Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51637

Department of Commerce, has received

an application to amend an Export

Trade Certificate of Review. This notice

summarizes the proposed amendment

and requests comments relevant to

whether the amended Certificate should

be issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private, treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out in

compliance with its terms and

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Act

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the

Secretary to publish a notice in the

Federal Register identifying the

applicant and summarizing its proposed

export conduct.

Request for Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments relevant to the determination

whether an amended Certificate should

be issued. If the comments include any

privileged or confidential business

information, it must be clearly marked

and a nonconfidential version of the

comments (identified as such) should be

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five

copies, plus two copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice to: Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, Department of

Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Information submitted by

any person is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

(5 U.S.C. 552). However,

nonconfidential versions of the

comments will be made available to the

applicant if necessary for determining

whether or not to issue the Certificate.

Comments should refer to this

application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate

of Review, application number 89–

3A018.’’

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute,

Inc.’s (‘‘OPEI’’) original Certificate was

issued on March 19, 1990 (55 FR 11041,

March 26, 1990) and previously

amended on April 20, 1990 (55 FR

21766, May 29, 1990); and July 12, 1990

(55 FR 29398, July 19, 1990). A

summary of the application for an

amendment follows.

Summary of the Application

Applicant: Outdoor Power Equipment

Institute, Inc. (‘‘OPEI’’), 341 South

Patrick Street, Alexandria, Virginia

22314.

Contact: Laurence J. Lasoff, Counsel,

Telephone: (202) 342–8530.

Application No.: 89–3A018.

Date Deemed Submitted: September

16, 1997.

Proposed Amendment: OPEI seeks to

amend its Certificate to:

1. Add the following company as a

new ‘‘Member’’ of the Certificate within

the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 C.F.R. 325.2(1)): Excel

Industries, Inc., Hesston, Kansas; and

2. Delete as ‘‘Members’’ the following

companies: Engineering Products

Company, Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin;

E-Z Rake, Inc., Lebanon, Indiana; Falls

Products Inc., Geona, Illinois; Merry

Tiller, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama;

NOMA Outdoor Product, Inc., Jackson,

Tennessee; Roto-Hoe Company,

Newbury, Ohio; Sarlo Power Mowers,

Inc., Fort Myers, Florida; Snapper

Power Equipment, McDonough,

Georgia; and Trailmate, Inc., Sarasota,

Florida.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

W. Dawn Busby,

Director, Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–26066 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 070197A]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities; Oil

and Gas Exploration Drilling Activities

in the Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

incidental harassment authorization.

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as amended, notification is

hereby given that an Incidental

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take

small numbers of marine mammals by

harassment incidental to conducting oil

exploration drilling activities in

Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea in waters off

Alaska has been issued to ARCO Alaska,

Inc. (ARCO).

DATES: This authorization is effective

from September 25, 1997, through

September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The application and

monitoring plan, authorization, and

environmental assessment (EA) are

available by writing to the Chief, Marine

Mammal Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3225, or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska Field

Office, NMFS, (907) 271–5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of marine mammals

by U.S. citizens who engage in a

specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, notice of a proposed

authorization is provided to the public

for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of the

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,

and the permissible methods of taking

and requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking

are set forth. NMFS has defined

‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103

as ‘‘ * * * an impact resulting from the

specified activity that cannot be

reasonably expected to, and is not

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

species or stock through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884),

NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things,

procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations under section

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for activities

in Arctic waters, including requirements

for peer-review of a monitoring program

and a plan of cooperation between the

applicant and affected subsistence

users. For additional information on the

procedures followed for this
51638 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

authorization, please refer to that

document.

Summary of Request

On May 30, 1997, NMFS received an

application from ARCO requesting a 1-

year authorization for the possible

harassment of small numbers of several

species of marine mammals incidental

to moving a Concrete Island Drilling

System (CIDS) from Prudhoe Bay to

Camden Bay, Alaska and drilling an oil

exploration well at that location during

the winter, 1997/98. Essentially, the

project has several stages as summarized

below: (a) Deballast the bottom-founded

Global Marine Drilling Co. ‘‘Glomar

Beaufort Sea #1’’ CIDS and move it to

the well site in Camden Bay on or about

August 15, 1997; (b) Transport drilling

supplies, materials and other equipment

to the CIDS. Transport fuel from Canada

to the site; (c) Warm shutdown mode

until such time as ice in Camden Bay is

fully formed (estimated to be around

November 1, 1997). Crew change via

helicopter during this and succeeding

times; (d) Drilling operations after ice

formation on or around November 1,

1997 (drilling and well testing

operations may occur from that date

through mid-May 1998); (e) Cold

shutdown mode from completion of

drilling and well testing operations until

around July 1, 1998; and (f) Towing

CIDS from Camden Bay by tug boats to

Prudhoe Bay or another location.

A more detailed description of the

work planned is contained in the

application and is available upon

request (see ADDRESSES). Moving the

CIDS from Prudhoe Bay began on

August 16, 1997. The barging of fuel,

equipment and supplies will be

completed on or before August 31, 1997.

Comments and Responses

A notice of receipt of the application

and proposed authorization was

published on July 15, 1997 (62 FR

37881), and a 30-day public comment

period was provided on the application

and proposed authorization. During the

comment period, comments received

were from the Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC), the Alaska Eskimo

Whaling Commission (AEWC) and

North Slope Borough (NSB), ARCO,

Greenpeace Alaska (Greenpeace) and

the Trustees for Alaska (Trustees).

ARCO’s comments which addressed

contents in the EA are not discussed

further in this document. Information

on the activity and authorization request

that are not subject to reviewer

comments can be found in the proposed

authorization notice and is not repeated

here. Issues outside either the scope of

the IHA process or on the impacts on

marine mammals and/or subsistence

needs for marine mammals are not

addressed in this document.

Negligible impact concerns

Comment 1: Trustees believe that

NMFS fails to adequately discuss

scientific information which found

significant effects from disturbance on

whales and other marine mammals.

They believe NMFS provided little

information in the notice and EA not

found in ARCO’s application.

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS

to use the best scientific information

available when determining whether an

activity will have a negligible impact on

marine mammals (see the definition of

negligible impact above or in 50 CFR

216.103). Extensive monitoring of

impacts of oil exploration activities on

marine mammals and analyses of the

results from those studies have been

conducted over the past two decades.

This information has also been

summarized elsewhere (e.g., Richardson

et al. (1995b) on noise impacts). The EA

also summarizes this information and

incorporates other documentation by

reference. Because the best scientific

information to date available to NMFS

indicates that oil and gas exploration

activities in the Beaufort Sea are not

having more than a negligible impact on

marine mammals, and because Trustees

and other commenters have not

provided scientific information to the

contrary, an incidental harassment

authorization appears warranted.

NMFS does not contradict

commenters’ position that bowhead

whales and other marine mammals may

be harassed by noise from aircraft,

tugboats and oil drilling operations.

However, the MMPA allows a take by

harassment if certain findings are made

and certain conditions are met. NMFS

believes the level of incidental

harassment by the ARCO activity will

not adversely affect the species or stocks

of marine mammals through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Therefore, the taking is considered

negligible.

Marine mammal concerns

Comment 2: Greenpeace and Trustees

both note that NMFS has failed to fully

consider the impacts to the bowhead

whale population. They believe NMFS

should assess impacts from the first

arrivals in the western Beaufort Sea and

not just on impacts after August 31.

Response: NMFS agrees and has

modified the EA to address this

concern. However, NMFS notes that the

bowhead whale numbers referenced by

Trustees as passing the Camden Bay site

are overstated. Moore and Clark (1991)

estimated in 1981 through 1983, up to

500 (range 0–500) bowheads may be

offshore the Barter Island region;

however, no whales were sighted west

of that region prior to September 1

during those years. Most sighted

bowheads were still in Canadian waters.

While NMFS notes that in general,

bowhead whales migrate westward

through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea from

late August to late October, only a

portion of the population has been

estimated as migrating during this time

period. Other bowheads are either

undetectable to observers (i.e., under the

ice), migrated prior to surveys

commencing, or did not migrate to the

Canadian Beaufort Sea. As a result of

ARCO’s agreement with the AEWC to

complete moving activities and barge

traffic prior to September 1, NMFS

believes the majority of the bowhead

population will not hear noise

emanating from the CIDS because of

their presence in the Canadian Beaufort

Sea.

Most westward migrating bowheads

sighted are in water ranging from 20 to

50 m (65–165 ft) deep (Ljungblad et al.

1984). Scientific evidence indicates that

bowhead whale distribution appears to

be strongly influenced by ice (but see

information provided by Traditional

Knowledge discussed below). In heavy

ice years, bowheads tend to migrate in

deeper water (> 60 m (> 197 ft)), while

in light ice years, a larger proportion

sighted are found in shallow water (<40

m (< 131 ft)) (NMFS 1996). A few may

occur close to shore. Therefore, there is

some potential that bowhead whales

may be incidentally harassed while the

CIDS is being towed westward and the

supply activities prior to August 31.

However, these numbers are considered

to be small and the impact negligible.

Additional information on this issue can

be found in the EA.

Comment 3: Trustees note that NMFS

does not provide a specific date for

start-up of drilling, nor when the spring

bowhead whale migration period begins

(when the CIDS should not be moved),

nor does it prohibit drilling operations

from the CIDS during this period, if

drilling takes longer than expected.

Response: NMFS notes that it is

unaware whether ice-up needs to be

complete prior to the CIDS commencing

drilling. Therefore, recognizing that

bowhead whales may be migrating

westward through the offshore and

nearshore Camden Bay area through late

October, and drilling during this period

of time could result in additional

harassment takes that have not been

considered in the negligible take

analysis, NMFS has conditioned the

IHA so that drilling activities prior to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51639

November 1, 1997, are not covered by

the IHA and any incidental harassment

of bowheads resulting from an early

start-up is a violation of the IHA and the

MMPA.

During the springtime eastward

migration bowheads are presumed to

first arrive offshore Camden Bay in late

April to early May. This migration is

also presumed to occur through the end

of June. Because the leads through the

ice at this time are usually well offshore

(and the reason there is not a springtime

subsistence hunt at Nuiqsuk and

Kaktovik), no incidental harassment

takings are presumed to occur from

drilling activities. However, in order to

ensure bowhead migration is not

impeded by anthropogenic noise, a

condition of the IHA prohibits any oil

and gas exploration activity in the

spring leads, including drilling or vessel

noise. If on-site drilling activities are

projected to continue into the time

bowheads enter offshore Camden Bay,

prior to modifying the IHA, NMFS will

require submission and implementation

of a revised monitoring program to

ensure that bowheads will not be

seriously affected by drilling activities

while moving through the spring leads.

In accordance with NMFS regulations,

any modification of an IHA that does

not involve emergency action to protect

marine mammals is subject to a 30-day

public comment period. For that reason,

a request for an amendment to the IHA,

and the accompanying monitoring plan

will need to be provided to NMFS no

later than March 1, 1998.

If the CIDS remains under the control

of, or under contract to ARCO after

completion of the drilling operation, the

IHA authorizes the harassment of

bowheads and other marine mammals

incidental to moving the CIDS to

another site after the last bowhead

migration pulse has completed its

eastward migration. If necessary, NMFS

will make a determination that the

migration is complete and will notify

interested parties.

Comment 4: Greenpeace states that

the impacts of industrial noise

associated with exploratory drilling

activities during the bowhead migration

have not been adequately evaluated by

NMFS.

Response: Other than towing the CIDS

and tug/barge traffic, no other activities

related to the CIDS operation is

anticipated to have an impact on

bowhead whales. Impacts on bowheads

from vessel noise was discussed in the

EA.

Comment 5: Trustees note that NMFS

fails to make clear that the drill site is

located in significant ringed seal habitat

and that seals undergoing stresses such

as reproduction (taking place during

drilling activities) may be more

vulnerable to the effects of contaminants

or disturbance. Trustees also notes that

NMFS fails to discuss impacts from

seismic activities and vehicle traffic.

Response: The biology, abundance

and distribution of ringed seals and

other pinnipeds were addressed in the

EA. The EA notes that some reduction

in density of ringed seals within an area

of approximately 2.3 nmi (3.7 km) of the

CIDS could be expected. However,

considering winter-time ringed seal

densities of between 2–6 ringed seals/

nm2, few ringed seals should be affected

by the CIDS, whose noise disturbance

zone is limited to less than 1 nm.

Because drilling operations will begin

on or around November 1, 1997, well

prior to ringed seals establishing birth

lairs, and continue through mid-May

1998, ringed seal pupping, (which starts

in early April), is unlikely to take place

in the vicinity of the CIDS. Therefore,

NMFS expects few ringed seals would

be affected and that impact will result,

at worst, in some displacement.

Considering the extensive habitat

available to ringed seals and the size of

the Alaskan ringed seal population,

displacement would not result in more

than a negligible impact on the species.

Incidental harassment for either

seismic activities or vehicle traffic over

ice has not been requested by ARCO, is

not being authorized, and is not

anticipated by the applicant, except for

the latter in emergency situations, such

as an oil spill. NMFS notes however,

that the incidental taking by this type of

activity is the subject of a separate

rulemaking action (see 62 FR 42737,

August 8, 1997).

Environmental concerns

Comment 6: Trustees believe that the

impacts to the Alaska National Wildlife

Refuge (ANWR) have been ignored by

NMFS. One of their concerns is that, to

avoid impacts to marine mammals,

helicopters would be required to fly

over land. However, this would increase

the magnitude and extent of impacts to

the wilderness.

Response: NMFS believes no more

than a negligible impact will accrue to

marine habitats of importance to marine

mammals in the waters offshore of

ANWR from the wintertime CIDS

operation. Once the CIDS is in place and

supplied prior to September 1, noise

from the CIDS will be limited to

generators operating in the warm

shutdown mode, and possibly some

noise from helicopters supplying the

CIDS prior to beginning drilling. Oil

drilling noises will not occur until iceup is complete. Other than small

numbers of seals and polar bears (for

which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service has issued a small take

authorization), marine mammals will be

unaffected (but see comment 7 below

regarding potential for oil spills and

comment 8 regarding drilling muds).

Impacts relating to issuance of an IHA

were addressed in NMFS’ EA, other

impacts were addressed in the final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

for the Beaufort Sea Lease Sale 144

(BSLS 144) and an EA prepared by the

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

for ARCO’s activities.

ARCO will be required to comply

with appropriate MMS and ANWR

regulations regarding aircraft

overflights. Also to mitigate noise levels

for marine mammals, NMFS has

conditioned the IHA to require aircraft

to remain at an altitude of 1,000 ft (305

m) until within 0.5 nm (926 m) of the

CIDS, whenever the weather ceiling

allows such heights.

Comment 7: Both Greenpeace and

Trustees expressed deep concern over

the possibility of an oil spill in the

vicinity of ANWR. There was concern

that in the event of a crude oil blowout,

harm to the marine mammals which

reside on the barrier islands and in

other habitats along the ANWR

shoreline would be devastating.

Trustees noted that the relief well

plan calls for ice roads and support

activities with ANWR. This is

unacceptable.

Response: When making a negligible

impact determination, NMFS finds that

a negligible impact determination may

be appropriate if the probability of

occurrence is low, but the potential

effects may be significant. In this case,

the probability of occurrence of impacts

must be balanced with the potential

severity of harm to the species or stock

when determining negligible impact. In

applying this balancing test, NMFS

evaluates the risks involved and the

potential impacts on marine mammal

populations and habitat.

NMFS recognizes that there is still

considerable disagreement as to the

effects of an oil spill on bowhead

whales and other marine mammals in

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. MMS used

Oil Spill Risk Analysis modelling to

estimate the impacts of a worst-case

spill on bowhead whales and concluded

that this event would result in the

mortality of a few individuals with

expected recovery to the species’ overall

population level in 1 to 3 years.

However, some data on the anatomy and

migratory behavior of bowhead whales

suggest that impacts from a large oil

spill could pose a grave threat to this

species, especially if substantial
51640 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

1NMFS. 1996. Environmental Assessment:

Request by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. for an

Incidental Harassment Authorization to Allow the

Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in the Beaufort

Sea During the 1996 Northstar Seismic Exploration

Program.

amounts of oil got into the lead system

during the spring migration (Albert

1981, Shotts et al. 1990). NMFS notes

however, that to date no blowouts have

occurred during drilling 81 exploratory

wells in Alaskan waters as of 1994

(MMS 1996). As analyzed in more detail

in MMS’ EA and based upon

information provided in that document

and the FEIS for BSLS 144, NMFS has

determined that the potential for a

significant oil spill from a single

exploration activity site (as contrasted to

an oil production site on which oil spill

probabilistic analyses are based), and

the potential therefore for significant

impacts on marine mammals inhabiting

the offshore and nearshore waters of

Camden Bay, is negligible.

NMFS notes that ARCO’s Oil Spill

Contingency Plan has been modified to

eliminate all references to relief well

planning involving construction on, or

movement through, ANWR, including

its lagoons.

Comment 8: Both Greenpeace and

Trustees believe NMFS fails to give

meaningful consideration to impacts

associated with chronic discharges of

contaminants (drilling muds, cuttings,

biocides, oil) associated with

exploratory drilling operations.

Greenpeace believes routine and

accidental discharges are substantial.

Response: The discharge of

anthropogenic materials from oil

platforms, (such as drilling muds,

discharged materials and produced

water) is regulated by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

under the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System. A permit for oil

exploration activities has been issued by

EPA for this activity. While drilling

muds are relatively non-toxic and the

metals associated with drilling muds are

virtually unavailable for

bioaccumulation by marine organisms

(Neff 1987), other anthropogenic

materials could potentially harm

bowhead whales by reducing or

contaminating their food resources if

found in sufficient quantities. The

feeding strategy of bowhead whales

could lead to ingestion of oil from oilcontaminated food, if the prey

organisms accumulate petroleum

hydrocarbons in their tissue. The effect

of pollutants including heavy metals on

the planktonic organisms (copepods,

euphasiids) on which these whales feed

is relatively unknown, but may result in

either direct mortality or sublethal

effects that inhibit growth, longevity

and reproduction. If planktonic

crustaceans have the ability to detoxify

hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons are

less likely to persist and biomagnify in

the bowhead whale. The National

Research Council (1985) concluded that

the risks to most outer continental shelf

(OCS) benthic communities from

exploratory drilling discharges are small

and result primarily from physical

benthic effects. In addition, the

relatively small area of these discharges

further limits their impact in the

Beaufort Sea marine environment.

NMFS has modified its EA to address

this concern.

Subsistence concerns

Comment 9: The AEWC has concerns

that any major noise-producing

activities, including those by ARCO,

that occur in the vicinity of a village’s

subsistence hunt or in the ‘‘upstream’’

migration path of the bowhead whales

have the potential to interfere with the

bowhead subsistence hunt. As a result,

the AEWC has requested that all Fall

open-water industrial activities with the

potential to interfere with the Fall

bowhead whale subsistence hunt cease

as of August 31, 1997. If the CIDS is not

on location at the specified and

represented time by ARCO, then the

AEWC insists that an approved open

water Conflict and Avoidance

Agreement (CAA) must be in place prior

to the IHA being issued. If the CAA is

signed before NMFS issues an IHA, then

the AEWC agrees with NMFS that the

potential impacts should be sufficiently

mitigated to warrant issuance of an IHA

with no further mitigation requirements.

If the CAA is not signed, the AEWC

recommends additional specified

mitigation measures. Greenpeace states

that no operations should continue east

of Cross Island after the end of August.

Response: NMFS has been informed

that a CAA between the AEWC and

ARCO has been concluded. As part of

that agreement, ARCO has agreed to

cease all activities in the vicinity of the

CIDS, including barge transport of

supplies after August 31, 1997. Once the

bowhead whale hunt has concluded,

activities can continue as scheduled and

discussed in the application and

proposed authorization.

Comment 10: Greenpeace asserts that

the proposed action will have a

significant impact on the bowhead

whale and Inupiat communities that

depend on the bowhead whale for

subsistence. Because the impacts of the

industrial noise associated with the

exploratory drilling activities during the

bowhead migration have not been

adequately evaluated by NMFS, NMFS

must deny ARCO’s IHA application.

Response: Impacts to bowhead whales

from oil exploration activities were

addressed above, in the EA, and in the

notice of proposed authorization. NMFS

has used the best scientific information

available, along with Traditional

Knowledge, to assess impacts of vessel,

aircraft, and overwinter drilling

activities on marine mammals. NMFS

believes that a signed CAA supports

NMFS determination that there will not

be an unavoidable adverse impact on

the availability of a species or stock for

taking for subsistence needs.

Traditional knowledge concerns

Comment 11: Trustees believe NMFS

has ignored valid and relevant scientific

information-known through Traditional

Knowledge of Native Alaskans-which

contradict conclusions that oil industry

operations will have a negligible impact.

Greenpeace notes that the whaling

captains have presented compelling

evidence that bowheads are displaced

from their migratory route and feeding

areas by seismic and drilling operations.

Greenpeace also believes that NMFS has

dismissed the subtle behavioral effects

on bowhead whales (e.g. spookiness)

that whaling captains discuss.

Response: Traditional Knowledge

provides information that industrial

noise is detectable to bowhead whales at

greater underwater distances than

empirical scientific information has

shown, and that bowheads will deflect

from industrial noise, such as seismic

airgun noise (up to 30–35 nmi from the

airgun array), at great distances.

Traditional Knowledge has been added

as appropriate to the EA as requested by

the AEWC on July 17, 1997.

NMFS does not dismiss information

on behavioral effects from industrial

noise on bowheads. These issues are

discussed whenever relevant (see for

example, NMFS 1996 1). Because

ARCO’s application noted that activities

potentially affecting bowhead whales

would not take place during the time

when the major portion of the stock

migrates through the Beaufort Sea, and

therefore, no adverse effects on

subsistence takings would occur,

lengthy discussion on behavioral effects

was unnecessary.

Monitoring

Comment 12: Greenpeace finds that

ARCO’s 1997 proposed monitoring plan

is not scientifically rigorous enough to

determine impacts to Arctic pinnipeds

and cetacean species. Greenpeace

contends that ARCO’s quasi-scientific

experimental design of the monitoring

program is aimed at trying to prove that

exploratory and other disturbing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51641

activities will have a negligible impact

on the marine mammal populations.

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)

of the MMPA mandates a monitoring

program to assess impacts to marine

mammals by the activity. NMFS has

stated previously that a monitoring

program should be appropriate to

determine the distribution and

behavioral responses of potentially

affected species of marine mammals

before, during, and after exposure to the

activities. NMFS believes that timing of

each phase of ARCO’s activity has

mitigated affects on marine mammals to

the lowest extent practicable. While

additional monitoring can certainly be

required under the IHA, NMFS must

weigh the information value of such

monitoring with costs for conducting

the monitoring. If costs outweigh

benefits, then NMFS believes the

monitoring may not be practical, unless

extenuating circumstances exist, such as

ongoing subsistence harvests, or

critically endangered species are

present. An example of unnecessary

monitoring includes repeating

transmission loss tests for a CIDS during

oil drilling activities, even though

bowhead whales will not be in the

vicinity of the CIDS when it is active.

Comment 13: Greenpeace believes

NMFS must require a comprehensive

monitoring plan that is fully subjected

to independent peer design and review.

Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)

requires an IHA to prescribe, where

applicable, the requirements for

independent peer-review of monitoring

plans for activities where the proposed

activity may affect the availability of a

species or stock for taking for

subsistence purposes. A signed CAA

between the AEWC and the activity

participants provides NMFS with

documentation that the proposed

activity will not have an unavoidable

adverse impact on the availability of a

species or stock for taking for

subsistence needs. ARCO’s proposed

activity was discussed at the PeerReview Workshop in Seattle on July 17,

1997, with the AEWC. In addition, the

monitoring plan has been reviewed by

scientists of NMFS and the MMC. The

Scientific Director of the MMC, an

independent reviewer, was of the

opinion that the monitoring plan is

adequate to verify that only small

numbers of marine mammals are taken,

that the taking is by harassment only,

and that the impacts on the affected

species and stocks are negligible. A

similar assessment has been made by

NMFS scientists who have reviewed the

monitoring plan.

If at any time NMFS believes that the

incidental harassment process would

benefit from peer-review, it will

promptly conduct this review. For

example, if ARCO’s oil drilling activities

continue into the spring or summer,

NMFS will require ARCO to provide a

revised monitoring plan. That plan will

be independently peer-reviewed to

ensure that impacts to bowhead whales

are adequately assessed.

Comment 14: Greenpeace states that

NMFS must require ARCO to employ a

full array of bottom-mounted

hydrophones and deploy sonobuoys to

accurately measure bowhead and other

marine mammal vocalizations and

ambient noise. The monitoring plan

must be designed to substantiate the

‘‘zone of influence,’’ however distant.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Under the

IHA, during drilling activity phase the

harassment of bowhead whales is not

authorized. As noted in the application,

no drilling will occur prior to complete

ice-up, at which time bowhead whales

will be in the Bering Sea, and drilling

will cease prior to springtime bowhead

migration. If, as mentioned in comment

3, drilling activities were to extend into

late spring, 1998, and bowheads enter

the Camden Bay area, NMFS would

require ARCO to request an amendment

to its IHA. Included in that request

would be a modified monitoring plan.

Substantiating the zone of influence

during wintertime for bowheads is

viewed by NMFS as unnecessary in

light of the above statement.

Substantiating a zone of influence for

seals would require disruptive research

on seals in lairs which, while likely

valuable research, is unnecessarily

intrusive on the animals when

implemented as a monitoring tool.

Because of the potential for an increase

in Arctic wintertime drilling and

seismic work over the next few years,

NMFS encourages MMS to fund

additional studies on ringed seal

behavior and effects from industrial

development.

Authorization concerns

Comment 15: Greenpeace and

Trustees were concerned about the

adequacy of time for NMFS to give

adequate recognition to public

comments.

Response: As noted by this document,

NMFS believes that it has given proper

review of all public comments.

Comment 16: ARCO believes that the

operational restrictions set out in the

IHA are not necessary because no takes

of marine mammals are anticipated. For

example, ARCO notes that September 1

is only a target date for completing the

CIDS supply.

Response: NMFS presumes that the

operational restrictions refer to the

mitigation measures proposed in the

earlier notice. NMFS notes however,

that activities that proceed prior to, or

after, the dates ARCO has suggested for

each phase of the project, may

potentially harass marine mammals,

especially activities that may affect

bowhead migration in the spring leads.

The potential for the incidental

harassment of marine mammals having

a more than negligible impact on marine

mammals during these alternative times

has simply not been evaluated at this

time. As a result, incidental takings

outside the periods specified cannot be

authorized. NMFS notes however, that

once the NSB has secured its

whaleboats for the season, and notifies

ARCO of this fact, ARCO may continue

resupply of the CIDS via barges.

Cumulative impact concerns

Comment 17: Trustees and

Greenpeace believe NMFS ignores the

cumulative impacts from oil exploration

and development in the Arctic. Trustees

provide a statement from one whaling

captain that bowheads no longer enter

Camden Bay due to industrial activity.

Response: NMFS has not ignored the

cumulative impact from oil and gas

exploration on marine mammals or their

habitat. Due to distances between oil

and gas exploration activities, NMFS

does not expect a cumulative impact in

1997. NMFS has identified two oil and

gas exploration activities in the Central

and Eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea this year,

a seismic survey by BP Exploration

(Alaska) and the proposed activity.

Other than the potential for the CIDS

being towed within proximity to the

seismic survey during mid-August, and

the resulting noise if the seismic array

is operating at the time, no cumulative

impacts are anticipated. In 1990, NMFS

determined that in any one year

between 1990 and 1995 in the Beaufort

and Chukchi Seas, there may be

between 2 and 5 drilling units operating

in Federal waters and two drilling units

in state waters. In addition up to 17,000

seismic trackline miles in the Beaufort

and Chukchi Seas would be conducted

over the five years. On July 16, 1990 (55

FR 29207), NMFS determined that this

level of industrial activity would not

result in more than a negligible impact

on marine mammals. No new

information has been provided since

that time to require a reassessment of

cumulative impacts.

Traditional Knowledge indicates that

oil exploration deflects whales further

offshore, making them less accessible to

whalers. While agreeing with this

observation, NMFS notes that because

no major oil and gas exploration

activities have taken place in Camden
51642 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

Bay since 1993, if bowhead whales are

not following historic migratory routes

(according to Traditional Knowledge),

then one or more factors must be

influencing their migration. These

include: Ice conditions, food

distribution and/or abundance, or

conditioning by bowhead whales to the

previous noise events. NMFS notes that

a similar migratory modification has

been made by California gray whales in

their southward migration along the

California coast in order to avoid

recreational and commercial vessel

traffic south of Pt. Conception.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) concerns

Comment 18: Trustees noted that the

site-specific impacts of drilling a well in

the proposed Warthog area on marine

mammals were not addressed in BSLS

144 FEIS, nor in ARCO’s exploration

plan or oil spill contingency plan.

Trustees believe that NMFS’ IHA

documentation fails to acknowledge the

potential effects addressed in ARCO’s

Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

Response: MMS released an EA that

discusses ARCO’s planned scope of

work in Camden Bay, alternatives to

those activities, and the impacts to the

human environment from the proposed

action and alternatives.

Impacts of potential oil spills

resulting from exploration activities on

BSLS 144 were addressed in that Lease

Sale’s FEIS and in MMS’ 1997 EA. To

the extent that those impacts affect

marine mammals and their habitat,

appropriate parts have been

incorporated by reference in NMFS’ EA.

Incorporation by reference is provided

by Council on Environmental Quality

regulations (40 CFR 1502.21).

Comment 19: Greenpeace and

Trustees believe that the proposed

action will have a ‘‘significant effect on

the human environment’’ and therefore

NMFS needs to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

on the action. Greenpeace notes that

ARCO proposes to introduce major

sources of industrial noise and pollution

to a pristine and ecologically significant

area off the ANWR. Because the

operations associated with, and

subsequent exploratory drilling will

affect species and habitats that the

ANWR is designed to protect, NMFS

must prepare a full EIS.

Response: NMFS disagrees.

Commenters have not provided

scientific information that the impact

would be more than negligible (i. e.,

significant). Since NMFS must analyze

a request for an IHA to determine

whether the proposed activity has no

more than a negligible impact on a

species or stock of marine mammals and

does not have an unmitigable adverse

impact on subsistence users, it believes

that the issuance of a small take

authorization only requires the

preparation of an EA and not an EIS. In

this case, the agency found through

preparing an EA that the proposed

action will not significantly affect the

quality of the human environment thus

making a finding of no significant

impact. If the EA results in this finding,

no additional documents are required

by NEPA (NOAA Directives Manual 02–

10).

Comment 20: Greenpeace notes the

alleged inadequacies of the draft EIS on

BSLS 144, especially as it relates to

marine mammals and habitat-use

patterns. Greenpeace references a

review of BSLS 144 by the MMC.

Response: NMFS notes that the MMC

comments were submitted in response

to a draft EIS prepared by MMS for

BSLS 144. Appropriate modifications

and a response to MMC comments were

provided in the FEIS. In addition,

NMFS reviewed BSLS 144 under

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), and concluded formal

consultation on November 16, 1995. The

finding of that consultation was that,

based on the Arctic Regional Biological

Opinion, oil exploration activities under

BSLS 144 is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species

under its jurisdiction.

NMFS also notes that ringed seal and

other marine mammal biology,

distribution and abundance, and

impacts were provided in its EA on the

proposed action.

Other concerns

Comment 21: Greenpeace and

Trustees believe that issuance of an IHA

will violate the Coastal Zone

Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C.

1451–1464). The CZMA provides that a

Federal agency may not issue a license

or permit to conduct an activity that

affects a state’s coastal zone before a

state concurs with the license

applicant’s certification that the activity

will be consistent with the provisions of

the state’s plan.

Response: ARCO submitted the

necessary information to the State of

Alaska in order to evaluate the

consistency of ARCO’s activities with

Alaska’s coastal zone management plan

(ACZMP). The State has worked with

ARCO to address the State’s coastal

management concerns regarding

ARCO’s proposed activities in the

Beaufort Sea. In managing Alaska’s

coastal zone, and in its evaluation of

ARCO’s proposed activities, the State

must balance the competing objectives

and purposes of the ACZMP. It is

NMFS’ understanding that the State has

expressed no outstanding concerns

regarding the consistency of ARCO’s

proposed activities with the enforceable

policies of the ACZMP. An

authorization to drill will not be

provided to ARCO by MMS until ARCO

has received the State’s consistency

determination.

Comment 22: Trustees contend that

an Alaska Native Interest Land Claims

Act (ANILCA) section 810 study is

required. They believe that because the

IHA is a required aspect of the decision

regarding use of OCS lands for drilling,

and the proposed oil industry activities

could also harm the availability and use

of ANWR lands for subsistence and

cause a restriction of subsistence uses,

and ANILCA study is necessary.

Response: The U.S. Supreme Court

ruled in March 1987 that, by ANILCA’s

plain language, section 810 applies only

to Federal lands within the State of

Alaska’s boundaries. ANILCA defines

‘‘public lands’’ to mean federal lands

situated ‘‘in Alaska,’’ a phrase which

has a precise geographic/political

meaning that can be delineated with

exactitude to include coastal waters to

a point three miles from the coastline,

where the OCS commences. Therefore,

an ANILCA section 810 analysis/report

is not required for ARCO’s Warthog

project.

Comment 23: Greenpeace and

Trustees both believe ARCO, in

deballasting the CIDS and moving the

drilling unit to Camden Bay prior to

receiving an authorization under the

MMPA is in violation of the MMPA

because marine mammals will be

significantly affected by the action. In

addition, NMFS, by not enforcing the

MMPA and prohibiting the movement,

has also violated the MMPA and the

Administrative Procedure Act.

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS

believes that such an instruction is not

authorized by the MMPA, since under

the MMPA NMFS authorizes only the

taking of marine mammals incidental to

that activity, not the activity itself.

However, initiating an action that might

result in a taking of a marine mammal

without an authorization under the

MMPA places that activity in jeopardy

of violating the MMPA moratorium on

taking marine mammals.

This issue was the subject of a District

Court action by Greenpeace. On August

21, 1997, a U.S. District Court Judge for

the District of Columbia disallowed

Greenpeace’s request to the Court for a

Temporary Restraining Order to require

NMFS to stop ARCO’s moving the CIDS

to Camden Bay.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51643

Consultation

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS

has completed consultations on the

issuance of this authorization.

NEPA

In conjunction with the notice of

proposed authorization, NMFS released

a draft EA that addresses the impacts on

the human environment from issuance

of the authorization and the alternatives

to the proposed action. Comments

received on the draft EA, while leading

to an improved EA, did not provide

sufficient information that

implementation of either the proposed

action or the alternatives to that action

would have a significant effect on the

human environment. Therefore, as a

result of the findings made in the EA,

NMFS has concluded that

implementation of either the preferred

alternative or other identified

alternatives would not have a significant

impact on the human environment. As

a result of that finding, an EIS will not

be prepared. A copy of the EA is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Conclusions

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of exploration drilling and

related activities in the Beaufort Sea

will result, at worst, in a temporary

modification in behavior by certain

species of pinnipeds, and possibly some

individual bowhead or beluga whales.

While behavioral modifications may be

made by these species of marine

mammals to avoid the resultant noise

from tugs either towing the CIDS or

transporting supplies, or due to drilling

activities, this behavioral change is

expected to have a negligible impact on

the animals.

While the number of potential

incidental harassment takes will depend

on the distribution and abundance of

marine mammals (which vary annually

due to variable ice conditions and other

factors) in the activity area, the number

of potential harassment takings is

estimated to be small. In addition, no

take by injury and/or death is

anticipated and takes will be at the

lowest level practicable due to

incorporation of the mitigation

measures mentioned above. No

rookeries, mating grounds, areas of

concentrated feeding, or other areas of

special significance for marine

mammals occur within or near the

planned area of operations during the

season of operations.

Because bowhead whales are in the

Canadian Beaufort Sea until late

August/early September, moving the

CIDS during August will not impact

subsistence hunting of bowhead whales.

Appropriate mitigation measures to

avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of bowhead whales for

subsistence needs was the subject of

consultation between ARCO and

subsistence users. As a result of

discussions between the two parties, a

Conflict and Avoidance Agreement has

been concluded. This Agreement

consists of three main components: (1)

Communications, (2) conflict avoidance,

and (3) dispute resolution.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking

will not result in more than the

incidental harassment (as defined by the

MMPA) of small numbers of certain

species of marine mammals, would have

only a negligible impact on these stocks,

will not have an unmitigable adverse

impact on the availability of these

stocks for subsistence uses, and would

result in the least practicable impact on

the stocks, NMFS has determined that

the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D)

have been met and the authorization can

be issued.

Authorization

Accordingly, NMFS has issued an

IHA to ARCO Alaska for the above

described oil exploration drilling

activities in Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea,

AK, provided the mitigation, monitoring

and reporting requirements described in

the authorization are undertaken.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–26060 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Weather Service

Modernization and Associated

Restructuring

AGENCY: National Weather Service

(NWS), NOAA, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for

public comment.

SUMMARY: The NWS is publishing

proposed certifications for the

consolidation, automation, and closure

of the following Weather Service offices

at the indicated FAA Weather

Observation Service Level:

(1) Alamosa, CO Weather Service

Office (WSO) which will be automated

at FAA Weather Observation Service

Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Pueblo and

Grand Junction Weather Forecast

Offices (WFOs);

(2) Alpena, MI WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future North

Central Lower Michigan WFO;

(3) Houghton Lake, MI WSO which

will be automated at FAA Weather

Observation Service Level D and have

its services consolidated into the future

North Central Lower Michigan and

Grand Rapids WFOs;

(4) Kalispell, MT WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Missoula

WFO;

(5) Lander, WY WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Riverton

WFO;

(6) Norfolk, NE WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Omaha and

North Platte WFOs;

(7) Sault Ste. Marie, MI WSO which

will be automated at FAA Weather

Observation Service Level D and have

its services consolidated into the future

North Central Lower Michigan and

Marquette WFOs;

(8) Scottsbluff, NE WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Cheyenne

and North Platte WFOs;

(9) Sheridan, WY WSO which will be

automated at FAA Weather Observation

Service Level D and have its services

consolidated into the future Billings and

Riverton WFOs; and

(10) St. Cloud, MN WSO which will

be automated at FAA Weather

Observation Service Level D and have

its services consolidated into the future

Minneapolis and Aberdeen WFOs.

In accordance with Pub. L. 102–567,

the public will have 60 days in which

to comment on these proposed

consolidation, automation, and closure

certifications.

DATES: Comments are requested by

December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

proposed consolidation, automation and

closure packages should be sent to Tom

Beaver, Room 11426, 1325 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910,

telephone 301–713–0300. All comments

should be sent to Tom Beaver at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Beaver at 301–713–0300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with section 706 of Pub. L.