophones

and geophones) are attached to the

cables. These hydrophones are used to

detect seismic energy reflected back

from underground rock strata. The

original 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 249 dB re 1 μPa-m (27.2
40506 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices

bar-meters; zero to peak) or 255 dB re

1 μPa-m (53 bar-meters; peak-to-peak (pp)) from a 1,500 in3 array of airguns is

in the lower to middle portion of the

range of source levels commonly used

for seismic operations with airgun

arrays (Richardson et al., 1995).

Normally, 36 seismic lines are run for

each patch, covering an area 6.0 km by

17.5 km (3.7 mi by 10.87 mi), centered

over the patch. The source lines for one

patch will normally overlap with those

for adjacent patches.

After sufficient data have been

recorded to allow accurate mapping of

the rock strata, the cable is 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. A detailed description of the

work proposed for 1998 is contained in

the application (Western Geophysical,

1998) and is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt of the application

and proposed authorization was

published on May 20, 1998 (63 FR

27709), and a 30-day public comment

period was provided on the application

and proposed authorization. During the

comment period, comments regarding

this application (and/or on a related

application from BP Exploration

(Alaska) (BPXA)), were received from

the Marine Mammal Commission

(MMC), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

Commission (AEWC), LGL Ltd.

environmental research associates on

behalf of the applicant, and Greenpeace

Alaska (Greenpeace). 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 Ltd provided

information updating and correcting the

Federal Register notice that (1) Western

Geophysical’s cables include both

hydrophones and geophones, not just

hydrophones, and (2) Western

Geophysical’s airguns discharge once

every 16 to 24 seconds, not 1 second in

duration every 5 to 12 seconds. These

pulses are much less than 1 second in

duration near the source, increasing to

as much as 1 second in duration as

received in the water at long horizontal

distances.

Response: Thank you for providing

this information.

Comment 2: On July 1, 1998, Western

Geophysical submitted a letter to NMFS

outlining modifications to its May 20,

1998, application. That letter noted that

Western Geophysical’s activity would

be amended by the addition of shallow

water cable equipment and the

inclusion of a shallow water acoustic

source. The shallow water equipment

would be used in locations and times

when the OBC system was not usable.

The two sources would not be used

simultaneously.

Response: NMFS has reviewed this

letter and determined that, because the

shallow water source is smaller (560 in3

) than either the 750 in3 or the 1500 in3

seismic array, and would not be used

simultaneously with the larger sources,

there will not be a cumulative effect.

This modification is not considered

significant. The IHA will ensure that the

two sources are not used simultaneously

and will require sound transmission

measurements be made of both sources

to ensure that the designated safety

zones are conservative.

Marine Mammal Impact Concerns

Comment 3: Greenpeace contends that

NMFS, Western Geophysical and,

BPXA, the second applicant, rely on

outdated, incomplete, and inaccurate

information concerning the zone of

influence for seismic operations on

bowhead whales. Greenpeace believes

that NMFS fails to respect or

incorporate either the traditional

knowledge (TK) of local whalers

presented at various hearings or the

results of the 1997 aerial surveys, both

of which indicate a seismic zone of

influence greater than the 7.5 km (4.5

mi) used by NMFS. The AEWC believes

the data clearly shows that bowheads

are displaced and deflected at least 20

km (12 miles) by the noise of the

seismic vessel when operating.

Response: Western Geophysical’s

application and the notice of proposed

authorization note that, in addition to

the known responses out to a distance

of several kilometers, less conspicuous

and/or less frequent effects may extend

to greater distances. Since the

application was submitted, a draft final

report describing BPXA’s combined

1996 and 1997 monitoring results

(Richardson [ed.], 1998) has been

completed. That report shows that (1)

BPXA’s 1996 and 1997 seismic

programs did not greatly influence the

position of the overall migration

corridor; (2) although the aerial surveys

showed at least partial avoidance of the

area within 20 km (12 mi) of seismic

operations, the 20 km (12 mi) figure is

a very imprecise estimate of potential

avoidance radius; and (3) the pattern of

bowhead call detection rates at various

locations north and east of the 1996 area

of seismic operations has suggested that

migrating bowheads either called less

often when near active seismic vessel,

or tended to divert away from that area,

or both. For additional information on

the estimated zones that seismic airguns

have on bowhead whales, please refer to

the proposed authorization notice

mentioned in this document.

It is recognized that it is difficult (for

scientists at least) to determine the

maximum distance at which reactions

occur (Moore and Clark, 1992) that may

have an adverse impact on subsistence

needs. Inuit whalers, on the other hand,

believe that whales exhibit avoidance

reactions as far as 48 km (30 miles)

away (MMS, 1997). As a result, Western

Geophysical developed a Conflict and

Avoidance Agreement (C&AA) with the

whalers to reduce any potential

interference with the hunt. That

agreement was concluded by both

parties on July 8, 1998.

Also, it is believed that the

monitoring plan proposed by Western

Geophysical (LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge,

1998b), revised on the basis of

comments received during this public

review period and at the Peer-Review

Workshop, will provide information

that will help resolve uncertainties

about the effects of seismic exploration

on the accessibility of bowheads to

hunters.

Comment 4: Greenpeace notes that

Western Geophysical fails to address the

impact of an airgun on bowhead hearing

at any number of distances within and

beyond the zone of influence and fails

to account for the impact from an airgun

array operating 70 m (210 ft) from a

bowhead. LGL Ltd. comments that the

application notice states that temporary

threshold shift (TTS) is a theoretical

possibility for animals within a few

hundred meters and that mitigation

measures are designed to avoid

exposing mammals to sound pulses that

have any possibility of causing hearing

damage. LGL Ltd notes that TTS is a

natural protective mechanism built into

the mammalian ear. Modest levels of

TTS do not constitute hearing damage.

Response: The impact of airguns on

bowhead hearing has been addressed in

several documents, including Western

Geophysical’s application, the

supporting EA, and in LGL and

Greeneridge (1998). Without an ability

to collect empirical information on

physical impacts from airguns on large

marine mammals, scientists must rely

on either surrogate species and make

conservative assumptions based upon

findings for those species.

Comment 5: Greenpeace notes in its

letter that marine mammals use sound

to communicate and, it is clear, that

many species are extremely sensitive to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices 40507

both sound and physical disturbance.

Greenpeace also notes that industrial

noise and other activities interfere with

bowhead cow-calf bonding and cause

displacement from feeding areas and

migratory routes. The energetic costs of

noise-related changes in behavior and

distribution patterns are potentially

significant and will inevitably constitute

harassment and ‘‘take.’’

Response: Thank you for providing

this comment. Because there are

potential 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 to

reduce potential impacts to the lowest

level practicable.

Comment 6: Greenpeace states that

the fall bowhead migration begins in

August, and a significant proportion of

the population may be in the vicinity of

Western Geophysical’s seismic

operations during the latter half of

August. Citing Moore and Clarke (1991),

Greenpeace states that, during mid- to

late-August, as many as 1,200–3,000

bowhead whales may be present in the

Beaufort Sea region from the Canadian

border to the offshore area demarcated

by the western boundary of the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge.

Response: NMFS notes that the region

cited by the commenters is east of the

proposed seismic survey area for

Western Geophysical and that bowhead

whale numbers referenced by

Greenpeace are overstated because they

include bowheads located in the

Canadian Beaufort Sea. Moore and Clark

(1991) estimated that in 1982 through

1984, up to 500 (range 0–500) bowheads

may be in the region annually between

the Barter and Flaxman islands;

however, no whales were sighted west

of that region prior to September 1

during those years. This is verified by

Ljungblad et al. (1987). Most sighted

bowheads were still in Canadian waters.

NMFS notes that, in general, bowhead

whales migrate westward through the

Alaskan Beaufort Sea from late August

to late October, but only a portion of the

population has been estimated during

this time period. Other bowheads are

either undetectable to observers (i.e.,

under the ice), migrate prior to surveys

commencing, or do not migrate to the

Canadian Beaufort Sea.

Comment 7: LGL Ltd. provided

information that airgun sounds may be

audible to beluga whales at long

distances not only because of the high

source levels, but also because some

energy at frequencies of a few hundred

hertz propagates horizontally from the

seismic vessel. Beluga hearing is more

sensitive to these frequencies than to the

lower frequencies that dominate the

seismic output (Richardson and Wursig,

1997; see also Goold, 1998).

Response: Thank you for providing

this information.

Comment 8: LGL Ltd. provided

information from a paper by Kastak and

Schusterman (1998) updating

information provided in Western

Geophysical’s application and in the

notice of proposed authorization which

indicates that, for one harbor seal tested,

the hearing threshold was 102 dB re 1

uPa at 75 Hz, 96 dB at 100 Hz, and 84

dB at 200 and 400 Hz. These results are

consistent with previously reported

preliminary data at 100 Hz.

Response: Thank you for providing

this information.

Comment 9: LGL Ltd. corrected a

statement in the notice that ‘‘no studies

to date have focused on pinniped

reaction to underwater noise from

pulsed, seismic arrays,’’ noting that

while this was true up to early 1996, the

monitoring results from the 1996 and

1997 BPXA program have provided

considerable information about

reactions of seals. These have been

described in detail in the 90-day and

final reports on the 1996 and 1997

BPXA monitoring programs, as

described in Richardson [ed.] (1998).

Response: Thank you for the

comment. NMFS notes, however, that,

while opportunistic observations have

been made of seismic noise impacts on

pinnipeds over the last few years, NMFS

is aware of only one researcher who has

physiologically monitored individual

animals reaction to seismic noise.

Preliminary information provided by

this individual earlier this year at the

annual meeting of the Marine Mammal

Society in Monaco supports the results

reported here.

Subsistence Concerns

Comment 10: The AEWC objects to

the issuance of IHA permits to BPXA

and Western Geophysical because of

their opposition to seismic activities

which interfere with the availability of

bowhead whales within their

subsistence hunting area. Greenpeace

believes that seismic activities will

result in a significant and unmitigable

impact to subsistence communities.

Response: As mentioned previously,

BPXA withdrew its application for an

incidental harassment authorization on

July 6, 1998. As a result, only Western

Geophysical will conduct open water

seismic operations this summer in the

U.S. Beaufort Sea. In part, section

101(a)(5) 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. Two elements must be

present for NMFS to determine that

there will not 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 1996 and 1997,

these conditions were met through the

C&AA (also known as a Plan of

Cooperation) by requiring 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 similar agreement for 1998 was

concluded on July 8, 1998, between the

AEWC/North Slope Borough (NSB) and

Western Geophysical. As a result of this

signed C&AA, NMFS concludes that

there will not be an unmitigable adverse

impact on the subsistence needs of the

NSB whalers this year due to seismic

activities.

Comment 11 : In order to mitigate

impacts on the availability of bowhead

whales for subsistence needs, the AEWC

believes the IHAs, if issued to both

BPXA and Western Geophysical, must

require that (1) all seismic operations

east of Cross Island cease on August 15

or when a bowhead whale is sighted at

Kaktovik (whichever is earlier); (2) all

seismic operations east of 150 degrees

West cease on August 15 or when active

whaling begins in Nuiqsut or Kaktovik

(whichever is earlier); and (3) all

seismic operations cease on September

1 until Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow

have completed their hunts.

Response: A signed C&AA requiring,

among other things, for Western

Geophysical to cease all seismic

activities east of Cross Island after

August 31 and to move to the

westernmost portion of their seismic

activity area if impacts to bowhead

whales continue after moving west of
40508 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices

Cross Island is the result of negotiations

between the AEWC and Western

Geophysical. This signed C&AA

supercedes the recommendations made

on June 2, 1998, by the AEWC.

Mitigation Concerns

Comment 12: LGL Ltd. noted several

errors in the shutdown distances for

airgun restrictions as published in the

notice of proposed authorization.

Response: For clarity, NMFS is

republishing the shutdown distance

criteria in this document (see

Mitigation).

Comment 13: The AEWC recommends

that, after August 15, the two seismic

operations must be arranged so that (1)

neither is directly offshore of the other,

and (2) they are separated by at least a

25–mile east-west distance (so that the

12 miles (20 km) exclusion zone, seen

in the 1997 monitoring, do not overlap.

Response: Since there are no longer

two planned seismic operations to be

conducted in the Beaufort Sea this

summer, response to this comment is no

longer applicable.

Monitoring Concerns

Comment 14: Greenpeace contends

that the monitoring program proposed

by Western Geophysical is not

sufficiently rigorous nor independent to

adequately provide reliable research to

support findings about the impacts of

seismic operations on marine mammals.

Greenpeace recommends an additional

5 bottom-mounted acoustic recorders be

installed in the offshore Beaufort Sea to

detect marine mammal (principally

bowhead whale) vocalizations.

Greenpeace also recommends noise

measurements be conducted at

distances of 10 km (6 mi), 20 km (12

mi), 30 km (18 mi), 40 km (24 mi), and

50 km (30 mi).

Response: Thank you for your

recommendations. 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 1998 and the results

from LGL Ltd.’s 1996 and 1997 Beaufort

Sea research were the subject of a

scientific peer-review workshop held in

Seattle, WA, on May 17 through 19,

1998. As a result of that workshop and

the comments submitted on their

application, Western Geophysical

amended its monitoring plan and

submitted that plan to NMFS for

approval. Modifications to the original

plan include (1) reference to boat-based

marine mammal observers onboard the

second source vessel; (2) a 32–km

westward extension of aerial surveys to

address the question how far west of the

seismic area do bowhead whales remain

farther offshore than usual if bowheads

are displaced offshore by seismic; (3) an

additional autonomous seafloor acoustic

recorder (ASAR) farther offshore from

the area of seismic operations as well as

the three previously proposed ones

along the 25–m contour; and (4) an

attempt to retrive the two ASARs left on

the bottom of the Beaufort Sea last fall.

This amended plan is being

independently peer-reviewed for NMFS.

Greenpeace’s monitoring

recommendations will be provided to

these reviewers for consideration. It

should be noted that workshop

participant’s recommended that, in

addition to the three bottom-mounted

recorders planned for deployment by

each seismic acitivity, an additional 2–

3 bottom-mounted recorders be installed

offshore of the area of seismic

operations. However, the withdrawal of

BPXA from an active seismic program in

1998, made unnecessary the use of a

significant increase in the number of

offshore recorders.

Comment 15: Greenpeace states that

the monitoring program is inadequate

because it fails to account for the

cumulative impact of two open-water

seismic programs operating

concurrently. Greenpeace also states

that the monitoring program fails to

account for the additional impacts of

ongoing, concurrent and future oil and

gas activities. The monitoring program

must be sufficiently rigorous in design

and scope to determine this cumulative

impact.

Response: Western Geophysical’s and

BPXA’s proposed monitoring plans

were the subject of a peer-review

workshop held in Seattle, WA, between

May 17 and 19, 1998. These monitoring

plans were being amended based upon

that workshop when BPXA withdrew

from participating in seismic

exploration during the 1998 open water

season. Part of their monitoring

programs would have addressed the

effects of cumulative impact of their

seismic programs on bowheads. As a

result of BPXA’s withdrawal, there will

not be a cumulative impact from seismic

activities this year (Western

Geophysical’s two seismic vessels will

not operate at the same time). A copy of

Western’s final monitoring program is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS is unaware of any oil and gas

activities currently underway in the

offshore Beaufort Sea that might result

in impacts to marine mammals. Distant

water and nearshore activities are

presumed by NMFS to result in an

increase in the ambient noise in the

marine environment. Increasing ambient

noise in this environment is of concern

to NMFS. Ambient noise measurements

have been made by LGL Ltd. in 1996

and 1997; opportunistic measurements

will continue in 1998 during a one-week

acoustical measurement program and by

use of sonobuoys and bottom recorders.

Comment 16: The MMC recommends

NMFS review the data to determine

whether a single observer is able to

locate and determine when any marine

mammal is in, or is likely to enter, the

designated safety zone around the

towed array and, if not, require that

additional observers be required.

Response: NMFS has reviewed the

information provided in the 1996 and

1997 monitoring program report and

determined that a single biological

observer is unable to ensure that no

marine mammals (e.g., seals) enter the

designated safety zone and that a single

observer cannot adequately view both

the safety zone and that portion of the

zone of influence visible from the ship’s

bridge. However, because bowheads

appear to avoid the area visible to the

observer and because seals appear at

times to be attracted to seismic vessels,

NMFS has determined that two

observers on watch at all times is

unncessary except whenever the seismic

source is powered (ramped) up. In

addition, observers will be required to

ensure that no marine mammals enter

the bow aspect of the safety zone; a

lesser effort should be spent on seals

entering from the sides or rear portions

of the safety zone. This year’s reporting

requirement will include a requirement

for a comprehensive assessment on the

effectiveness of single observer

coverage. NMFS will review the data

obtained during 1998 season to

determine whether future authorizations

will need additional observers during

all daytime seismic operations.

Comment 17: Greenpeace believes

that the monitoring program is

inadequate because observers will be

unable to visually identify whales or

seals at night or at other times of poor

visibility. Where the impacts will occur

after mid-July, because of the increasing

hours of darkness, the probability of

impacts at night and the inadequacies of

the monitoring program to detect them

are a virtual certainty. Similar

impairment can be expected in times of

fog and in other periods of poor

visibility.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices 40509

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. Observers are aided by

night-vision equipment for monitoring

the safety zone. 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 laying or pulling OBC cable or

conducting seismic surveys,

theoretically allowing animals sufficient

time to move away from any

annoyances, and (3) documented

observations indicate that bowhead

whales avoid active seismic survey

areas few, if any, bowheads are expected

to approach the vessel and therefore,

terminating surveys at night and during

inclement weather is not warranted.

Comment 18: The AEWC has

recommended that a monitoring

program be in place for each seismic

operation and, after September 1, must

be at least as detailed as that used

during monitoring the 1997 seismic

operation. In addition, the IHA should

require the (aerial survey) monitoring to

be expanded to the west to the extent

needed to determine when whales,

displaced by seismic noise, return to

their normal migration route.

Response: Thank you for the

comment. This monitoring

recommendation was also provided by

the AEWC at the 1998 Seattle workshop.

As a result, the monitoring plan has

been revised to follow this

recommendation.

Comment 19: The MMC recommends

NMFS (1) take such steps as necessary

to verify that the operation of, and the

sounds produced by, the cable, seismic

source, and related support vessels are

unlikely to have any effect on marine

mammals in or near the proposed

survey area; and (2) require the

Monitoring Plan be augmented to

measure the levels and characteristics of

sounds produced by the various vessels

and confirm those sounds have no effect

on marine mammals.

Response: While NMFS does not

believe that noise from vessels will have

no impact on marine mammals, it is

recognized as being a secondary source

for potential harassment of marine

mammals. These sources are authorized

under the IHA, should an incidental

harassment occur. The 1998 monitoring

program will continue the program of

previous years to measure vessel

sounds, with an emphasis on vessels not

recorded in 1996 or 1997. The results of

these measurements are reported

annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) Concerns

Comment 20: Greenpeace believes

that, for several reasons, NMFS has

failed to meet NEPA standards. First,

the 1996 EA was written by BPXA, not

by NMFS, and is deficient. Second, the

1998 activity is for a broader area and

timeframe than described in the 1996

EA. Third, the 1996 EA fails to take

account of the cumulative impact of two

activities (BPXA and Western

Geophysical applications). Finally,

significant new information has become

available since the 1996 EA was issued.

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 the proposed

issuance of an IHA to BPXA to conduct

a 3–D seismic survey in the Western

Beaufort Sea and the alternatives to that

proposed action. That document was

written for NMFS by LGL Ltd under

funding provided by BPXA. This

procedure is considered proper for

building a Record of Decision. No

comments were received on the EA,

and, on July 18, 1996, NMFS adopted

the contractor-drafted EA and

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 an oceanbottom cable seismic survey during the

open water season (July through

October) 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. That

determination was based on an

evaluation of a single airgun array with

8–12 guns totaling 1,200–1,500 in3,

(2,000 psi, 250 dB re 1 μPa-m, p-p), a

possible second array (see page 64 of the

EA), and the use of a second single

airgun source (40 in3; 232 db re p-p) for

calibration, for up to 100 days of

operations. It should be noted that,

although the planned focus of efforts for

the 1996 seismic survey was the

Northstar Island area, figure 1 of the EA

indicates the area of possible seismic

activity extended from Spy Island in the

west to Flaxman Island in the east. In

addition, the EA notes that BPXA may

relocate to another site and continue the

survey until freeze-up (approximately

October 20th).

Western Geophysical’s planned

seismic area for 1998 is roughly between

Harrison Bay in the west to Camden

Bay/Flaxman Island in the east;

negligibly different from that described

in the EA. In addition, both the 1996

application (and EA) and the 1998

applications indicate that surveys

would be conducted between July and

October.

In 1998, weather permitting, activity

in the U.S. Beaufort Sea was proposed

to increase, with primary airgun arrays

being used by Western Geophysical (up

to 16 guns in an array totaling to 1,500

in3 @ 2,000 psi). Western Geophysical

plans to utilize a third source of 560 in3

(which it does not plan to use at the

same time as the primary source).

While neither applicant’s activity

alone exceeds the activity description

found in the 1996 EA, both applicants’

activities together had the potential to

result in cumulative impacts not

addressed in the 1996 EA, and a new

analysis was warranted. However,

BPXA’s withdrawal from open-water

seismic activities on the North Slope in

1998 made the preparation of a new

environmental analysis unnecessary.

Should more than one seismic survey

take place on the North Slope in 1999,

NMFS will release a revised EA that

addresses the impacts from more than

one survey being conducted

concurrently.

Comment 21: Greenpeace believes

that the described action fits the

standard neither for a FONSI nor for a

‘‘Categorical Exclusion.’’ Greenpeace

believes that because of impacts on

native subsistence as well as on the

Arctic marine ecosystem, particularly

the bowhead whale and other marine

species, NMFS must prepare a full,

comprehensive EIS.

Response: NMFS disagrees. As

discussed in this document, neither

commenters, recent monitoring and

research, nor TK have provided

information that the impact (with

mitigation and C&AA in place) would

be more than negligible (i.e., significant;

see the definition in 40 CFR 1508.24) on

the bowhead or beluga whales or on

several species of seals and would not

have an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of these marine mammal

species for subsistence uses. Since

NMFS must analyze a request for IHAs

to determine whether the proposed

activity has no more than a negligible

impact on a species or stock of marine

mammals and does not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence users, it believes that the

issuance of a small take authorization

requires only the preparation of an EA

and not of an EIS. In this case, the

agency found through preparing an EA

in 1996, that the proposed action(s) will
40510 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices

not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment, thus making a

finding of no significant impact. If the

EA results in this finding, no additional

documents are required by NEPA

(NOAA Directives Manual 02–10).

Information on the impacts on the

marine environment from Beaufort Sea

oil and gas leasing activities, including

seismic, in the area under discussion

has been addressed in several EISs

prepared by Minerals Management

Service (MMS). Final EISs for Lease Sale

124 and 144 were completed in 1990

and 1996.

Cumulative Impact Concerns

Comment 22: Greenpeace believes

NMFS is ignoring cumulative impacts

from oil exploration and development

on subsistence communities, bowhead

whales, and other marine mammals in

the Arctic environment. Greenpeace

believes that impacts from seismic

operations cannot be assessed separately

from offshore exploratory drilling,

development, and transportation

activities that may follow or are already

occurring.

Response: The commenter is correct,

however, NMFS would like to clarify

that NMFS’ responsibility in this action

is limited to the issuance or denial of an

authorization for the short-term,

incidental harassment of a small

number of marine mammals by Western

while conducting a seismic survey

within an authorized lease sale area.

NMFS does not authorize the

exploration and development of oil and

gas itself (e.g., conducting seismic

surveys) as such authorization is

provided by the MMS of the U.S.

Department of the Interior and is not

within the jurisdiction of the Secretary

of Commerce.

NMFS also notes that the

responsibility for reviewing an activity’s

cumulative impact belongs primarily to

the responsible permitting agency, and,

if that activity is Federal, federally

funded or federally permitted

cumulative impacts are usually

reviewed under NEPA. MMS 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 for

Lease Sale Area 144. Cumulative

impacts from oil and gas exploration

operations are described in those NEPA

documents.

In addition, a multi-agency NEPA

document is currently under public

review and comment. 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

was released by the Corps of Engineers

on June 1, 1998. An analysis of concerns

regarding potential future oil and gas

industry and other environmental issues

will be found in this document.

Comment 23: The MMC

recommended NMFS consult with

appropriate agencies and organizations

to determine the long-term monitoring

that would be required to confirm that

the proposed seismic surveys and

possible future exploration and

development activities do not cause

changes in the seasonal distribution

patterns, abundance, or productivity of

marine mammal populations in the area.

Response: NMFS agrees but notes that

this recommendation extends beyond

the requirements of the 1998 monitoring

program for Western Geophysical’s

seismic survey. However, to the extent

practicable, NMFS intends to use the

peer-review process required by the

MMPA for small take authorizations in

Arctic waters to address these

cumulative impact monitoring concerns

in the future.

ESA

Comment 24: Greenpeace states that

the issuance of an IHA to Western

Geophysical (or BPXA) would violate

the ESA as it is inconsistent with the

requirements and underlying purposes

of the ESA and with the requirements

that each agency use the best scientific

and commercial data available.

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. However, the major

federal agency for offshore oil and gas

lease activities is the Minerals

Management Service (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.

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.

Mitigation

Western Geophysical will use

biological observers to monitor marine

mammal presence in the vicinity of the

seismic array. To avoid 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:

(1) Within 170 m (558 ft) of an array

<750 in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(2) Within 280 m (919 ft) of an array

<750 in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(3) Within 200 m (656 ft) of an array

1500 in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(4) Within 350 m (1,148 ft) of an array

1500 in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth.

Western Geophysical will power

down the seismic source if bowhead,

gray, or belukha whales are sighted

within the area delineated by the 180 dB

isopleth or:

(1) Within 660 m (2,165 ft) of an array

<750 in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(2) Within 900 m (2,953 ft) of an array

<750 in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(3) Within 750 m (2,461 ft) of an array

1500 in3 operating at <2.5 m (8.3 ft)

depth;

(4) Within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of an

array 1500 in3 operating at >2.5 m (8.3

ft) depth.

In addition, Western Geophysical

proposes to ramp-up the seismic source

to operating levels at a rate no greater

than 6 dB/min, commencing with an 80

in3 airgun. Additional guns will be

added at intervals appropriate to limit

the rate of increase in source level to a

maximum of 6 dB/min.

Monitoring and Reporting 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

(1998) and in LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge

Sciences Inc. (1998). As mentioned

previously, this monitoring plan was

amended based on review and comment

and was submitted to NMFS on July 15,

1998. As required by the MMPA, this

monitoring plan will be subject to a

peer-review panel of technical experts

prior to formal acceptance by NMFS.

Preliminarily, Western Geophysical

plans to conduct the following:

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

A minimum of 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices 40511

start of shooting. These observers will

scan the area immediately around the

vessels with reticulated binoculars

during the daytime and with nightvision equipment during the night (prior

to mid-August, there are no hours of

darkness). Individual watches will

normally be limited to no more than

four consecutive hours during daylight

hours.

When mammals are detected within a

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

From September 1, 1998, until 3 days

after the seismic program ends, aerial

surveys will be conducted daily,

weather permitting. The primary

objective will be to document the

occurrence, distribution, and

movements of bowhead and belukha

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 proposes to

avoid overflights of the Cross Island area

where whalers from Nuiqsut are based

during their fall whale hunt.

Consistent with 1996 and 1997 aerial

surveys in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, the

daily aerial surveys are proposed to

cover two grids: (1) A grid of 16 northsouth lines spaced 8 km (5 mi) apart and

extending from about 50 km (30 mi)

west of the western side of the thencurrent seismic exploration area to 50

km (30 mi) east of its eastern edge, and

from the barrier islands north to

approximately the 100 m (328 ft) depth

contour; and (2) a grid of 4 survey lines

within the above region, also spaced 8

km (5 mi) apart and mid-way between

the longer lines, to provide more

intensive coverage of the area of the

seismic operations and immediate

surrounding waters.

When the seismic program is

relocated east or west along the coast

during the 1998 season, both survey

grids will be relocated a corresponding

distance along the coast. Information on

the survey program can be found in

Western Geophysical (1998) and in LGL

Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc.

(1998).

Acoustical Measurements

The acoustic measurement program

proposed for 1998 is designed to

continue the research conducted in

1996 and 1997 (see BPXA, 1996a, 1997,

and 1998; LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge

Sciences Inc., 1996, 1997, and 1998).

The acoustic measurement program is

planned to include (1) boat-based

acoustic measurements, (2) OBC-based

acoustic measurements, (3) use of airdropped sonobuoys, and (4) bottommounted acoustical recorders.

The boat-based acoustical

measurement program is proposed for a

7-day period in August 1998. The

objectives of this survey will be as

follows: (1) To measure the levels and

other characteristics of the horizontally

propagating seismic survey sounds from

the type(s) of airgun array(s) to be used

in 1998 as a function of distance and

aspect relative to the seismic source

vessel(s) and to water depth.

(2) To measure the levels and

frequency composition of the vessel

sounds emitted by vessels used

regularly during the 1998 program.

(3) To obtain additional site-specific

ambient noise data, which determine

signal-to-noise ratios for seismic and

other acoustic signals at various ranges

from their sources.

Western Geophysical and its proposed

consultant (Greeneridge Sciences) are

investigating the use of the OBC-system

to help document horizontal

propagation of the seismic surveys. In

addition, during late August and

September, four autonomous seafloor

acoustic recorders will be placed on the

sea bottom to record low-frequency

sounds nearly continuously for up to 3

weeks at a time. Information includes

characteristics of the seismic pulses,

ambient noise, and bowhead calls.

Additional data on these noise sources

will be obtained from sonobuoys

dropped from aircraft after September 1.

For a more detailed description of

planned monitoring activities, please

refer to the application and supporting

document (Western Geophysical, 1998;

LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc.,

1998b).

Estimates of Marine Mammal Take

Estimates of takes by harassment will

be made through vessel and aerial

surveys. Preliminarily, 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) above 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 1998 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, 1999. The final

technical report will contain a

description of the methods, results, and

interpretation of all monitoring tasks.

Consultation

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS

has completed consultations on the

issuance of this authorization.

Conclusions

NMFS has determined that the shortterm 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 and seals 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 to

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 63

FR 27709, May 20, 1998, for potential

levels of take). In addition, no take by

injury and/or by 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
40512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 / Notices

expected to impact subsistence hunting

of bowhead whales prior to that date.

After August 31, 1998, Western

Geophysical 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 Western

Geophysical and subsistence users. As a

result of discussions between the two

parties, a C&AA has been completed.

This Agreement consists of three main

components: (1) Communications, (2)

conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute

resolution.

Summer seismic exploration in the

U.S. Beaufort Sea 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, and (3) the zone

of influence by seismic sources on

beluga and seals is fairly small, the 1998

Western Geophysical 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

above described seismic survey during

the 1998 open water season provided

the mitigation, monitoring, and

reporting requirements described in the

authorization are undertaken.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20280 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 072298B]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council’s (Council)

Bluefish Advisory Panel, together with

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission’s Bluefish Advisory Panel,

will hold a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Tuesday, August 11, 1998, from 10:00

a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at

the Four Points Hotel, 4101 Island

Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, telephone:

215–492–0400.

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, 300 S. New

Street, Dover, DE 19904, telephone:

302–674–2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Acting

Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council;

telephone: 302–674–2331, ext. 16.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of this meeting is to discuss the

public hearing document for

Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery

Management Plan and possible bluefish

management measures for 1999.

Although other issues not contained

in this agenda may come before the

Committee for discussion, in accordance

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act,

those issues may not be the subject of

formal action during this meeting.

Action will be restricted to those issues

specifically identified in this notice.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Joanna Davis at the Council (see

ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the

meeting date.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20278 Filed 7–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 071098H]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Public Meetings; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Correction to a public meeting

notice.

SUMMARY: The agenda for the meetings

of the oversight committees and

advisory panels of the New England

Fishery Management Council (Council)

was published on July 16, 1998. The

document contained an incorect date.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

August 3 and August 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director;(781)

231–0422.

Correction

In the Federal Register issue of July

16, 1998, in FR Doc. 98–19010, on page

38390, in the third column, under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the 1st

and the 14th lines, ‘‘July 3, 1998’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘August 3, 1998.’’

Dated: July 22, 1998.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20165 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 071598D]

Permits; Foreign Fishing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign

fishing application.

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public

review and comment a summary of a

foreign fishing application submitted

under provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act).

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (or requests

for a copy of the application) to NMFS,