Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83451 

• Business Mail Entry Unit—Hardcopy Postage Statement entry (only for 

contingency)—Mailing Agent CRID 

must be populated on the Postage 

Statement. 

• Shipping Services File (SSF) 

Changes: No impact. 

• Indicium Creation Record (ICR) 

File: No impact. 

• Price Change Type/Product Type: 

Market Dominant Comments on 

Proposed Changes and USPS Responses. 

The Postal Service did not receive any 

formal comments on the October 15, 

2020 proposed rule (85 FR 65311). 

* * * * * 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

The Postal Service adopts the 

following changes to Mailing Standards 

of the United States Postal Service, 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM) as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

Notice 123 (Price List) 

[Revise prices as applicable.] 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27020 Filed 12–21–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 217 

[Docket No. 20119–0307] 

RIN 0648–BJ24 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Ice Roads and 

Ice Trails Construction and 

Maintenance Activities on Alaska’s 

North Slope 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; notification of 

issuance of Letters of Authorization. 

SUMMARY: Upon application from 

Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) and Eni 

US Operating Co. Inc. (Eni), NMFS is 

issuing regulations under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to ice road and ice 

trail construction, maintenance, and 

operation in Alaska’s North Slope, over 

the course of 5 years (2020–2025). These 

regulations allow NMFS to issue Letters 

of Authorization (LOA) for the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

during the specified construction and 

maintenance activities carried out 

during the rule’s period of effectiveness, 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking, set forth other means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat, and set forth requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the incidental take. 

DATES: Effective December 22, 2020 

through November 30, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: To obtain an electronic 

copy of the Hilcorp-Eni’s LOA 

application or other referenced 

documents, visit the internet at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed below (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Guan, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Regulatory 

Action 

This final rule establishes a 

framework under the authority of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow 

for the authorization of take of marine 

mammals incidental to Hilcorp and 

Eni’s ice roads and ice trails 

construction and maintenance activities 

on Alaska’s North Slope. 

We received an application from 

Hilcorp and Eni requesting 5-year 

regulations and authorization to take 

marine mammals. Take would occur by 

Level B harassment, Level A harassment 

and serious injury and/or mortality 

incidental to ice roads and ice trails 

construction and maintenance. Please 

see Background below for definitions of 

harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Action 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the 

Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region for up to 5 years if, 

after notice and public comment, the 

agency makes certain findings and 

issues regulations that set forth 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to that activity and other means of 

effecting the ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ on the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (see the 

discussion below in the Mitigation 

section), as well as monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

216, subpart I provide the legal basis for 

issuing this rule containing 5-year 

regulations and for any subsequent 

LOAs. As directed by this legal 

authority, this rule contains mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Summary of Major Provisions Within 

the Rule 

Following is a summary of the major 

provisions of this rule regarding Hilcorp 

and Eni’s construction activities. These 

measures include: 

• No initiation of ice road or trail 

construction if a ringed seal is observed 

within approximately 46 meters (m) 

(150 feet (ft)) of the action area after 

March 1 through May 30 of each year. 

• Requiring monitoring of the 

construction areas to detect the presence 

of marine mammals before beginning 

construction activities. 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83452 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization (ITA) may 

be provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall 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 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

NMFS received a joint application 

from Hilcorp and Eni requesting 

authorization for take of marine 

mammals incidental to construction 

activities related to ice roads and ice 

trails in the North Slope, Alaska. The 

application was determined to be 

adequate and complete on May 31, 

2019. The requested regulations would 

be valid for 5 years, from December 22, 

2020 through November 30, 2025. 

Hilcorp and Eni plan to conduct 

necessary work, including use of heavy 

machinery on ice, to facilitate access to 

North Slope offshore oil and gas 

facilities. The action may incidentally 

expose marine mammals occurring in 

the vicinity to elevated levels of sound, 

human presence on ice habitat, and 

interactions with heavy machinery, 

thereby resulting in incidental take, by 

Level A and Level B harassment and 

serious injury or mortality. Since 

Hilcorp and Eni’s ice roads and trails 

construction and maintenance activities 

have the potential to cause serious 

injury or mortality to a few ringed seals, 

an LOA is appropriate. On January 17, 

2020, NMFS published a proposed rule 

(85 FR 2988) and proposed regulations 

to govern takes of marine mammals 

incidental to Hilcorp and Eni’s ice roads 

and trails construction and maintenance 

activities, and requested comments on 

the proposed regulations. 

Description of Activity 

Overview 

Hilcorp and Eni conduct oil and gas 

operations at Northstar Production 

Facility (Northstar) and Spy Island 

Drillsite (SID), respectively, in coastal 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska. During the icecovered season, Hilcorp constructs 

annual ice roads and trails to connect 

and allow access between West Dock 

and Northstar. Similarly, Eni builds and 

utilizes an ice road connecting the 

Oliktok Production Pad (OPP) and SID. 

Eni also builds an annual ice road from 

shore to the Oooguruk Drill Site (ODS) 

(Figures 1–4). This regulation and the 

implementing LOAs authorize takes of 

marine mammals incidental to Hilcorp 

and Eni’s ice roads and ice trails 

construction during the ice-covered 

season on Alaska’s North Slope. 

Dates and Duration 

Both Hilcorp and Eni generally begin 

constructing sea ice roads and ice trails 

as early as possible, usually by late 

December depending on weather. 

Maintenance and use of the ice roads 

and trails continue generally through 

mid-May when the ice becomes too 

unstable to access. Depending on the 

weather, from the initial surveying until 

the ice is thick enough to allow travel 

by wheeled vehicles, ice road 

construction takes about six weeks. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Northstar, an artificial gravel island, is 

located in State of Alaska coastal waters 

about 9.7 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) 

offshore from Point Storkersen in the 

Beaufort Sea (Figure 1). Water depth at 

the island is about 12 m (39 ft). This 

region is covered by landfast ice in 

winter and with water depths greater 

than 3 m (10 ft). 

The 0.05 square kilometer (km2) (11- 

acre) SID is also an artificial, gravel 

island constructed in shallow (1.8–2.4 

m, 6–8 ft), State of Alaska coastal waters 

approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) north of 

Oliktok Point and just south of the Spy 

Island barrier island (Figure 2). While 

SID is situated in water depths 

considered unsuitable for ringed seals, 

each year a crack or lead has developed 

in the road between OPP and SID. 

The ODS consists of a 0.024 km2 (6- 

acre) gravel drillsite approximately 8 km 

(5 mi) offshore in 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of water 

(Figures 3 and 4). The site is connected 

to an onshore facility by a flowline 

system consisting of a 9.2 km (5.7 mi) 

subsea buried flowline bundle which 

transitions onshore to a 3.7 km (2.3 mi) 

traditional North Slope aboveground 

flowline support system. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83453 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER22DE20.008</GPH>
83454 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER22DE20.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83455 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER22DE20.010</GPH>
83456 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER22DE20.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83457 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

Hilcorp: Northstar to West Dock 

Ice Road Construction, Use, and 

Maintenance 

Each year during the ice-covered 

season an approximately 11.7 km (7.3 

mi) long ice road is constructed between 

Northstar and the Prudhoe Bay facilities 

at West Dock to transport personnel, 

equipment, materials, and supplies 

(Figure 1). Ice roads allow standard 

vehicles such as pick-up trucks, SUVs, 

buses and other trucks to be used to 

transport personnel and equipment to 

and from the island during the icecovered period. 

In some years depending on 

operational needs and weather 

conditions, Hilcorp may elect to not 

build the main improved ice road. In 

this case, a primary ice trail that can 

support only tracked, lighter-weight 

vehicles would be built in the location 

of the improved ice road shown on 

Figure 1. However, to cover all 

scenarios, Hilcorp assumes that an ice 

road would be built in each year for the 

next 5 years. 

In water deeper than 3 m (10 ft), the 

ice must be approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) 

thick to support construction 

equipment. Ice road construction 

activities occurs 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week during the construction phase 

and are only halted in unsafe conditions 

such as high winds or extremely low 

temperatures. The ice roads are 

typically constructed by speciallydesigned pumps with ice augers. 

Seawater for creating the offshore ice 

road is obtained by drilling holes 

through the existing sea ice using augers 

and pumping salt water to flood the ice 

surface. The rolligons (vehicles with 

large low-pressure tires) move along the 

road alignment while flooding the 

surface. Water trucks are used to spray 

a freshwater cap over the thickened sea 

ice to provide durability. 

Following construction, ice road 

surfaces are maintained using graders 

with snow wings and blowers, or frontend loaders with snow blower 

attachments. Snow can also be cleared 

by personnel with snow blowers. When 

snow blowing, wind direction is used to 

assist in dispersing the blown snow over 

a large area so that large berms or piles 

are not created. Delineators may be used 

to mark the roadway in 15 m (50 ft) 

increments down the centerline of the 

road, and at no more than 0.4 km (1⁄4 mi) 

increments on both sides of the ice road 

to delineate the path of vehicle travel 

and areas to be maintained. Corners of 

rig mats, steel plates, and other 

materials used to bridge sections of 

hazardous ice, are clearly marked or 

mapped using Global Positioning 

System (GPS) coordinates of the 

locations. 

The following steps are used to build 

the Northstar ice road: 

• Clear snow using lighter-weight 

tracked vehicles; 

• Grade or drag the ice to smooth the 

surface, incorporating rubble ice into 

the road or moving it outside of the 

expected road surface; 

• Drill holes through floating ice 

along the planned ice road route using 

rolligons equipped with ice augers and 

pumps; 

• Pump seawater from drilled holes 

over floating ice; and 

• Flood the ice road. Flooding 

techniques are dependent on the 

conditions of the sea ice (i.e., grounded 

vs. floating). 

Grounded ice requires minimal 

freshwater flooding to either cap or 

repair cracks. Floating ice requires 

flooding with seawater until a desired 

thickness is achieved. Thickness of 

floating ice would be determined by the 

required strength and integrity of the 

ice. After achieving desired thickness, 

floating ice areas may then be flooded 

with fresh water to either cap or repair 

cracks. This technique minimizes the 

amount of freshwater used to obtain the 

desired thickness of the ice road. 

Hilcorp would use permitted freshwater 

sources if fresh water is needed to 

construct the Northstar ice roads. Water 

would be transported by truck from 

permitted freshwater sources via 

existing roads. 

Ice Trails 

Ice trails are unimproved access 

corridors used by Tuckers (a type of 

tracked vehicle that moves on snow), 

PistenBullys® (a type of tracked vehicle 

that moves on snow), snow machines, or 

similar tracked equipment. Seawater 

flooding of the entire trail and 

freshwater caps are not used. However, 

small rough areas of a trail may require 

minimal seawater flooding to allow 

tracked vehicles, rolligons, and the 

hovercraft (if needed) to travel along the 

corridor. 

To construct the trail, snow machines 

and light-weight tracked vehicles are 

used to initially mark the corridor as 

soon as it is determined to be safe for 

access. Sea ice in the unimproved roads 

would be allowed to thicken through 

natural freeze up as the ice, and snow 

is packed down by larger tracked 

vehicles. Generally, snow removal or 

large surface modifications are not 

required for ice trails. 

Hilcorp usually builds the following 

unimproved ice trails to Northstar: 

• Along the pipeline corridor from 

the valve pad near the Dew Line site to 

Northstar (9.5 km, 5.93 mi), 

• From West Dock to the pipeline 

shore crossing (grounded ice along the 

coastline (7.8 km, 4.82 mi), and 

• Two unimproved ice road paths 

from the hovercraft tent at Dockhead 2. 

One would go under the West Dock 

causeway bridge to Dockhead 3 (1.4 km, 

0.86 mi) and the other would go around 

West Dock and intersect the main ice 

road north of the Seawater Treatment 

Plant (4.6 km, 2.85 mi). 

In addition to these trails, Hilcorp 

may need to construct several shorter 

length trails into undisturbed areas to 

work around unstable and unsafe areas 

of ice as the season progresses. Due to 

safety considerations these work-around 

or detour trails may need to be 

constructed after March 1st. They are 

constructed similarly to the planned ice 

trails and are not flooded or capped 

with seawater or freshwater. Typically, 

these detours deviate approximately 23 

to 46 m (75 to 150 ft) from the original 

road or trail to allow crews to safely go 

around soft spots or cracks. 

Eni: Oliktok Production Pad to SID 

Ice Road Construction, Use, and 

Maintenance 

Each year Eni builds a single ice road 

and three ice pads. The ice road extends 

6.8 km (4.2 mi) offshore from OPP to 

SID (Figure 2). This ice road has both 

supported on water (floating) and 

grounded ice sections; the first 244 m 

(800 ft) of the road from shore is 

grounded ice (i.e., frozen to the bottom). 

In addition, Eni typically also builds 

two floating ice pad parking areas at 

SID: A 152 m by 6 m (500 ft by 200 ft) 

area located on the southeast side of 

SID, and a 91 m by 46 m (300 ft by 150 

ft) area on the northeast side, and one 

grounded ice pad at the Oliktok Point 

end of the ice road. 

Initial construction of the sea ice road 

begins with surveying and staking the 

route as soon as the ice is thick enough 

to support snow machines. The floating 

sections of the road are constructed 

using the free flood method; low 

pressure pumps flood the ice surface 

with seawater. A 7.6 centimeters (cm) (3 

inches (in.)) layer of water is applied, 

some of which may move to lower parts 

of the roadway. After the water has 

frozen, the next flood can be applied. 

Small rolligon vehicles with augers 

and pumps are used for augering and 

flooding. Hand augers can be used to 

check the ice thickness. Ice needs to be 

41 to 51 cm (16 to 20 in.) thick to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83458 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

support these vehicles. Rolligon tires 

distribute the load over a larger tire 

print. Flooding operations occur 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week during this 

phase. Once the ice is about 183 cm (72 

in.) thick and determined to be able to 

support full loads, vehicles such as 

passenger trucks, vacuum trucks, drill 

trucks and other tractor plus trailer 

loads can use the ice road. Up until that 

time, only rolligon vehicles and tracked 

vehicles are used on the road. The 

maintained ice road width (including 

the shoulder areas) is 49 m (160 ft). 

Rig mats are used to bridge small 

leads (fractures within large expanse of 

ice) and wet cracks during construction 

and maintenance. During maintenance 

activities, fresh water is used for road 

surfacing and repair. Once fully flooded 

and open to traffic, snow loads on the 

ice road must be managed. Snow on the 

ice road is cleared frequently and the 

width of the ice road (including the 

shoulder areas) is maintained at 49 m 

(160 ft). At the end of the ice road 

season, as temperatures and sun 

exposure increase, snow may be spread 

over the road surface to insulate and 

shade the ice surface, helping to 

preserve ice road integrity. 

Ice Trails 

Following the same general 

construction methods used at Northstar, 

Eni plans to build an unimproved ice 

trail just west of and parallel to the sea 

ice road corridor near SID. The ice trail 

is typically approximately 15–30 m (50– 

100 ft) west of the western edge of the 

ice road shoulder and is used when the 

ice road is being constructed. Once the 

ice road is open to regular traffic, the ice 

trail is not used. After March 1st, due to 

safety considerations, Eni may also need 

to use several shorter length trails in 

undisturbed areas to work around 

unstable and unsafe areas of ice as the 

season progresses. As described above, 

these work-around or detour trails allow 

PistenBullys® and other tracked 

vehicles to safely go around soft spots 

or cracks. 

Eni: Oooguruk Ice Road 

Ice Road Construction, Use, and 

Maintenance 

A single ice road and staging area ice 

pad are required each year to operate 

the ODS. As shown in Figure 3, the 

typical or proposed ice road extends 8.9 

km (5.5 mi) offshore to the ODS. An 

alternative ice road as shown on Figure 

4 would be located in shallower water 

and, therefore, can be grounded and 

used earlier in the season. The 

alternative route extends 11.2 km (7 mi) 

offshore and is used in years when an 

early road completion is required or 

when extra heavy loads, such as a 

drilling rig is expected. Either ice road 

is up to approximately 10.7 m (50 ft) 

wide with a similar width shoulder area 

on each side. The shoulders of the road 

are used when traffic must periodically 

detour around equipment or in areas 

where ice road maintenance is 

occurring. In addition, a grounded ice 

pad staging area is constructed on the 

southwest edge of the ODS (see Figures 

3 and 4). The dimensions of the staging 

area are approximately 180 by 140 m 

(600 by 450 ft). 

The ODS is located in 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 

to 6 ft) of water, and the area from the 

site to the shore generally becomes 

grounded landfast ice in winter. The 

typical and alternate ice road routes 

shown in Figures 3 and 4 would be 

located in grounded rather than floating 

ice. There is one small area near the 

Colville River that has an open lead for 

a short duration in December but freezes 

solid within a few weeks. The road is 

clearly marked with delineators and 

monitored routinely by Alaska Clean 

Seas and industry environmental 

coordinators. Ice bridges or rig mats are 

not required for construction or 

maintenance of the ice road or ice pad 

staging area. 

Initial construction of the sea ice road 

begins with surveying and staking the 

route as soon as the ice is thick enough 

to support snow machines. Low 

pressure pumps are used to flood the ice 

surface with seawater. Small tractor 

vehicles with augers and pumps are 

used for augering and flooding. An 

initial layer of water is applied, some of 

which may move to lower parts of the 

roadway. After the water has frozen, the 

next flood can be applied. Flooding 

operations occur 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week during this phase. Depending on 

weather and sea ice conditions, 

construction of the ice road typically 

begins in early December and is 

complete by February 1st. 

The ODS operations do not require 

offshore ice trails. However, a coastal 

trail in very shallow water right off of 

the beach is occasionally needed 

between Oliktok and the ODS ice road 

to demobilize equipment after tundra 

travel has been closed. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register on January 17, 

2020 (85 FR 2988). During the 30-day 

public comment period on the proposed 

rule, NMFS received comments from the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission), ECO49 Consulting, LLC 

(ECO49) on behalf of Hilcorp and Eni, 

and five private citizens. The comments 

and our responses are provided here, 

and the comments have been posted 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. Please 

see the comment letters for the full 

rationales behind the recommendations 

we respond to below. As a result of 

these comments, NMFS revised the 

buffer zones for avoidance of seals and 

seal structures and added one additional 

monitoring and reporting measure in the 

final rule. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require Hilcorp 

and Eni to (1) meet with ice seal 

subsistence hunters in Nuiqsut and 

other North Slope communities and 

with members of the Ice Seal Committee 

to discuss their proposed construction, 

maintenance, and operation of ice roads 

and ice trails and its BMPs, and (2) 

revise its mitigation and monitoring 

measures as necessary to minimize 

disturbance of seals and subsistence 

hunting activities, based on input 

received. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

the Commission’s specific 

recommendations. Both Hilcorp and Eni 

have developed Plans of Cooperation 

(POCs) to ensure that no unmitigable 

adverse impact would occur to 

subsistence uses of marine mammals 

from their planned ice roads and ice 

trails construction and maintenance 

activities on the North Slope. As stated 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed rule (85 FR 2988; January 17, 

2020), both companies have been 

engaging the communities of Utqiagvik 

and Nuiqsut, as well as members of the 

Ice Seal Committee and the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) 

to share information about planned 

exploration/development activities and 

to maintain dialogue about measures to 

minimize potential impacts on 

subsistence harvest. For the ice roads 

and ice trails construction and 

maintenance activities, Hilcorp and Eni 

developed further mitigation and 

monitoring measures to minimize the 

potential impacts to subsistence uses of 

marine mammals in the area based on 

inputs from subsistence users in the 

area. These measures also include 

signing a Conflict Avoidance Agreement 

(CAA) with the AEWC and Whaling 

Captains’ Associations of nearby North 

Slope communities. The CAA describes 

measures to minimize any adverse 

effects on the availability of bowhead 

whales for subsistence use. To date, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83459 

Native community has not expressed 

concerns over interactions with seals, 

particularly during the ice-covered 

seasons. Hilcorp and Eni state that they 

will continue to address questions and 

concerns from community members, 

and continue to provide them with 

contact information of project 

management to which they can direct 

concerns related to these companies’ 

specific activities. Therefore, the 

Commission’s recommendations are not 

necessary. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS revise the 

numbers of Level B harassment takes for 

ringed seals using inputs for the 

estimated length of road or trail to be 

constructed or maintained each day and 

the number of days each season that 

construction, maintenance, and 

operation of ice roads and ice trails are 

expected to occur. 

Response: NMFS does not adopt the 

Commission’s recommendation. We 

believe that the method used here is the 

best way to calculate take estimates for 

these activities. In this case, the take 

number is based on the density 

multiplied by the action area. Ice road 

construction, operations and 

maintenance does not occur 

continuously every day throughout the 

ice road season. While the ice road 

season is approximately December 

through May, ice road construction, 

operations and maintenance only occur 

in a small subsection for a given day. In 

addition, construction, operation and 

maintenance activity does not occur 

each day, and the number of days 

required for construction, maintenance 

or operations cannot be predicted given 

the variability in weather and ice 

conditions. For this reason, it is not 

appropriate to use the entire six months 

as the total duration. Also, it is not 

possible to predict with certainty the 

amount of time each company would 

use the ice roads each week or month 

given the seasonal variability. The take 

calculation considers the fact that in 

over >10 years of ice road activity (i.e., 

at Northstar), there have only been two 

seals reported in what is defined as the 

‘‘exposure area.’’ The take calculations 

consider the total exposure area (in 

square km) multiplied by seal density. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS include Level B 

harassment takes of bearded and spotted 

seals in the final rule using the same 

take estimation method. 

Response: NMFS does not agree with 

the recommendation and does not adopt 

it. Bearded seals prefer areas of moving 

ice and open water with depths up to 

200 m (656 ft) (Burns and Harbo 1972). 

The Liberty rule referenced by the 

Commission (84 FR 70274; December 

20, 2019) included bearded seals to be 

precautionary and considering the other 

activities (such as pile driving) that are 

part of the Liberty Project in addition to 

ice roads. 

Likewise, spotted seals are not known 

to remain in the Beaufort Sea during the 

late fall and winter (BOEM, 2018). 

Given their seasonal occurrence and 

distribution (they are absent from the 

Beaufort Sea in winter) and low 

numbers in the nearshore waters of the 

central Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

other seasons, no spotted seals are 

expected in the Action Areas in late 

winter and spring during ice road/trail 

activities. 

Therefore, considering the fact that 

bearded and spotted seals are extremely 

unlikely to occur in the nearshore 

environment during winter months, and 

the small zone of disturbance that is 

only related to ice road construction and 

maintenance, including takes of bearded 

and spotted seals is not appropriate. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS revise the 

buffer zones used in section 

217.154(c)(3), (5), and (7)(i), and section 

217.155(c) of the proposed rule to 

reference avoidance of seals within 50 

m and avoidance of seal structures 

within 150 m, for consistency with 

other recent rulemakings (84 FR 70274; 

December 20, 2019) regarding avoidance 

of seals and seal structures during 

construction, maintenance, and 

operation of ice roads and trails on the 

North Slope. Hilcorp and Eni also 

recommend using the whole metric 

values for mitigation and monitoring 

distances as stated in the LOA 

application. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

recommendations and has made the 

corrections in the final rule and the 

LOAs issued to Hilcorp and Eni. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require Hilcorp 

and Eni to (1) consult with local hunters 

regarding the best techniques for 

detecting seals and seal structures with 

a minimum of disturbance, (2) involve 

local hunters in the training of observers 

for ice road activities, and (3) include in 

the final reports the methods used for 

detection of seals and seal structures 

with an assessment of their 

effectiveness. 

Response: NMFS concurs with this 

recommendation and has adopted it. 

NMFS worked with Hilcorp and Eni on 

these issues and will require Hilcorp 

and Eni to engage local hunters in 

Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik and Kaktovik 

through the Ice Seal Committee point of 

contact to gather recommendations on 

methods for ringed seal detection along 

sea ice roads/trails within the exposure 

areas. These insights will be 

incorporated into Hilcorp and Eni’s 

training materials provided to personnel 

responsible for monitoring for ringed 

seals along sea ice roads/trails. NMFS 

also requires Hilcorp and Eni to include 

the methods used for detection of seals 

and seal structures with an assessment 

of their effectiveness in the final reports. 

NMFS incorporated these 

recommendations into the final rule. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS initiate a peer 

review of the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring plan (as described at 50 CFR 

216.108(d)). The Commission states that 

authorization to take ringed seals 

incidental to construction and 

maintenance of ice roads and ice trails 

has been included in previous 

rulemakings that were peer-reviewed, 

most recently in December 2019 (84 FR 

70274). 

Response: NMFS does not agree that 

this is necessary and does not adopt the 

recommendation. As the Commission 

stated in its comment, marine mammal 

monitoring plans are required to be 

reviewed by an independent peerreview panel if the activities occur in 

Arctic waters and may affect the 

availability of marine mammal species 

or stocks for subsistence use. As 

discussed in detail in the proposed rule 

(85 FR 2988; January 17, 2020), Hilcorp 

and Eni’s proposed ice roads and ice 

trails construction projects would occur 

far away from subsistence activities, and 

would be conducted during the time 

few subsistence activities occur. In 

winter and spring, small numbers of 

ringed seals may be disturbed and 

possibly displaced from the immediate 

locations of the ice roads and trails. Seal 

hunters would likely avoid the areas 

near SID, Northstar and ODS in favor of 

less developed, more productive areas 

closer to the main sealing areas near the 

Colville River delta. Therefore, 

construction and maintenance of the ice 

roads and trails is unlikely to impact 

winter subsistence hunting of ringed 

seals. The example that the Commission 

provided concerning peer-review of a 

marine mammal monitoring plan 

associated with ice roads and ice trails 

construction and maintenance is 

Hilcorp’s Liberty Drilling and 

Production Island construction, but that 

project has potential effects to 

subsistence use of marine mammals 

from pile driving and artificial island 

construction activities during openwater season. NMFS is not aware of 

monitoring plans for ice road/trail 

construction and maintenance 

undergoing peer review because these 

activities are not typically considered as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83460 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

meeting the ‘‘may affect’’ requirement 

pertaining to subsistence uses of marine 

mammal species and stocks. 

Comment 7: ECO49, on behalf of 

Hilcorp and Eni, notes that takes of 

ringed seals by mortality/serious injury 

or Level A harassment were reduced 

from the LOA application by NMFS 

based on analysis using historical data. 

ECO49 states that they understand 

NMFS’ approach in take calculation, but 

request to closely work with NMFS if 

Level A harassment or mortality/serious 

injury approaches the level authorized, 

to review the manner of take and 

number of takes authorized. 

Response: As discussed in detail in 

the proposed rule (85 FR 2988; January 

17, 2020), the take request of a total of 

30 ringed seal mortality/serious injury 

takes presented in the LOA application 

cannot be adequately justified based on 

historical data and comparable activities 

where takes were authorized (e.g., 2019 

Hilcorp Liberty rule for ice road and ice 

trail construction on the North Slope). 

The proposed Level A harassment and 

mortality/serious injury of a total of 12 

seals were estimated based on the level 

of activities by Hilcorp and Eni over the 

next 5 years. Based on the analysis, 

NMFS does not believe Hilcorp or Eni 

would exceed the Level A harassment 

and/or mortality/serious injury 

authorized under the rulemaking, with 

implementation of prescribed mitigation 

and monitoring measures. However, in 

the unlikely event such situation occurs, 

NMFS will work with Hilcorp and Eni 

closely to review the manner of take and 

number of takes authorized, and to 

reinitiate section 7 consultation under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Comment 8: ECO49 points out that 

language in the proposed rule (85 FR 

2988; January 17, 2020;) should be 

revised to make clear that an additional 

buffer area was added to the road/trail 

width for SID so the total width is 420 

m, not 340 m as indicated. ECO49 

proposes the following language to 

clarify the distance used to calculate 

potential seal exposures at SID: ‘‘The 

total width of the ice road and trail at 

SID accounts for the ice trail being 

constructed approximately 15 to 30 m 

west of the western edge of the ice road 

shoulder. Therefore, a total width of 420 

m has been used to calculate potential 

seal exposures at SID whereas, the ice 

road/trail total width at Northstar and 

ODS is 340 m.’’ 

Response: NMFS revised the 

description in the Take Estimates 

section below. While the language in the 

proposed rule contained an error, take 

calculation of ringed seals at SID used 

the correct information (420 m), 

therefore, the take estimate remains 

unchanged. 

Comment 9: ECO49 suggests adding a 

note after the last bullet in the 

subsection Monitoring Measures After 

March 1st, to read ‘‘During this 

monitoring period, maintenance work 

will proceed cautiously as to minimize 

impacts or disturbance to area.’’ 

Response: NMFS understands that 

there will be limited activities after 

March 1, and that additional monitoring 

measures are being added to minimize 

impacts or disturbance to ringed seal 

pupping activities after March 1. 

However, the language ECO49 suggested 

is not part of the specific monitoring 

measure, therefore NMFS does not 

consider it appropriate to include that 

in that subsection. 

Comment 10: ECO49 notes that the 

proposed rule includes language 

describing a process for modifying 

mitigation or monitoring measures 

should it be warranted. ECO49 states 

that it understands this language is nonbinding and requests that NMFS 

coordinate closely with Hilcorp and Eni 

should any modifications to mitigation 

measures be needed in the future. 

Response: NMFS will coordinate 

closely with Hilcorp and Eni and their 

contractors should any modifications to 

mitigation measures be needed in the 

future. 

Comment 11: Four private citizens 

recommend prohibiting Hilcorp and Eni 

from constructing the ice roads to better 

protect the environment and sensitive 

wildlife. Another anonymous individual 

states that it is not in the best interest 

of Alaska and the entire U.S. population 

to continue letting Hilcorp and Eni take 

animals during their proposed ice-road 

construction. 

Response: NMFS’ authority and these 

final regulations allow for issuance of a 

LOA to authorize takes of marine 

mammals incidental to ice road 

construction and maintenance activities 

by Hilcorp and Eni. NMFS has no 

authority over whether the ice road 

construction project is permitted. The 

MMPA directs the Secretary of 

Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 

allow, upon request, the incidental, but 

not intentional, taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity 

within a specified geographical region. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall 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 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). 

Comment 12: One private citizen 

states their belief that Hilcorp and Eni 

would not be truthful in presenting the 

data that indicates ringed seals are 

experiencing serious injury/death 

because of the ice road/trial 

construction and use. The individual 

states that if Hilcorp and Eni find data 

that might prevent them from building 

these routes in the future they could be 

tempted to stretch or even hide the truth 

for the benefit of their company’s 

interests. The individual suggests that a 

third-party non-profit entity work with 

the companies to help monitor the seals 

and report the findings. 

Response: NMFS has no basis for 

concern that Hilcorp and Eni would 

conceal serious injury/mortality 

incidents, if such incidents occur. The 

LOAs issued to Hilcorp and Eni 

authorize limited take by serious injury 

and mortality, therefore, it is not to the 

companies’ interests to falsify the 

monitoring report if such take occurs. In 

addition, falsifying a marine mammal 

report would lead to revocation of the 

LOA(s) issued to Hilcorp and/or Eni, 

and would affect any future application 

they might submit to obtain marine 

mammal ITA, in addition to subjecting 

them to potential legal actions. 

Therefore, NMFS does not believe 

Hilcorp or Eni would intentionally 

misrepresent the actual take numbers in 

their marine mammal monitoring 

reports, including reporting of serious 

injury and/or mortality takes. 

Changes From the Proposed to Final 

Rule 

There is no change in the Hilcorp and 

Eni’s proposed ice roads and ice trails 

construction activities from the 

proposed rule (85 FR 2988; January 17, 

2020). NMFS revised the buffers in 

section 217.154(c)(3), (5), (7), and (7)(i), 

and section 217.155(b)(1) and (1)(ii) and 

(c)(1) and (2) to reference avoidance of 

seals within 50 m and avoidance of seal 

structures within 150 m. One additional 

monitoring and reporting measure was 

added to the final rule based on 

comments received during the public 

comment period. This measure requires 

that Hilcorp and Eni (1) engage local 

hunters through the Ice Seal Committee 

point of contact to gather 

recommendations on methods for ringed 

seal detection along sea ice roads/trails 

within the exposure areas, (2) 

incorporate these recommendations into 

Hilcorp and Eni’s training materials 

provided to personnel responsible for 

monitoring for ringed seals along sea ice 

roads/trails, and (3) include the 

methods used for detection of seals and 

seal structures with an assessment of 

their effectiveness in the final reports. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83461 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments), and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the Beaufort 

Sea and summarizes information related 

to the population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its Optimum Sustainable 

Population (OPS) (as described in 

NMFS’s SARs). While no mortality is 

anticipated, PBR and annual serious 

injury and mortality from anthropogenic 

sources are included here as gross 

indicators of the status of the species 

and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. 2019 SARs (Carretta et al., 

2020; Muto et al., 2020). All values 

presented in Table 1 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2019 SARs (Carretta 

et al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance (CV, Nmin, 

most recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern North Pacific ............. -; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849) ............. 801 139 

Family Balaenidae: 

Bowhead whale ................ Balaena mysticetus ................ Western Arctic ........................ E/D; Y 16,820 (0.052, 16,100) ........... 161 46 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale ................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Beaufort Sea .......................... -; N 39,258 (0.229, N/A) ................ Undet 139 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Ringed seal 4 ........................... Phoca hispida ......................... Alaska ..................................... T/D; Y 171,418 (NA, 170,000) ........... 4,755 700 

Spotted seal ............................ Phoca largha .......................... Alaska ..................................... -; N 461,625 (NA, 423,237) ........... 12,697 329 

Bearded seal 5 ......................... Erignathus barbatus ............... Alaska ..................................... T/D; Y 301,836 (NA, 273,676) ........... Undet 557 

Ribbon seal ............................. Histriophoca fasciata .............. Alaska ..................................... -; N 184,695 (NA, 163,086) ........... 9,785 3.9 

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be 

declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA 

as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Ringed seal estimate is based on surveys conducted in the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the late 1990s and 2000, and in the U.S. portion of the Bering 

Sea in 2012. This is the best available information for use here. 5Bearded seal estimate is based on surveys conducted in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012. This is the best available information for use here. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 1. As described 

below, only the ringed seal temporally 

and spatially co-occurs with the activity 

to the degree that take is reasonably 

likely to occur. The temporal and/or 

spatial occurrence of the rest of the 

species listed in Table 1 is such that 

take is not expected to occur, and they 

are not discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. 

While ringed, spotted, and bearded 

seals are present in the Beaufort Sea 

during the open-water season, only 

ringed seals are likely to be in the 

nearshore environment during the icecovered months. The other two species 

of ice seals only occur in the project 

area during the open-water season. 

Ribbon seal mostly occurs in the 

Chukchi Sea and western Beaufort Sea, 

and is considered as extra-limital in the 

project area. Therefore, the potential for 

encounters with bearded, spotted, and 

ribbon seals during ice road/trail 

construction and maintenance is 

extremely unlikely. As a result, these ice 

seal species will not be discussed 

further in this document. 

None of the cetacean species listed 

above is expected to enter the icecovered action areas during the winter 

months when ice road activities would 

be occurring. Therefore, the potential for 

encounters with cetaceans during ice 

road/trail construction and maintenance 

is extremely unlikely. As a result, 

cetacean species will not be discussed 

further in this document. 

Ringed seal is the only species that 

would be reasonably likely to be 

affected by the ice road and ice trail 

construction and maintenance activity. 

A detailed description of this species in 

the action area is provided in the 

proposed rule (85 FR 2988; January 17, 

2020). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83462 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

Estimated Take section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

content of this section, the Estimated 

Take section, and the Mitigation section, 

to draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of these activities on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and how those impacts on 

individuals are likely to impact marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

The Hilcorp and Eni’s sea ice roads 

and ice trails construction and 

maintenance activities on the North 

Slope could adversely affect ringed seals 

by exposing them to construction noise 

and presence of human activities, and 

potential serious injury or mortality in 

the project area. 

A detailed description of the impacts 

on marine mammals and their habitat is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

(85 FR 2988; January 17, 2020) for the 

proposed rule, and is not repeated here. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes that may 

be authorized through this rulemaking, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is one of the types of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as exposure of 

ringed seals by construction activities 

and noise has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual animals. There could also be 

potential for serious injury/mortality if 

an animal is crushed by a construction 

machinery or vehicle while in its 

subnivean lair. Auditory injury is 

unlikely to occur because the overall 

noise levels generated from the 

construction activities are low. The 

mitigation and monitoring measures are 

expected to minimize the severity of 

such taking to the extent practicable. 

Below we describe how the take is 

estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Marine mammals 

(ringed seals) likely to be exposed to 

visual and acoustic disturbances from 

ice roads and ice trails construction; (2) 

the density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within the areas likely to be 

disturbed; and, (3) the number of days 

of activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. This section includes an 

overview of estimated ringed seal 

density in the area, a description of the 

area of potential disturbance, estimates 

for noise sources (under ice-covered 

conditions and in air), and a discussion 

of the potential for behavioral responses 

or serious injury or mortality due to ice 

road/trail/pad activities. 

Ringed Seal Densities 

Ringed seals are present in the 

nearshore Beaufort Sea waters and sea 

ice year round, maintaining breathing 

holes and excavating subnivean lairs in 

the landfast ice during the ice-covered 

season. During this ice-covered season, 

ringed seals’ home ranges are generally 

less than 5 km2 (2 mi2) in area (Frost et 

al. 2002, Kelly et al. 2005). While older 

datasets from the 1970s and 80s provide 

important context for understanding 

seal presence in the region, only more 

recent surveys beginning in 1997 have 

been used to calculate density for this 

rule as described in the following 

sections. 

Winter Densities 

Ringed seals overwinter in the 

landfast ice in and around the project 

area. Relatively few data are available 

for ringed seal density in the southern 

Beaufort Sea during the winter months, 

but several studies on ringed seal winter 

ecology were undertaken during the 

1980s (Kelly et al. 1986, Frost and Burns 

1989). These reports, in addition to data 

associated with the Northstar 

development and the abandoned Seal 

Island (Williams et al. 2001, Frost et al. 

2002) provide information on both seal 

ice structure use (where ice structures 

include both breathing holes and 

subnivean lairs) and the density of ice 

structures (Table 2). 

Both male and female ringed seals 

maintain a number of breathing holes 

and haul out in more than one 

subnivean lair during the ice-covered 

season. Kelly et al. (1986) found that of 

their tagged seals, the animals would 

haul out between one and multiple 

subnivean lairs. The distances between 

each lair could be as great as 4 km (2.5 

mi) with numerous breathing holes in 

between (Kelly et al. 1986). While these 

authors calculated the average number 

of lairs used by an individual seal to be 

2.85 (SD=2.51) per animal, they also 

suggest that this is likely to be an 

underestimate. 

TABLE 2—SEAL STRUCTURE DENSITY ALONG THE BEAUFORT SEA COAST NEAR THE PROJECT AREA

Year 

Sea 

structure 

density/km 2

Source 

1982 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.6 Frost and Burns 1989. 

1983 ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.81 Kelly et al. 1986. 

Dec. 1999 .............................................................................................................................................. 0.71 Williams et al. 2001. 

May 2000 .............................................................................................................................................. 1.2 Williams et al. 2001. 

Average structure density/km 2 ............................................................................................................. 1.58 

In 1982, aerial surveys were 

conducted near Reindeer Island, just 

east of the project area (Northstar and 

SID), where seismic exploration 

activities were occurring. Seal structures 

were located by searching with a dog 

along 267 km (166 mi) of seismic and 

control lines as well as 28 km (17 mi) 

of non-systematic search lines (295 

linear km (183 linear mi) total). A total 

of 157 structures were found resulting 

in an average estimate of 0.53/km seal 

structures (Kelly et al. 1986) or 3.6 

structures/km2 (Frost and Burns 1989). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83463 

In 1983, the vicinity of Reindeer 

Island was surveyed again and the 

average number of seal structures 

recorded was 0.70/km over 

approximately 81 km (50 mi) of linear 

survey lines resulting in an average 

number of total structures of 0.81/km2. 

In 1999, a total of 26 seal structures 

were located within a 36.5 km2 area 

encompassing the Northstar 

Development resulting in an estimated 

0.71 structures/km2 in December 1999 

and 1.2 structures/km2 in May 2000 

(Richardson and Williams 2001). 

To estimate ringed seal density during 

the winter, an average structure density 

was divided by the average number of 

structures used by seals (Kelly et al. 

1986). Thus, for the winter season 

ringed seal density has been estimated 

as the average ice structure density 

(1.58/km2) divided by the average 

number of ice structures used by an 

individual seal (2.85, SD = 2.51). This 

results in an estimated density of 0.55 

ringed seals/km2 (for example, 1.58/2.85 

= 0.55). However, this density is likely 

to be an overestimate because the 

equation denominator of 2.85 is 

assumed to be an underestimate (Kelly 

et al. 1986). 

Average ice structure density/Average 

number of structures per seal = 

Estimated Average Winter Seal Density: 

1.58/2.85 = 0.55 seals/km2. 

Spring Densities 

In 1997, prior to Northstar 

construction, British Petroleum 

Exploration Alaska (BPXA) conducted 

aerial surveys for seals as part of the 

industry monitoring programs for the 

Northstar facility. These datasets 

provide the best available information 

on spring ringed seal density for the 

project area. Information is based on 

aerial surveys were flown around 

Northstar and west of Prudhoe Bay 

during late May and early June (Frost et 

al. 2002, Moulton et al. 2002a, b, 

Richardson and Williams 2003) when 

the greatest percentage of seals have 

abandoned their lairs and are hauled out 

on the ice (Kelly et al. 2010, Kelly et al. 

2010). 

Because densities were consistently 

very low where water depth was <3m 

(and these areas are generally frozen 

solid during the ice-covered season) 

densities were calculated where water 

depth was >3m deep (Moulton et al. 

2002a, b), Richardson and Williams 

2003). Frost et al. (2002) and Frost et al. 

(2004) reported slightly higher densities 

based on surveys conducted during this 

same time period between 1997 and 

1999. As with all aerial surveys, animal 

densities are underestimated because 

animals are missed, or not counted. This 

is generally because they are not hauled 

out where they can be seen or are 

missed by the observer. Therefore, these 

density estimates represent minimum 

estimates during the time and location 

of the surveys. The average uncorrected 

densities calculated based on these 

separate datasets (1997–1999) are 

provided in Table 3. It is acknowledged 

that densities of seals near the Eni SID 

Action Area are likely to be lower than 

densities calculated for the purposes of 

estimating take in this analysis, due to 

much shallower water near the Eni SID 

site. However, for consistency and as a 

precautionary measure, the same 

density estimates are used throughout 

this analysis. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED RINGED SEAL DENSITIES (UNCORRECTED) BASED ON SPRING AERIAL SURVEYS DURING ICECOVERED CONDITIONS, 1997–2002 

Year 

Uncorrected seal density 

(no/km2) 

Average 

uncorrected 

ringed seal 

density 

(no/km2) 

Moulton et al. 

2002, 2005 * 

Frost et al. 

2002, 2004 

1997 ........................................................................................................................... 0.43 0.73 0.58 

1998 ........................................................................................................................... 0.39 0.64 0.52 

1999 ........................................................................................................................... 0.63 0.87 0.75 

2000 ........................................................................................................................... 0.47 .............................. 0.47 

2001 ........................................................................................................................... 0.54 .............................. 0.54 

2002 ........................................................................................................................... 0.83 .............................. 0.83 

Average density (no/km2) .......................................................................................... .............................. .............................. 0.61 

* Water depths >10 ft. 

For the period 2000, 2001, and 2002, 

(Moulton et al. 2005) reported ringed 

seal densities (uncorrected) on landfast 

ice during Northstar construction were 

calculated as 0.47, 0.54, and 0.83 seals/ 

km2. Based on the average density of 

surveys flown from 1997 to 2002 the 

uncorrected density of ringed seals 

during the spring is expected to be 0.61 

ringed seals/km2. 

As reported in Frost et al. (2002) 

habitat-related variables including water 

depth, location relative to the fast ice 

edge, and ice deformation have shown 

to result in substantial and consistent 

effects on the distribution and 

abundance of seals. Moulton et al. 

(2003) and Moulton et al. (2005) also 

reported that environmental factors 

such as date, water depth, degree of ice 

deformation, presence of meltwater, and 

percent cloud cover had more 

conspicuous and statistically-significant 

effects on seal sighting rates than did 

any human-related factors. Thus, the 

intra- and inter-annual variability in 

survey conditions and ice 

characteristics is unavoidable and 

identifying trends in seal abundance or 

estimating density is challenging. 

TABLE 4—RINGED SEAL DENSITIES

Winter average density 

(seal/km2) 

Spring 

average 

density 

(seal/km2) 

0.55 ....................................... 0.61 

In summary, for the purposes of 

estimating take associated with ice road/ 

trail activities, winter and spring 

densities are assumed to be 0.55 and 

0.61 seals/km2 (respectively) as shown 

in Table 4. 

Take Estimates 

Level B Harassment 

To estimate exposures of ringed seals 

to disturbance that may result in a take, 

the total area of potential disturbance 

(i.e., exposure area) associated with 

construction and maintenance of the 

roads/trails/pads is defined as 170 m 

(approximately 558 ft) on either side of 

the road/trail/pad centerline; a total 

width of 340 m (approximately 1,115 ft). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83464 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Again, the total width of the exposure 

area is 340 m (558 ft). This width is then 

multiplied by the total length of roads/ 

trails likely to be constructed each year 

to calculate the exposure area in km2. 

Due to the variability in the length of ice 

roads/trails that may be needed from 

year to year, a 10 percent buffer is also 

added to the total length and is 

accounted for in the total area 

calculated. The total area of exposure is 

then multiplied by the seasonal ringed 

seal density to calculate the total 

estimated ringed seals exposed each 

season. Since there are two seasons 

during which ringed seals may be 

exposed to ice road activity (winter and 

spring), the exposure estimates for 

winter and spring are then added 

together to calculate the total number of 

seals exposed per year. For example, the 

following calculation was used for 

Northstar ice roads and trails: 

TAE × D = TES 

TES (winter) + TES (spring) = TEY 

Where: 

TAE = Total Area of Exposure 

D = Species Density (variable by season) 

TES = Total Estimated Seals Exposed Per 

Season 

TEY—Total Estimated Seals Exposed Per 

Year 

For example: 

12.96 km2 (TAE) × 0.55 (winter density per 

km2) = 7.13 seals/winter 

12.96 km2 (TAE) × 0.61 (spring density per 

km2) = 7.91 seals/spring 

7.13 seals/winter + 7.91 seals/spring = 15.03 

seals/year 

The total width of the ice road and 

trail at SID accounts for the ice trail 

being constructed approximately 15 to 

30 m west of the western edge of the ice 

road shoulder. Therefore, a total width 

of 420 m has been used to calculate 

potential seal exposures at SID as a 

more conservative approach whereas, 

the ice road/trail total width at 

Northstar and ODS is 340 m, as shown 

in Table 5. 

Based on the exposure estimates, Eni 

and Hilcorp request takes for Level B 

harassment for the 5-year period as 

shown in Table 5. Takes are presented 

annually for each company and are 

requested for ice road and ice trail 

construction, operation and 

maintenance expected to occur between 

December and May of each year, 

depending on local conditions. Potential 

Level B harassment takes could occur in 

all 5 years. 

NMFS does not expect Level A 

harassment of ringed seal to occur, as 

noise and visual exposure to 

construction activities will not become 

injurious as defined for purposes of a 

Level A harassment take under the 

MMPA. However, it is possible that a 

seal may be in its lair during ice roads/ 

trails construction and thus, it is 

possible for a seal to become crushed by 

construction machinery or vehicle while 

the road/trail is being erected, resulting 

in injury, serious injury, or mortality. A 

detailed discussion of such events is 

provided below. 

Potential Serious Injury or Mortality 

Based on a review of literature and 

monitoring reports from Northstar and 

other North Slope projects, there is 

documentation of one seal mortality 

associated with a vibroseis program 

outside the barrier islands east of Bullen 

Point in the eastern Beaufort Sea 

(MacLean 1998). During a 1999 NMFS 

workshop to review on-ice monitoring 

and research, Dr. Brendan Kelly (then of 

the University of Alaska), also indicated 

that a dead ringed seal pup was found 

during his research using trained dogs 

to locate seal structures in the ice. The 

dead ringed seal pup was located 

approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) from the 

Northstar ice road. No data on the age 

of the pup, date of death, necropsy 

results, or cause of death are available. 

Therefore, whether ice road 

construction at Northstar could have 

contributed to the death of this pup, or 

if its death was coincidental to 

Northstar activities cannot be 

determined (Richardson and Williams 

2000). 

While the only recorded mortality of 

a seal occurred in 1998, Eni and Hilcorp 

also requested 10 takes for each 

development over the 5-year period for 

potential ringed seal serious injury or 

mortality during construction, operation 

and maintenance of ice roads and trails. 

However, NMFS does not consider 

this request to be adequately justified, 

and is concerned that the requested 

mortality in this action is much higher 

than other similar actions. 

For instance, in the 2019 Hilcorp 

Liberty rule for ice road and ice trail 

construction on the North Slope, there 

were two lethal takes authorized over 

the first 5 years (and 8 over the 

following 20 years, for 10 total 

mortalities over 25 years). In that action, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER22DE20.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83465 

four ice roads, totaling 51.5 km in length 

would be constructed: In Years 1 

through 3, all four roads would be 

constructed; in Years 4 and 5, only Road 

#1 would be constructed (11.3 km in 

length). By comparing the two actions, 

Hilcorp Northstar and Eni are 

constructing more ice roads/trails than 

Hilcorp is at the Liberty site over a 5- 

year period. 

In terms of the distribution of 

construction activities between the two 

companies, Hilcorp is constructing 1.9 

times as many ice road/trail kilometers 

as Eni is at either SID or ODS. However, 

Eni’s construction activities encompass 

two separate sites and each have the 

potential to encounter inhabited seal 

lairs given an assumed equal 

distribution of species. Based on these 

factors, NMFS is authorizing three 

serious injury/mortalities for ice road/ 

trail activities at each of Eni’s sites (Spy 

Island and Oooguruk), and six serious 

injury/mortalities at Hilcorp’s Northstar 

site, all over 5 years. A summary of 

serious injury/mortality for Hilcorp and 

Eni over the 5-year period is provided 

in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—TOTAL ESTIMATED RINGED

SEAL TAKES ANNUALLY AND OVER

THE 5-YEAR LOA PERIOD

Serious injury/ 

mortality for 5 

years 

Eni SID ................................. 3 

Eni ODS ................................ 3 

Hilcorp Northstar ................... 6 

Total .................................. 12 

Effects of Specified Activities on 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals 

Subsistence hunting continues to be 

an essential aspect of Inupiat Native life, 

especially in rural coastal villages. The 

Inupiat participate in subsistence 

hunting activities in and around the 

Beaufort Sea. The animals taken for 

subsistence provide a significant portion 

of the food that will last the community 

through the year. Marine mammals 

represent on the order of 60–80 percent 

of the total subsistence harvest. Along 

with the nourishment necessary for 

survival, the subsistence activities 

strengthen bonds within the culture, 

provide a means for educating the 

younger generation, provide supplies for 

artistic expression, and allow for 

important celebratory events. 

The ice roads/trails construction 

projects are generally remote from 

subsistence use areas. Nuiqsut is the 

closest Native Alaskan community to 

the Northstar, ODS and SID facilities; 

located approximately 91 km (about 57 

mi) southwest from Northstar, 40 km 

(about 25 mi) from ODS, and 56 km 

(about 35 mi) from SID. Primary 

subsistence users in the area between 

Oliktok Point and West Dock are 

residents from the village of Nuiqsut. 

People from Utqiagvik (about 309 and 

264 km [192 and 164 mi] west of 

Northstar and SID, respectively) and 

Kaktovik harvest marine mammals that 

pass through the area but generally do 

not hunt there. Kaktovik is 196 km (122 

mi) east of Northstar and 241 km (150 

mi) east of SID. 

Nuiqsut hunters harvest ringed seals 

primarily during open water periods in 

July through August. In summer, boat 

crews hunt ringed, spotted and bearded 

seals. The most important seal hunting 

area for Nuiqsut hunters is off the 

Colville Delta, as far east as Pingok 

Island. The closest edge of the main 

sealing area at Pingok Island, is about 27 

km (17 mi) west of Northstar (SRBA 

2010, Galginaitis 2014). While less 

frequent than open water hunting, seals 

are taken by hunters on snow machines 

before break-up. 

In summary, Hilcorp and Eni’s ice 

roads and ice trails construction projects 

would occur far away from subsistence 

activities, and would be conducted 

during the time few subsistence 

activities occur. In winter and spring, 

small numbers of ringed seals may be 

disturbed and possibly displaced from 

the immediate locations of the ice roads 

and trails shown on Figures 1 through 

4. Seal hunters would likely avoid the 

areas near SID, Northstar and ODS in 

favor of less developed more productive 

areas closer to the main sealing areas 

near the Colville River delta. Therefore, 

construction and maintenance of the ice 

roads and trails is unlikely to impact 

subsistence hunting of ringed seals. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an LOA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses. NMFS 

regulations require applicants for ITAs 

to include information about the 

availability and feasibility (economic 

and technological) of equipment, 

methods, and manner of conducting 

such activity or other means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact 

upon the affected species or stocks and 

their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and 

Their Habitat 

For Hilcorp and Eni’s ice roads and 

trails construction project, Hilcorp and 

Eni worked with NMFS and proposed 

the following mitigation measures to 

minimize the potential impacts to 

marine mammals in the project vicinity. 

The primary purposes of these 

mitigation measures are to minimize 

human-seal interactions and to avoid 

takes by serious injury/mortality from 

the activities, to monitor marine 

mammals within designated zones of 

influence in the project vicinity and, if 

seals are within the designated 

shutdown zone after March 1 during the 

pupping season, to initiate immediate 

pause of all construction activities, 

making it very unlikely potential injury 

or serious injury/mortality to seals 

would occur and ensuring that Level B 

behavioral harassment of seals would be 

reduced to the lowest level practicable. 

Construction activities may result after 

the seals leave the shutdown zone on 

their own. 

The prescribed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are described 

below. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83466 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

Wildlife Training 

Prior to initiation of sea ice road- and 

ice trail-related activities, project 

personnel associated with ice road 

construction, maintenance, use or 

decommissioning (i.e., ice road 

construction workers, surveyors, 

security personnel, and the 

environmental team) will receive annual 

training on implementing mitigation 

and monitoring measures. Personnel are 

advised that interactions with, or 

approaching, any wildlife is prohibited. 

Annual training also includes reviewing 

the company’s Wildlife Management 

Plan. In addition to the mitigation and 

monitoring plans, other topics in the 

training will include: 

• Ringed Seal Identification and Brief 

Life History; 

• Physical Environment (habitat 

characteristics and how to potentially 

identify habitat); 

• Ringed Seal Use in the Ice Road 

Region (timing, location, habitat use, 

birthing lairs, breathing holes, basking, 

etc.); 

• Potential Effects of Disturbance; and 

• Importance of Lairs, Breathing 

Holes and Basking to Ringed Seals. 

General Mitigation Measures 

Implemented Throughout the Ice Road/ 

Trail Season 

General mitigation measures will be 

implemented through the entire ice 

road/trail season (December through 

May) including during construction, 

maintenance, use and decommissioning. 

• Ice road/trail speed limits will be 

no greater than approximately 74.5 km 

(45 miles) per hour (mph) under typical 

circumstances but may be exceeded in 

emergency situations. Travel on ice 

roads and trails is restricted to industry 

staff; 

• Following existing safety measures, 

delineators will mark the roadway in a 

minimum of 0.4 km (1⁄4-mile) 

increments on both sides of the ice road 

to delineate the path of vehicle travel 

and areas of planned on-ice activities 

(e.g., emergency response exercises). 

Following existing safety measures 

currently used for ice trails, delineators 

will mark one side of an ice trail a 

minimum of every 0.4 km (1⁄4 mile). 

Delineators will be color-coded, 

following existing safety protocol, to 

indicate the direction of travel and 

location of the ice road or trail. These 

measures will ensure that vehicles stay 

on disturbed ice roads/trails and will 

not deviate to undisturbed areas; 

• Corners of rig mats, steel plates, and 

other materials used to bridge sections 

of hazardous ice, will be clearly marked 

or mapped using GPS coordinates of the 

locations, so vehicles travel on ice 

roads/trails will not deviate to 

undisturbed areas; and 

• Personnel will be instructed to 

remain in the vehicle and safely 

continue, if they encounter a ringed seal 

while driving on the road. 

Mitigation Measures After March 1st 

After March 1st, and continuing until 

decommissioning of ice roads/trails in 

late May or early June, the on-ice 

activities mentioned above can occur 

anywhere on sea ice where water depth 

is less than 3 m (10 ft) (i.e., habitat is 

not suitable for ringed seal lairs). 

However, if the water is greater than 3 

m (10 ft) in depth, these activities 

should only occur within the 

boundaries of the driving lane or 

shoulder area of the ice road/trail and 

other areas previously disturbed (e.g., 

spill and emergency response areas, 

snow push areas) when the safety of 

personnel is ensured. 

In addition to the general Mitigation 

Measures, the following measures will 

also be implemented after March 1st: 

• Ice road/trail construction, 

maintenance and decommissioning will 

be performed within the boundaries of 

the road/trail and shoulders, with most 

work occurring within the driving lane. 

To the extent practicable and when 

safety of personnel is ensured, 

equipment will travel within the driving 

lane and shoulder areas; 

• Blading and snow blowing of ice 

roads will be limited to the previously 

disturbed ice road/shoulder areas to the 

extent safe and practicable. Snow will 

be plowed or blown from the ice road 

surface; 

• In the event snow is accumulating 

on a road within a 50 m (164 ft) radius 

of an identified downwind seal or seal 

lair (as identified by seal ice structure), 

operational measures will be used to 

avoid seal impacts, such as pushing 

snow further down the road before 

blowing it off the roadway. Vehicles 

will not stop within 50 m (164 ft) of 

identified seals or within 150 m (500 ft) 

of known seal lairs; 

• When safety of personnel is 

ensured, tracked vehicle operation will 

be limited to the previously disturbed 

ice trail areas. When safety requires a 

new ice trail to be constructed after 

March 1st, construction activities such 

as drilling holes in the ice to determine 

ice quality and thickness, will be 

conducted only during daylight hours 

with good visibility. Ringed seal 

structures will be avoided by a 

minimum of 50 m (164 ft) during ice 

testing and new trail construction. Once 

the new ice trail is established, tracked 

vehicle operation will be limited to the 

disturbed area and when safety of 

personnel is ensured; 

• If a seal is observed on ice within 

50 m (164 ft) of the centerline of the ice 

road/trail, the following mitigation 

measure will be implemented; and 

• Construction, maintenance or 

decommissioning activities associated 

with ice roads and trails will not occur 

within 50 m (164 ft) of the observed 

ringed seal, but may proceed as soon as 

the ringed seal, of its own accord, moves 

farther than 50 m (164 ft) distance away 

from the activities or has not been 

observed within that area for at least 24 

hours. Transport vehicles (i.e., vehicles 

not associated with construction, 

maintenance or decommissioning) may 

continue their route within the 

designated road/trail without stopping. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an LOA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83467 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

General Monitoring Measures 

Implemented Throughout the Ice Road/ 

Trail Season 

General monitoring measures will be 

implemented through the entire ice 

road/trail season including during 

construction, maintenance, use and 

decommissioning. 

Hilcorp and Eni are required to 

implement the following monitoring 

measures. 

If a ringed seal is observed within 50 

m (164 ft) of the center of an ice road 

or trail, the operator’s Environmental 

Specialist will be immediately notified 

with the information provided in the 

Reporting section below. 

• The Environmental Specialist will 

relay the seal sighting location 

information to all ice road personnel 

and the company’s office personnel 

responsible for wildlife interaction, 

following notification protocols 

described in the company-specific 

Wildlife Management Plan. All other 

data will be recorded and logged. 

• The Environmental Specialist or 

designated person will monitor the 

ringed seal to document the animal’s 

location relative to the road/trail. All 

work that is occurring when the ringed 

seal is observed and the behavior of the 

seal during those activities will be 

documented until the animal is at least 

50 m (164 ft) away from the center of the 

road/trail or is no longer observed. 

• The Environmental Specialist or 

designated person will contact 

appropriate state and Federal agencies 

as required. 

Monitoring Measures After March 1st 

In addition to the general Monitoring 

Measures, the following measures will 

also be implemented after March 1st: 

If an ice road or trail is being actively 

used, under daylight conditions with 

good visibility, a dedicated observer 

(not the vehicle operator) will conduct 

a survey along the sea ice road/trail to 

observe if any ringed seals are within 

150 m (500 ft) of the roadway corridor. 

The following survey protocol will be 

implemented: 

• Surveys will be conducted every 

other day during daylight hours; 

• Observers for ice road activities 

need not be trained Protected Species 

Observers (PSOs), but they must have 

received the training described above 

and understand the applicable sections 

of the Wildlife Interaction Plan. In 

addition, they must be capable of 

detecting, observing and monitoring 

ringed seal presence and behaviors, and 

accurately and completely recording 

data; and 

• Observers will have no other 

primary duty than to watch for and 

report observations related to ringed 

seals during this survey. If weather 

conditions become unsafe, the observer 

may be removed from the monitoring 

activity. 

If a ringed seal structure (i.e., 

breathing hole or lair) is observed 

within 150 m (500 ft) of the ice road/ 

trail, the location of the structure will be 

reported to the Environmental Specialist 

who will then carry out notification 

protocol identified above and: 

• An observer will monitor the 

structure every 6 hours on the day of the 

initial sighting to determine whether a 

ringed seal is present. Monitoring for 

the seal will occur every other day the 

ice road is being used unless it is 

determined the structure is not actively 

being used (i.e., a seal is not sighted at 

that location during monitoring). A lair 

or breathing hole does not automatically 

imply that a ringed seal is present. 

Engaging With Subsistence Hunters for 

Monitoring Recommendations 

In addition, Hilcorp and Eni are 

required to (1) engage local hunters 

through the Ice Seal Committee point of 

contact to gather recommendations on 

methods for ringed seal detection along 

sea ice roads/trails within the exposure 

areas, and (2) incorporate these 

recommendations into Hilcorp and Eni’s 

training materials provided to personnel 

responsible for monitoring for ringed 

seals along sea ice roads/trails. 

Reporting 

Hilcorp and Eni are required to 

submit a draft report on all ringed seals 

observed annually under the LOA 

within 90 calendar days of 

decommissioning the ice road/trail. A 

final report shall be prepared and 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of comments on the draft 

report from NMFS. If 30 days have 

passed and Hilcorp or Eni does not 

receive comments from NMFS, the draft 

report is considered to be final. The 

report must include: 

• Date, time, location of observation; 

• Ringed seal characteristics (i.e., 

adult or pup, behavior (avoidance, 

resting, etc.); 

• Activities occurring during 

observation including equipment being 

used and its purpose, and approximate 

distance to ringed seal(s); 

• Actions taken to mitigate effects of 

interaction emphasizing: (1) Which 

mitigation and/or monitoring measures 

were successful; (2) which mitigation 

and/or monitoring measures may need 

to be improved to reduce interactions 

with ringed seals; (3) the effectiveness 

and practicality of implementing 

mitigation and monitoring measures; (4) 

any issues or concerns regarding 

implementation of mitigation and/or 

monitoring measures; and (5) potential 

effects of interactions based on 

observation data; 

• Proposed updates (if any) to 

Wildlife Management Plan(s) or 

Mitigation and Monitoring Measures; 

and 

• The methods used for detection of 

seals and seal structures with an 

assessment of their effectiveness. 

In the event that personnel involved 

in the construction activities discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, 

Hilcorp or Eni shall report the incident 

to the Office of Protected Resources 

(OPR) (301–427–8401), NMFS and to 

the Alaska Region (AKR) regional 

stranding coordinator (1–877–925– 

7773). 

If in the rare event a seal is killed or 

seriously injured by ice road/trail 

activities, NMFS must be notified 

immediately. If an ice road/trail 

personnel discover a dead or injured 

seal but the cause of injury or death is 

unknown or believed not to be related 

to ice road/trail activities, NMFS must 

be notified within 48 hours of 

discovery. 

Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of 

Marine Mammals or Plan of 

Cooperation 

Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) 

further require ITA applicants 

conducting activities that take place in 

Arctic waters to provide a POC or 

information that identifies what 

measures have been taken and/or will 

be taken to minimize adverse effects on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence purposes. A plan must 

include the following: 

• A statement that the applicant has 

notified and provided the affected 

subsistence community with a draft 

plan of cooperation; 

• A schedule for meeting with the 

affected subsistence communities to 

discuss proposed activities and to 

resolve potential conflicts regarding any 

aspects of either the operation or the 

plan of cooperation; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83468 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

• A description of what measures the 

applicant has taken and/or will take to 

ensure that proposed activities will not 

interfere with subsistence whaling or 

sealing; and 

• What plans the applicant has to 

continue to meet with the affected 

communities, both prior to and while 

conducting the activity, to resolve 

conflicts and to notify the communities 

of any changes in the operation. 

As discussed earlier, Hilcorp and 

Eni’s ice roads and trails construction is 

expected to have no unmitigable 

adverse impacts on subsistence use of 

marine mammals in the project area, 

and the construction projects would 

occur in areas away from subsistence 

activities during the time when there is 

no subsistence activities. Nevertheless, 

both Hilcorp and Eni have developed 

POCs to ensure that no impact would 

occur. Both companies have been 

engaging the communities of Utqiagvik 

and Nuiqsut to share information about 

planned exploration/development 

activities and to maintain dialogue 

about measures to minimize potential 

impacts on the subsistence harvest of 

seals or whales. For the ice roads and 

ice trails construction and maintenance 

activities, Hilcorp and Eni developed 

further mitigation and monitoring 

measures to minimize the potential 

impacts to subsistence use of marine 

mammals in the area. These measures 

are described below. 

Hilcorp 

To help minimize disturbances to 

marine mammal subsistence resources, 

Hilcorp has signed a CAA with the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) and Whaling Captains’ 

Associations of nearby North Slope 

communities. The CAA describes 

measures to minimize any adverse 

effects on the availability of bowhead 

whales for subsistence use. Hilcorp also 

conducts the Cross Island whaling 

survey every year to document any 

conflicts and ensure that operations 

continue to be compatible with the 

hunt. 

The CAA and much of the 

coordination focus on whales and 

whaling activities. To date, the Native 

community has not expressed concerns 

over interactions with seals, particularly 

during the ice-covered seasons. Hilcorp 

states that it will continue to address 

questions and concerns from 

community members, and continue to 

provide them with contact information 

of project management to which they 

can direct concerns related to Northstar 

operations. 

In addition, Hilcorp has adopted the 

‘‘Good Neighbor Policy’’ originally put 

in place for Northstar by BPXA. The 

policy is a commitment to the eleven 

whaling villages, the Inupiat 

Community and the Siberian Yupik 

Community to establish financial 

assurance in the event of an oil spill. 

While the focus is on bowhead whales, 

the policy does include other Arctic 

marine resources including ringed seals. 

The Good Neighbor Policy also outlines 

how Hilcorp would provide 

transportation for the subsistence 

community to alternate hunting areas in 

the event that a spill prevents the use of 

Cross Island or other hunting areas. It 

also has provisions for providing 

interim alternative food supplies to 

community members, along with 

counselling and cultural assistance. 

Hilcorp is committed to adhering to the 

CAA and Good Neighbor Policy for the 

duration of North Slope operations as 

necessary. 

Eni 

To help minimize disturbances to 

marine mammal subsistence resources, 

Eni also signs a CAA each year with the 

AEWC and Whaling Captains’ 

Associations of nearby North Slope 

communities. The CAA describes 

measures to minimize any adverse 

effects on the availability of bowhead 

whales for subsistence use. Eni also 

conducted multiple community 

meetings and meetings with subsistence 

organizations such as the AEWC and 

NWCA to establish and maintain 

positive relationships with locals that 

rely on subsistence resources in the 

area. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, and 

specific consideration of take by serious 

injury/mortality previously authorized 

for other NMFS research activities). 

Serious Injury and Mortality 

NMFS is authorizing a very small 

number of serious injuries or mortalities 

that could occur incidental to ice roads 

and ice trails construction and 

maintenance. 

NMFS considers many factors, when 

available, in making a negligible impact 

determination, including, but not 

limited to, the status of the species or 

stock relative to the OSP level (if 

known), whether the recruitment rate 

for the species or stock is increasing, 

decreasing, stable, or unknown, the size 

and distribution of the population, and 

existing impacts and environmental 

conditions. The PBR metric can help 

inform the potential effects of serious 

injury and mortality caused by activities 

authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA on marine mammal stocks. 

PBR is defined in the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1362(20)) as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its OSP, and is a measure to be 

considered when evaluating the effects 

of serious injury and mortality on a 

marine mammal species or stock. OSP is 

defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1362(9)) as the number of animals 

which will result in the maximum 

productivity of the population or the 

species, keeping in mind the carrying 

capacity of the habitat and the health of 

the ecosystem of which they form a 

constituent element. PBR values are 

calculated by NMFS as the level of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83469 

annual removal from a stock that will 

allow that stock to equilibrate within 

OSP at least 95 percent of the time. 

To specifically use PBR, along with 

other factors, to evaluate the effects of 

serious injury and mortality, we first 

calculate a metric that incorporates 

information regarding ongoing 

anthropogenic serious injury and 

mortality into the PBR value (i.e., PBR 

minus the total annual anthropogenic 

mortality/serious injury estimate), 

which is called ‘‘residual PBR’’. We 

then consider how the anticipated 

potential incidental serious injury and 

mortality from the activities being 

evaluated compares to residual PBR. 

Anticipated or potential serious injury 

and mortality that exceeds residual PBR 

is considered to have a higher 

likelihood of adversely affecting rates of 

recruitment or survival, while 

anticipated serious injury and mortality 

that is equal to or less than residual PBR 

has a lower likelihood (both examples 

given without consideration of other 

types of take, which also factor into a 

negligible impact determination). For a 

species or stock with incidental serious 

injury and mortality less than 10 

percent of residual PBR, we consider 

serious injury and mortality from the 

specified activities to represent an 

insignificant incremental increase in 

ongoing anthropogenic serious injury 

and mortality that alone (i.e., in the 

absence of any other take) cannot affect 

annual rates of recruitment and 

survival. 

Regarding the impacts of the specified 

activities analyzed here, a stock-wide 

PBR for ringed seals is unknown; 

however, Muto et al. (2019) estimate 

PBR for ringed seals in the Bearing Sea 

alone to be 4,755 seals. Total annual 

mortality and serious injury is 700 for 

a residual PBR (r-PBR) of 4,055, which 

means that the 10 percent insignificance 

threshold is 406 seals. Currently there is 

one authorized MMPA ITA authorizing 

takes of serious injury/mortality of 

ringed seals as a result of NMFS Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center fisheries 

research activities in the Arctic (84 FR 

46788; September 5, 2019). This 

authorization authorizes up to four 

mortalities annually over the 5-year 

regulation. In the case of the Hilcorp-Eni 

ice roads and ice trails construction, the 

authorized taking, by serious injury and 

mortality, of 12 ringed seals over the 

course of 5 years, equates to an average 

of less than four seals serious injury/ 

mortality annually. This number is far 

less than the 10 percent r-PBR of 405 

seals, when considering mortality and 

serious injuring caused by other 

anthropogenic sources. This amount of 

take, by mortality and serious injury, is 

considered insignificant and therefore 

supports our negligible impact finding. 

Harassment 

Hilcorp and Eni requested, and NMFS 

is authorizing, take, by Level B 

harassment, of ringed seals. The amount 

of taking to be authorized is low 

compared to marine mammal 

abundance. Potential impacts of 

Hilcorp-Eni’s ice roads and ice trails 

construction activities are mostly from 

behavioral disturbances due to exposure 

to machinery and human activity. The 

potential effect of the Level B 

harassment is expected to be localized 

and brief. The construction crew would 

be required to closely monitor ringed 

seals in the vicinity of the project 

activity and to make sure that potential 

impacts are within the levels that are 

analyzed. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• Only 12 ringed seals are authorized 

to be taken by serious injury/mortality 

over 5 years; i.e., less than 0.1 percent 

of residual PBR (considering only a 

partial abundance estimate); 

• No injury by permanent hearing 

threshold shift is expected; 

• The only harassment is Level B 

harassment in the form of brief and 

localized behavioral disturbance and 

avoidance; 

• The amount of takes, by 

harassment, is low compared to 

population sizes; 

• Critical behaviors such as lairing 

and pupping by ringed seals would be 

avoided and minimized through 

implementation of ice road Best 

Management Plans; 

• No long lasting modification in 

marine mammal habitat; and 

• Ice roads/trails construction and 

maintenance would only occur between 

December and May each year. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

for specified activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of total taking (i.e., Level 

B harassment and serious injury/ 

mortality) of ringed seal each year is less 

than 1 percent of the population (Table 

7). 

TABLE 7—AMOUNT OF RINGED SEAL AUTHORIZED TAKE RELATIVE TO POPULATION ESTIMATES (Nbest) 

Species Stock Population 

estimate Total take Percent of population 

Ringed seal ..................................................... Alaska ............................................................. 170,000 27 <1 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

prescribed mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population sizes 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

In order to issue an ITA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83470 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

As described in the Effects of 

Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals section of the 

document, ringed seal is one of the key 

subsistence species that is being 

harvested by native subsistence users. 

However, the ice roads/trails 

construction and maintenance would 

occur far from any subsistence activities 

and would be separated temporarily 

from subsistence activities. In addition, 

Hilcorp and Eni have proposed and 

NMFS has included several mitigation 

measures to address potential impacts 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence use. In addition, both 

Hilcorp and Eni have developed POCs 

and worked with subsistence use 

communities in the vicinity of the 

project areas. Hilcorp and Eni further 

indicate that they will sign a CAA to 

ensure that there will be no unmitigable 

impact on subsistence uses of marine 

mammals during the ice roads and ice 

trails construction and maintenance. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS has determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from Hilcorp and Eni’s 

activities. 

Adaptive Management 

The regulations governing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to Hilcorp 

and Eni’s ice roads/trails construction 

and maintenance activities contain an 

adaptive management component. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with this final rule are designed to 

provide NMFS with monitoring data 

from the previous year to allow 

consideration of whether any changes 

are appropriate. The use of adaptive 

management allows NMFS to consider 

new information from different sources 

to determine (with input from Hilcorp 

and Eni regarding practicability) on an 

annual or biennial basis if mitigation or 

monitoring measures should be 

modified (including additions or 

deletions). Mitigation measures could be 

modified if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring reports, as required by 

MMPA authorizations; (2) results from 

general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (3) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent, or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent LOAs. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the promulgation 

of regulations and subsequent issuance 

of incidental take authorization) with 

respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (November 2020) to consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the final rule. 

NMFS’ final EA is available online at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

Federal agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

ITAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the Alaska Region Protected 

Resources Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA and through 

these regulations and the associated 

LOA, NMFS is authorizing take of 

Alaska stock of ringed seal, which is 

listed under the ESA. 

The Permit and Conservation Division 

requested initiation of section 7 

consultation with the Alaska Region 

Protected Resources Division for the 

promulgation of 5-year regulations and 

the subsequent issuance of LOAs. The 

Alaska Region Protected Resources 

Division issued a Biological Opinion 

(March 2020) concluding that NMFS’ 

action is not likely to result in jeopardy 

to the species named above or adversely 

modify their critical habitat. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement Executive 

Order 12866, the Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

final rule is not significant. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration at the 

proposed rule stage that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Hilcorp and Eni are the only 

entities that would be subject to the 

requirements in these final regulations. 

During construction, Hilcorp and Eni 

would employ or contract hundreds of 

people and the ice roads and trails 

construction would generate a large sum 

of revenues. Therefore, Hilcorp and Eni 

are not small governmental 

jurisdictions, small organizations, or 

small businesses, as defined by the RFA. 

No comments were received regarding 

this certification or on the economic 

impacts of the rule more generally. As 

a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis 

is not required and none has been 

prepared. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to nor must a person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

provisions of the PRA. These 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648–0151 

and include applications for regulations, 

subsequent LOAs, and reports. 

Waiver of Delay in Effective Date 

The Assistant Administrator for 

NMFS has determined that there is good 

cause under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this final rule. No individual or 

entity other than Hilcorp and Eni is 

affected by the provisions of these 

regulations. Hilcorp and Eni have 

informed NMFS that they request that 

this final rule take effect as soon as is 

possible so as to avoid the potential for 

disruption in Hilcorp and Eni’s planned 

activities. The delay in the issuance of 

the final rule would cause serious 

impacts on operations by Hilcorp and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83471 

Eni in the project areas, as the 

companies rely on the short ice-covered 

season for various activities on the 

North Slope. NMFS was unable to 

accommodate the 30-day delay of 

effectiveness period due to the need for 

additional time to address public 

comment and carry out required 

reviews, including, in particular, to 

ensure an accurate assessment of the 

likelihood of seal mortality and serious 

injury from Hilcorp and Eni’s 

construction activities. For these 

reasons, NMFS finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Endangered and 

threatened species, Indians, Marine 

mammals, Oil and gas exploration, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Wildlife. 

Dated: November 24, 2020. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 217 is amended as follows: 

PART 217—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE 

MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO 

SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 217 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Add subpart P to read as follows: 

Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice Trails 

Construction and Maintenance on 

Alaska’s North Slope 

Sec. 

217.150 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

217.151 Effective dates. 

217.152 Permissible methods of taking. 

217.153 Prohibitions. 

217.154 Mitigation requirements. 

217.155 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

217.156 Letters of Authorization. 

217.157 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

217.158–217.159 [Reserved] 

Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice Trails 

Construction and Maintenance on 

Alaska’s North Slope 

§ 217.150 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) 

and Eni US Operating Co. Inc. (Eni) and 

those persons they authorize or fund to 

conduct activities on their behalf for the 

taking of marine mammals that occurs 

in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section and that occurs incidental 

to construction and maintenance of ice 

roads and ice trails. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

Hilcorp and Eni may be authorized in 

two Letters of Authorization (LOAs) 

only if it occurs on Alaska’s North 

Slope. 

§ 217.151 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from December 22, 2020 

through November 30, 2025. 

§ 217.152 Permissible methods of taking. 

Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.156, 

the Holders of the LOAs (hereinafter 

‘‘Hilcorp’’ and ‘‘Eni’’) may incidentally, 

but not intentionally, take marine 

mammals within the area described in 

§ 217.150(b) by mortality, serious injury, 

Level A harassment, or Level B 

harassment associated with ice road and 

ice trail construction and maintenance 

activities, provided the activities are in 

compliance with all terms, conditions, 

and requirements of the regulations in 

this subpart and the appropriate LOAs. 

§ 217.153 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 217.152 and 

authorized by the LOAs issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.156, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 217.150 may: 

(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or an LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.156; 

(b) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in such LOAs; 

(c) Take any marine mammal 

specified in such LOAs in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stocks of such 

marine mammal; or 

(e) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOAs if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

§ 217.154 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 217.150(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 

217.156 must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures shall include but 

are not limited to: 

(a) General conditions. (1) Hilcorp 

and Eni must renew, on an annual basis, 

the Plans of Cooperation (POCs), 

throughout the life of the regulations; 

(2) Copies of any issued LOAs must 

be in the possession of Hilcorp and Eni, 

their designees, and work crew 

personnel operating under the authority 

of the issued LOAs; and 

(3) Prior to initiation of sea ice roadand ice trail-related activities, project 

personnel associated with ice road 

construction, maintenance, use or 

decommissioning must receive annual 

training on implementing mitigation 

and monitoring measures: 

(i) Personnel must be advised that 

interactions with, or approaching, any 

wildlife is prohibited; 

(ii) Annual training must also include 

reviewing Hilcorp and Eni’s Wildlife 

Management Plan; and 

(iii) In addition to the mitigation and 

monitoring plans, other topics in the 

training must include: 

(A) Ringed seal identification and 

brief life history; 

(B) Physical environment (habitat 

characteristics and how to potentially 

identify habitat); 

(C) Ringed seal use in the ice road 

region (timing, location, habitat use, 

birthing lairs, breathing holes, basking, 

etc.); 

(D) Potential effects of disturbance; 

and 

(E) Importance of lairs, breathing 

holes and basking to ringed seals. 

(b) General mitigation measures 

throughout the Ice Road/Trail Season 

(December through May). (1) Ice road/ 

trail speed limits must be no greater 

than 72.4 km (45 miles) per hour (mph); 

speed limits must be determined on a 

case-by-case basis based on 

environmental, road conditions and ice 

road/trail longevity considerations; 

(2) Following existing safety 

measures, delineators must mark the 

roadway in a minimum of 0.4 km (1⁄4- 

mile) increments on both sides of the ice 

road to delineate the path of vehicle 

travel and areas of planned on-ice 

activities (e.g., emergency response 

exercises). Following existing safety 

measures currently used for ice trails, 

delineators must mark one side of an ice 

trail a minimum of every 0.4 km (1⁄4


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
83472 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

mile). Delineators must be color-coded, 

following existing safety protocol, to 

indicate the direction of travel and 

location of the ice road or trail; 

(3) Corners of rig mats, steel plates, 

and other materials used to bridge 

sections of hazardous ice, must be 

clearly marked or mapped using GPS 

coordinates of the locations; and 

(4) Personnel must be instructed to 

remain in the vehicle and safely 

continue, if they encounter a ringed seal 

while driving on the road. 

(c) Additional mitigation measures 

after March 1st. In addition to the 

general mitigation measures listed in 

§ 217.154(b), the following measures 

must also be implemented after March 

1st: 

(1) Ice road/trail construction, 

maintenance and decommissioning 

must be performed within the 

boundaries of the road/trail and 

shoulders, with most work occurring 

within the driving lane. To the extent 

practicable and when safety of 

personnel is ensured, equipment must 

travel within the driving lane and 

shoulder areas. 

(2) Blading and snow blowing of ice 

roads must be limited to the previously 

disturbed ice road/shoulder areas to the 

extent safe and practicable. Snow must 

be plowed or blown from the ice road 

surface. 

(3) In the event snow is accumulating 

on a road within a 50 m (164 ft) radius 

of an identified downwind seal or seal 

lair, operational measures must be used 

to avoid seal impacts, such as pushing 

snow further down the road before 

blowing it off the roadway. Vehicles 

must not stop within 50 m (164 ft) of 

identified seals or within 150 m (500 ft) 

of known seal lairs. 

(4) To the extent practicable and 

when safety of personnel is ensured, 

tracked vehicle operation must be 

limited to the previously disturbed ice 

trail areas. When safety requires a new 

ice trail to be constructed after March 

1st, construction activities such as 

drilling holes in the ice to determine ice 

quality and thickness, must be 

conducted only during daylight hours 

with good visibility. 

(5) Ringed seal structures must be 

avoided by a minimum of 50 m (164 ft) 

during ice testing and new trail 

construction. 

(6) Once the new ice trail is 

established, tracked vehicle operation 

must be limited to the disturbed area to 

the extent practicable and when safety 

of personnel is ensured. 

(7) If a seal is observed on ice within 

50 m (164 ft) of the centerline of the ice 

road/trail, the following mitigation 

measures must be implemented: 

(i) Construction, maintenance or 

decommissioning activities associated 

with ice roads and trails must not occur 

within 50 m (164 ft) of the observed 

ringed seal, but may proceed as soon as 

the ringed seal, of its own accord, moves 

farther than 50 m (164 ft) distance away 

from the activities or has not been 

observed within that area for at least 24 

hours; and 

(ii) Transport vehicles (i.e., vehicles 

not associated with construction, 

maintenance or decommissioning) may 

continue their route within the 

designated road/trail without stopping. 

§ 217.155 Requirements for monitoring 

and reporting. 

(a) All marine mammal monitoring 

must be conducted in accordance with 

Hilcorp and Eni’s Marine Mammal 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (4MP). 

This plan may be modified throughout 

the life of the regulations upon NMFS 

review and approval. 

(b) General monitoring measures will 

be implemented through the entire ice 

road/trail season including during 

construction, maintenance, use and 

decommissioning. 

(1) If a ringed seal is observed within 

50 m (164 ft) of the center of an ice road 

or trail, the operator’s Environmental 

Specialist must be immediately notified 

with the information provided in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(i) The Environmental Specialist must 

relay the seal sighting location 

information to all ice road personnel 

and the company’s office personnel 

responsible for wildlife interaction, 

following notification protocols 

described in the company-specific 

Wildlife Management Plan. All other 

data will be recorded and logged. 

(ii) The Environmental Specialist or 

designated person must monitor the 

ringed seal to document the animal’s 

location relative to the road/trail. All 

work that is occurring when the ringed 

seal is observed and the behavior of the 

seal during those activities must be 

documented until the animal is at least 

50 m (150 ft) away from the center of the 

road/trail or is no longer observed. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) Additional monitoring measures 

after March 1st. In addition to the 

general monitoring measures listed in 

§ 217.155(b), the following measures 

must also be implemented after March 

1st: 

(1) If an ice road or trail is being 

actively used, under daylight conditions 

with good visibility, a dedicated 

observer (not the vehicle operator) must 

conduct a survey along the sea ice road/ 

trail to observe if any ringed seals are 

within 150 m (500 ft) of the roadway 

corridor. The following survey protocol 

must be implemented: 

(i) Surveys must be conducted every 

other day during daylight hours; 

(ii) Observers for ice road activities 

must have received the training 

described in § 217.154(a) and 

understand the applicable sections of 

the Wildlife Interaction Plan; 

(iii) Observers for ice road activities 

must be capable of detecting, observing 

and monitoring ringed seal presence 

and behaviors, and accurately and 

completely recording data; 

(iv) Observers must have no other 

primary duty than to watch for and 

report observations related to ringed 

seals during this survey; and 

(v) If weather conditions become 

unsafe, the observer may be removed 

from the monitoring activity. 

(2) If a ringed seal structure (i.e., 

breathing hole or lair) is observed 

within 50 m (150 ft) of the ice road/trail, 

the location of the structure must be 

reported to the Environmental Specialist 

and: 

(i) An observer must monitor the 

structure every 6 hours on the day of the 

initial sighting to determine whether a 

ringed seal is present. 

(ii) Monitoring for the seal must occur 

every other day the ice road is being 

used unless it is determined the 

structure is not actively being used (i.e., 

a seal is not sighted at that location 

during monitoring). 

(d) Engaging with subsistence hunters 

for monitoring recommendations. 

(1) Hilcorp and Eni must engage local 

hunters through the Ice Seal Committee 

point of contact to gather 

recommendations on methods for ringed 

seal detection along sea ice roads/trails 

within the exposure areas. 

(2) Hilcorp and Eni must incorporate 

these recommendations into Hilcorp 

and Eni’s training materials provided to 

personnel responsible for monitoring for 

ringed seals along sea ice roads/trails. 

(e) Reporting requirement at the endof-season. 

(1) A final end-of-season report 

compiling all ringed seal observations 

must be submitted to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources within 90 days of 

decommissioning the ice roads/trails 

annually. The report must include: 

(i) Date, time, location of observation; 

(ii) Ringed seal characteristics (i.e., 

adult or pup, behavior (avoidance, 

resting, etc.)); 

(iii) Activities occurring during 

observation including equipment being 

used and its purpose, and approximate 

distance to ringed seal(s); 

(iv) Actions taken to mitigate effects 

of interaction emphasizing: 

(A) Which mitigation and/or 

monitoring measures were successful; 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 83473 

(B) Which mitigation and/or 

monitoring measures may need to be 

improved to reduce interactions with 

ringed seals; 

(C) The effectiveness and practicality 

of implementing mitigation and 

monitoring measures; 

(D) Any issues or concerns regarding 

implementation of mitigation and/or 

monitoring measures; and 

(E) Potential effects of interactions 

based on observation data; 

(v) Proposed updates (if any) to 

Wildlife Interaction Plan(s) or 

Mitigation and Monitoring Measures; 

and 

(vi) The methods used for detection of 

seals and seal structures with an 

assessment of their effectiveness. 

(2) In the event a seal is killed or 

seriously injured by ice road/trail 

activities, Hilcorp or Eni must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

(301–427–8401) and Alaska Region 

Stranding Coordinator (877–925–7773). 

The report must include the following 

information: 

(i) Time and date of the incident; 

(ii) Description of the incident; 

(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

cloud over, and visibility); 

(iv) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(v) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(vii) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal(s). 

(3) In the event ice road/trail 

personnel discover a dead or injured 

seal but the cause of injury or death is 

unknown or believed not to be related 

to ice road/trail activities, Hilcorp or Eni 

must report the incident to the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (301–427– 

8401) and Alaska Region Stranding 

Coordinator (877–925–7773) within 48 

hours of discovery. 

§ 217.156 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

Hilcorp and Eni must apply for and 

obtain an LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

Hilcorp or Eni may apply for and obtain 

a renewal of the LOA. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by an 

LOA, Hilcorp and Eni must apply for 

and obtain a modification of the LOA as 

described in § 217.57. 

(e) The LOAs shall set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species, its habitat, 

and on the availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(3) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the LOAs shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an 

LOA shall be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 217.157 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 217.156 for the 

activity identified in § 217.150(a) shall 

be renewed or modified upon request by 

the applicant, provided that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for these 

regulations (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section); and 

(2) NMFS determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous 

LOAs under these regulations were 

implemented. 

(b) For LOAs modification or renewal 

requests by the applicants that include 

changes to the activity or the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting (excluding 

changes made pursuant to the adaptive 

management provision in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section) that do not change 

the findings made for the regulations or 

result in no more than a minor change 

in the total estimated number of takes 

(or distribution by species or years), 

NMFS may publish a notice of proposed 

LOAs in the Federal Register, including 

the associated analysis of the change, 

and solicit public comment before 

issuing the LOA. 

(c) The LOAs issued under §§ 216.106 

of this chapter and 217.156 for the 

activity identified in § 217.150(a) may 

be modified by NMFS under the 

following circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive management. NMFS may 

modify (including augment) the existing 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (after consulting with Hilcorp 

or Eni regarding the practicability of the 

modifications) if doing so creates a 

reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring set forth 

in the preamble for these regulations. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in an LOA: 

(A) Results from Hilcorp or Eni’s 

monitoring from the previous year(s). 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound research or 

studies. 

(C) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent LOAs. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, NMFS will publish a notice 

of proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register and solicit public comment. 

(2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

specified in LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.156, 

an LOA may be modified without prior 

notice or opportunity for public 

comment. Notice would be published in 

the Federal Register within 30 days of 

the action. 

§§ 217.158—217.159 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2020–26346 Filed 12–21–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 200227–0066] 

RTID 0648–XA727 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment 

to the 2021 Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Pollock, Atka Mackerel, and 

Pacific Cod Total Allowable Catch 

Amounts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason 

adjustment; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 2021 

total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES