Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9291

Affected Public: State or local

governments, businesses, or other for

profit or non-profit institutions or

organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents

Utilities (Standard form)—7,700

Utilities (Short form)—(none)

Transportation (Standard form)—

168,000

Transportation (Short form)—51,000

Finance and Insurance (Standard

form)—240,000

Finance and Insurance (Short form)—

83,000

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing

(Standard form)—237,000

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (Short

form)—93,000

Estimated total number of respondents

for these four sectors: 879,700

Estimated Time Per Response

Utilities (Standard form)—1.9 hours

Utilities (Short form)—(none)

Transportation (Standard form)—1.1

hours

Transportation (Short form)—0.2 hours

Finance and Insurance (Standard

form)—1.4 hours

Finance and Insurance (Short form)—

0.2 hours

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing

(Standard form)—1.1 hours

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (Short

form)—0.2 hours

Estimated Total Burden Hours

Utilities (Standard form)—14,630

Utilities (Short form)—(none)

Transportation (Standard form)—

184,800

Transportation (Short form)—10,200

Finance and Insurance (Standard

form)—336,000

Finance and Insurance (Short form)—

16,600

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing

(Standard form)—260,700

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (Short

form)—18,600

Estimated total burden hours for these

four sectors: 841,530

Estimated Total Annual Cost

Utilities (Standard form)—$266,266

Utilities (Short form)—(none)

Transportation (Standard form)—

$3,363,360

Transportation (Short form)—$185,640

Finance and Insurance (Standard

form)—$6,115,200

Finance and Insurance (Short form)—

$302,120

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing

(Standard form)—$4,744,740

Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (Short

form)—$338,520

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C.,

Sections 131 and 224.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.

Dated: February 2, 2001.

Madeleine Clayton,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–3171 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 083000A]

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

exploration drilling activities during the

winter in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, offshore

Prudhoe Bay, has been issued to

Phillips Alaska, Inc. (Phillips).

DATES: Effective from February 1, 2001,

until August 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The application,

authorization, monitoring plan, and a

list of references used in this document

are available by writing to Donna

Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal

Conservation Division, Office of

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

20910-3225, or by telephoning one of

the contacts listed here.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-

2055, ext. 128, or Brad Smith, Western

Alaska Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271-

5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

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

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 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 no more

than a negligible impact on the species

or stock(s) and will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of the species or stock(s) for

subsistence uses and if the permissible

methods of taking and requirements

pertaining to the monitoring and

reporting of such taking are set forth.

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884),

NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things,

procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations under section

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 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 to be followed for this

authorization, please refer to that

document.

Summary of Request

On August 1, 2000, NMFS received an

application from Phillips requesting a 1-

year authorization for the possible

harassment of small numbers of marine

mammals incidental to constructing an

ice road and an ice island at the

McCovey Prospect Area and incidental

to drilling one or more oil exploration

wells at that location during the winter,

9292 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

2000/2001. The drilling location at

McCovey is approximately 14 mi (22.5

kilometers (km)) north of East Dock at

Prudhoe Bay, 7 mi (11.3 km) northwest

of Cross Island, and 12 mi (19.3 km) east

of the Northstar Unit.

The purpose of the operation is to

evaluate the oil and gas potential of

Phillips’ operated leases in the McCovey

area. The well will be drilled from an

ice island constructed at the beginning

of the winter drilling season. Some

equipment may be staged on Reindeer

Island prior to freeze-up; however, a

majority of the equipment will be staged

using the ice road.

Ice island construction is expected to

begin when ice conditions are thick

enough to allow heavy equipment to be

transported to the location via the ice

road (approximately December 2000).

One well is planned to be drilled from

a surface location in Outer Continental

Shelf Lease Block Y-1577. Depending on

the results found from this well, well

tests may be performed and a sidetrack

may be drilled as length of season

permits. All drilling and well-testing

operations will be performed only

during the 2000-2001 winter drilling

season and will be discontinued in May

2001 before ice break-up (which usually

occurs in late June or July). Drilling and

testing operations will not be conducted

in broken ice or open water periods. The

McCovey exploration well will be

plugged and abandoned regardless of

any commercial value demonstrated

during well testing and reservoir

evaluation. The exploration well is

expected to be moved back down the ice

road after operations are completed.

This is expected to occur between

approximately April 20 and May 2.

Prior to freeze-up in late October,

2000, materials will be barged to

Reindeer Island for staging. This

includes pumps, rolligons and diesel

fuel in storage tanks. The storage tanks

will be in a containment capable of

holding 110 percent of the capacity of

the tanks. An ice pad will be

constructed at Reindeer Island. A 12 to

14 mi (19.3 to 22.5 km) ice road will be

constructed from either West Dock or

East Dock in Prudhoe Bay out to the

McCovey location. The actual location

and length of the ice road will depend

on ice conditions prior to commencing

operations. The ice road will then be

used to transport the ice island

construction equipment and the drilling

rig out to the McCovey location.

The ice roads are expected to be

completed and ready for heavy traffic by

mid-February. Following construction,

the road will be maintained using

graders with snow wings and front-end

loaders with snow blowers until iceroad travel is no longer possible,

typically in mid-May.

The McCovey Ice Island will be

located in 37 ft (11.2 m) of water. Pumps

will be used to spray seawater into the

cold air to form ice-crystals. The

sprayed seawater is first used to thicken

the ice at the island location to 2 to 3

m (6.6 to 9.8 ft). Then the water will be

redirected to the center of the island to

ground the island core. The ice island

diameter is expected to be 950 ft (290

m) at the waterline and 700 ft (213.4 m)

at the working surface above the water.

After completion of the ice road and

island, a land-based drilling rig will be

transported to the location. The support

camp will be located on an ice pad

constructed on Reindeer Island

throughout the drilling operations.

Reindeer Island is approximately 4.5 mi

(7.2 km) from the ice island location. All

drilling materials will be transported to

the ice island by ice road and staged on

the ice island. Muds and cuttings will

be discharged to the sea ice in

accordance with the General Offshore

National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System permit

requirements.

A more detailed description of the

work planned is contained in the

application (Phillips, 2000) and is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

On October 11, 2000 (65 FR 60407),

NMFS published a notice of receipt and

a 30-day public comment period was

provided on the application and

proposed authorization. During the 30-

day public comment period, comments

were received from the Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC), the Alaska Eskimo

Whaling Commission (AEWC) and

Phillips. In addition, Phillips provided

technical data to assist NMFS in its

response to certain technical comments.

Finally, on November 8 and 9, 2000,

NMFS convened a peer review

workshop in Seattle, WA, to discuss

appropriate monitoring for marine

mammals by the oil and gas industry

during the winter season in the Beaufort

Sea. The recommendations of that

workshop are reflected in the

requirements for Phillips’ monitoring its

activity’s impact on marine mammals.

This monitoring is discussed later in

this document.

Comment 1: Phillips notes that the

proposed activity has been modified in

the following aspects. First, because

Reindeer Island has eroded, Phillips

plans to locate the support camp during

ice road and island construction at the

Prudhoe Bay West Dock Staging Pad

instead of the ice pad at Reindeer

Island. The ice pad at Reindeer Island

will still be used for staging equipment.

Second, the diameter of the ice island

work surface has been increased from

600 ft (182.9 m) to 700 ft (213.4 m).

Although this increases the diameter of

the island at the water line from 850 ft

(259.1 m) to 950 ft (290 m), this increase

in size (.005 km2 ( mi2)) does not

change the original estimate of the

number of ringed seals that may

potentially be harassed. Also, Phillips

has now obtained a Letter of

Authorization (LOA) from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the

unintentional taking of polar bears

incidental to its proposed activity.

Response: Thank you for updating the

status of your activity. These

modifications have been noted in this

document. NMFS believes that these

amendments will not result in any

increase or decrease in the number of

seals potentially impacted by the

proposed exploratory drilling project.

Comment 2: Phillips expresses

concern that NMFS has stated that it

may suspend or terminate the IHA if it

determines that dogs are available but

are not used by Phillips. Phillips states

that IHAs can only be suspended after

notice and opportunity for public

comment, except in an emergency

where a ‘‘significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine

mammals concerned’’ exists. Given the

expected low density of ringed seals and

the unlikelihood of a biologically

significant take, an ‘‘emergency’’ of this

sort is unlikely. Second, the intent

behind the suspension clause is to

protect marine mammals (50 CFR

216.107(f))- it would seem inappropriate

to suspend an IHA merely because one

monitoring method was used over

another, as regulations do not require

the use of dogs and when our operations

are not expected to have any biological

significance on ringed seals.

Response: Phillips is correct that

suspension or termination of an IHA

requires public notice and opportunity

for comment, unless an emergency

exists which poses a significant risk to

the well-being of the species or stocks

of marine mammals involved. However,

failure to comply with the conditions

and/or the requirements of an

authorization, such as monitoring,

taking unauthorized marine mammals,

or taking marine mammals in a manner

not authorized, may result not only in

a modification, suspension or

termination of an authorization (after

public notice and opportunity for

comment), it may also result in

subjecting affected individuals to the

penalties provided under the MMPA (50

CFR 216.107(h)). Employing alternative

monitoring, especially monitoring

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9293

identified as being less effective,

without either verbal or written

approval by NMFS, and, steps being

taken by NMFS to modify the IHA (if

the monitoring requirement is in the

IHA), is viewed by NMFS as a violation

of the permit conditions.

Comment 3: The MMC notes that the

discussion of harassment in the

proposed authorization document (65

FR 60407, October 11, 2000), does not

accurately reflect the statutory

definition of that term. Currently there

is nothing in the definition of Level B

harassment that requires a

determination of behavioral significance

for any disruption of behavioral patterns

that may occur to constitute a taking. In

fact, it was precisely the lack of a

significance threshold that led the

Administration to propose amending

the definition (of harassment in the

MMPA) earlier this year. While the

MMC agrees that the element of

significance (e.g., effects on

reproductive success) is appropriate to

consider in making a negligible impact

determination, the MMC does not

believe that using it as the threshold for

determining whether there is the

potential for taking by harassment

comports with the statutory definition.

The MMC recommends that NMFS

correct this misinterpretation of the

statute in future documents.

Response: Although the statutory

definition of Level B harassment does

not contain an explicit significance

threshold, NMFS believes that there is

a minimum significance level inherent

in the definition, which only prohibits

actions with the potential to ‘‘caus[e]

disruption of marine mammal

behavioral patterns, including, but not

limited to migration, breathing, nursing,

breeding, feeding, or sheltering.’’ In

other words, a simple change in a

marine mammal’s actions does not

always rise to the level of disruption of

its behavioral patterns. If an activity that

is not directed at a marine mammal has

the potential to incidentally cause a

disruption in one of these patterns, the

participants should either modify the

activity so that it doesn’t disrupt that

behavioral pattern, or apply for a small

take exemption. If the only reaction to

the activity on the part of the marine

mammal is within the normal repertoire

of actions that are required to carry out

that behavioral pattern, NMFS considers

the activity not to have caused a

disruption of the behavioral pattern,

provided the animal’s reaction is not

otherwise significant enough to be

considered disruptive due to length or

severity. Therefore, for example, a shortterm change in breathing rates or a

somewhat shortened or lengthened dive

sequence that are within the animal’s

normal range and that do not have any

biological significance (i.e., do not

disrupt the animal’s overall behavioral

pattern of breathing under the

circumstances), do not rise to a level

requiring a small take authorization.

Under the current action, NMFS noted

that neither simply hearing a noise from

ice road construction (and not having a

reaction) nor having a minor startle

reaction such as looking toward the

sound source (but no other behavioral

response) to the noise from ice road

construction or operation rise to a level

to be considered a disruption of a

behavioral pattern and therefore

constitute harassment.

The National Research Council (NRC,

2000) states that NMFS should

promulgate uniform regulations based

on their potential for a biologically

significant impact on marine mammals.

NMFS concurs and that is precisely the

reason NMFS and other Federal

agencies, including the MMC, proposed

amending the definition of harassment

currently found in the MMPA.

Comment 4: The AEWC states that the

McCovey Prospect is in an area known

for heavy ice conditions, near the ‘‘shear

zone’’ of the arctic ice pack. While

Phillips’ drilling operations are

proposed for the winter and early spring

months, unprecedented arctic weather

and ice conditions in recent years have

reduced the reliability of any

projections regarding the behavior of

arctic sea ice during this time. Fastmoving ice, driven by a combination of

ocean currents and winds, is a powerful

and common force in the Beaufort Sea.

Any of the elements individually has

the capacity to start the ‘‘ice override

conditions’’ that frequently occur

offshore in the Arctic. Such events can

occur at any time when ice is present,

subjecting all human activities in the

vicinity to great danger.

Response: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) has statutory authority

over the McCovey Ice Island to ensure

the safety of personnel and protection of

the environment. The applicant is

required to design, install and maintain

the ice island to insure island structural

integrity, against environmental

conditions at the island location, for the

duration of the exploration activities.

Phillips submitted the McCovey Ice

Island design to the MMS and the MMS

Certified Verification Agent (CVA) for

review and comment. The CVA is an

independent third-party expert that

reviews the applicant’s design, provides

quality assurance and verification

during island construction and

monitoring during drilling. Of particular

concern is the island’s ability to

withstand the forces from sea ice

pushing against the island and sea ice

overriding the island working surface.

All critical equipment, fuel storage,

structures, etc. will be setback at least

50 feet (15 m) from the edge of working

surface of the island. The MMS, CVA

and Phillips must all agree on the island

design, construction and monitoring

before the MMS will approve the island.

It is NMFS’ understanding that the

McCovey Ice Island design has been

approved by MMS.

Phillips explains that ice override

occurs when a thick sea ice sheet moves

landward across the shore zone, such as

Cross Island, as an unbroken sheet. Ice

override is not a condition seen when

ice moves against ice; instead this

results in pressure ridges and rubble

fields. Once the McCovey Ice Island is

constructed and grounded, it will be a

large solid mass of ice weighing about

370 million lbs (135,080,000 kg).

Therefore, if sea ice should move, it will

not move across the island, instead,

because the outer perimeter is

constructed of ice, the sea ice will

produce ‘‘rubbling.’’ The more rubbling

that occurs, the better protected the

island will be against future movements.

Comment 5: The AEWC believes that,

because the McCovey Prospect is an

exploration well, the risk of an

uncontrolled release of oil is even

greater than the risk created by a

production site like Northstar. The

AEWC is especially concerned that an

oil spill at the McCovey Prospect, even

during the winter and early spring,

could threaten the availability of

bowhead whales and other marine

resources for subsistence use.

Response: When making a

determination that an activity will have

no more than a negligible impact on a

species or stock of marine mammal and

that the taking will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of such species or stock for

subsistence uses, NMFS may find that

these determinations are appropriate, if

the probability of a take occurring is low

even though the potential effects may be

significant should that event occur. In

these cases, NMFS must balance the

probability of occurrence of impacts

with the potential severity of harm both

to the species or stock of marine

mammal affected, and to the Inupiat

communities that depend upon the

bowhead whale to meet its subsistence

needs (see 54 FR 40338, September 29,

1989). Such determinations must be

made based on the best scientific

information available.

NMFS recognizes that, while there is

considerable disagreement as to the

effects of an oil spill on bowhead

9294 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

whales and other marine mammals in

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, to date no

blowouts have occurred during drilling

exploratory wells in Alaskan waters.

The MMS uses an Oil Spill Risk

Analysis to estimate the probability of

an oil spill on bowhead whales and

other marine mammals and concluded

that, for the base-case the probability for

an oil spill of 1,000 barrels or more to

occur and contacting bowhead whale

habitat when bowhead whales were

present, from all activities associated

with Lease Sale 124 (both exploration

and potential development) was low.

Because this probability is based on a

significant amount of activity, the

potential for an individual activity must

be considered even less. However, some

data on the anatomy and migratory

behavior of bowhead whales suggest

that impacts from a large oil spill could

pose a threat to this species, especially

if substantial amounts of oil got into the

lead system during the spring migration

(Albert 1981, Shotts et al. 1990).

However, using the information

provided in MMS’ Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Lease Sale 124

(MMS, 1990), which fully describes this

scenario, NMFS does not find evidence

that there would be more than a

minimum potential for an oil spill to

occur as a result of a single exploratory

well and even less potential for that

spill to reach the bowhead whale spring

or fall migrations. This supports NMFS’

conclusion that the activity will not

have more than a negligible impact on

marine mammals, including the

bowhead whale, inhabiting the Beaufort

Sea.

Comment 6: The AEWC strongly

opposes the issuance of a small take

authorization to Phillips for exploratory

drilling at the McCovey Prospect at this

time, since there are no measures in

place to mitigate the impacts to Native

Alaskan subsistence hunting if an oil

spill were to occur as a result of the

proposed activities. The AEWC also

believes that, because only a small

number of exploratory wells (possibly

only two) have ever been drilled from

ice islands in the Beaufort Sea, the

AEWC’s confidence is further reduced

that Phillips and its contractors have the

experience or the capability to address

the potential risks that would be created

by the proposed activity. Finally, the

AEWC believes that Phillips does not

have a plan to expeditiously complete a

relief well to control a blowout at the

McCovey site.

Response: Bugno et al. (1990) indicate

that, as of 1988, 34 exploratory wells

have been drilled in the Beaufort Sea

using floating ice platforms and two

using grounded ice platforms.

Apparently, few have been drilled since

that time. However, Phillips has

provided an Oil Discharge Prevention

and Contingency Plan (ODPCP) to the

MMS. The ODPCP is an extensive

document that addresses oil spill

response, logistics, several spill

scenarios, cleanup activities, and

numerous other aspects of oil spill

prevention and response. It is NMFS’

understanding that the ODPCP has been

approved by MMS and that the ODPCP

contains a plan to expeditiously

complete a relief well.

In addition, as noted in Phillips

application, the North Slope operators

and several other firms have jointly

formed an oil spill response cooperative

(ACS), which is based in Deadhorse,

AK. ACS is contractually obligated to

provide response services for the

McCovey operations. ACS maintains

one of the world’s largest inventories of

spill contaminant and cleanup

equipment there for use by all members.

ACS also has a full time staff trained in

operation and maintenance of the

cooperative’s spill equipment.

Additionally, Phillips has its own

inventory of spill response equipment

on the North Slope in each current or

soon-to-be producing sites, such as

Kuparuk and Alpine, as part of its

development field operations. Other

oilfield operators also have spill

response equipment located at their

field and are available to provide

support pursuant to a Mutual Aid

Agreement between all North Slope

operators. This equipment can be

mobilized for spill response as needed.

Finally, the Deadhorse, AK service

contractors maintain a crew of

personnel trained in oil spill response

activities that can be utilized as needed.

While NMFS recognizes the

difficulties in responding to an oil spill

under the ice or in broken ice, as

demonstrated recently at the Northstar

test, because, as mentioned in response

to comment 5, the potential is low for

(1) an oil spill to occur from a single

exploratory well, (2) any of that spilled

oil to either reach the offshore spring

leads, or (3) spilled oil to remain in the

area to intercept the westward migrating

bowheads several months later, NMFS

is unable to concur with the AEWC that

the drilling one or more exploratory

wells during the winter, 2000/2001 will

have an unmitigable adverse impact (as

defined in 50 CFR 216.103) on the

availability of the marine mammals

species or stock for subsistence uses.

This, NMFS believes, is further

supported by: (1) the issuance of a land

use permit to Phillips by the North

Slope Borough (NSB) to conduct this

activity and (2) the lack of concern

expressed by NSB that Phillips and the

NSB had not concluded a Conflict

Avoidance Agreement (CAA). NMFS

notes that the NSB has, in the past,

either denied permits, or amended the

scope of work through a CAA, when it

determined that the activity had a

potential to affect the subsistence

harvest.

Comment 7: The AEWC notes that

since the OCS tract containing the

McCovey prospect was leased, the MMS

and the State of Alaska have recognized

the unacceptable level of risk created by

proposed development in the area of

Cross Island. As a result, both agencies

have created lease sale stipulations that

prohibit the siting of production

facilities within a 10-mile (16-km)

radius of Cross Island, unless the lessee

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

MMS Regional Director, in consultation

with the NSB and the AEWC, that the

development will not preclude

reasonable subsistence access to

bowhead whales.

Response: NMFS understands that the

MMS did not find there was an

unacceptable risk from development in

the Cross Island area. For Lease Sale

170, MMS considered both a lease

stipulation to minimize effects to

whales from noise and space use

conflicts (subsistence activities) and a

deferral area (remove the area from any

leasing). The MMS opted to adopt the

lease stipulation, as noted in the AEWC

comment, which prohibits permanent

production facilities within a 10-mile

(16-km) radius of Cross island, unless

the lessee can demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the MMS Regional

Director, in consultation with the NSB

and the AEWC, that the development

would not preclude reasonable

subsistence access to the whales. If

McCovey is a commercial discovery,

MMS would do a full environmental

review (likely an environmental impact

statement) and would further evaluate

these issues based on a project specific

development plan. The stipulation,

however, is directed only at permanent

production facilities, not temporary

exploratory activities, such as McCovey.

According to the MMS, the driving issue

was noise and space use conflicts, not

oil spills.

Comment 8: The AEWC recommends

that NMFS not issue the IHA to Phillips

while meetings are ongoing to develop

mitigation measures to help address

adverse impacts to coastal subsistence

communities in the event of an offshore

oil spill or an event with similar effects

on subsistence lifestyle.

Response: The meetings between the

oil industry and the AEWC/NSB

concern long-term mitigation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9295

agreements for offshore oil development

activities, not, in particular, the offshore

oil exploration industry. Considering

that the last meeting of the group was

held in Anchorage, AK in July, 2000,

and that no meetings are currently

planned, NMFS cannot accept this

recommendation. NMFS believes that

the principal mitigation measures

proposed for this activity, which are: (1)

the activity will be conducted in winter

time to avoid impacts to the fall

bowhead whale hunt, (2) an approved

ODPCP to address oil spill response and

cleanup activities and will be in place,

and (3) the ACS has been established to

respond to an oil spill, is sufficient for

NMFS to determine that the oil

exploration activity at McCovey will not

have an unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence needs for bowhead whales

or other marine mammal species.

Comment 9: The MMC believes not

only that the use of trained dogs to

locate ringed seal lairs and other

structures is the preferred method, it is

the only reliable method for doing so.

The MMC, therefore, supports NMFS’

proposal to condition the requested IHA

to require the use of dogs for

monitoring.

Response: Thank you for the

comment.

Comment 10: Phillips notes that its

proposed monitoring plan includes the

use of trained dogs to locate seal

structures due to discussions at the 1999

on-ice workshop and the subsequent

LOAs that were issued that year.

However, the proposal to use dogs does

not reflect Phillips’ support for this

monitoring method. Phillips notes that

the use of dogs to locate seal structures

may cause harm to ringed seals. Phillips

states that a study was recently

published which indicates that dogs

may transmit disease to ringed seals,

and that at least one Alaskan island has

banished dogs for this very reason. Also,

it is likely that a ringed seal would

consider a dog to be a predator, and a

predator’s approach to a ringed seal’s

lair could result in a behavioral

response that may have biological

significance on the part of the animal.

While Phillips is committed to reducing

any impact of its operations on ringed

seals, for these reasons it would prefer

not to use trained dogs in the future.

Response: NMFS recognizes Phillips’

reluctance to using dogs on the ice and

in that context, strongly recommends

the oil industry promote research on

alternate, effective, means to locate

ringed seal structures. However, as

noted in the previous comment, the use

of trained dogs to locate seal structures

is the only reliable method known at

this time to accurately locate seal

structures in the Beaufort Sea. While

domestic dogs carry some diseases (e.g.,

canine distemper) which have been

found in seals, and there have been

some who have hypothesized that dogs

transmit these diseases to seals, other

carnivores also carry these diseases, so

it is not clear whether dogs were

actually the vector. In addition, the

trained Labrador retrievers used in this

monitoring program are routinely

vaccinated for the types of diseases

which are of the greatest concern. While

dogs have been prohibited on the

Pribilof Islands for many years, this

prohibition is to prevent the

harassment, injury and mortality of the

northern fur seals on the Islands. Since

the Arctic fox, which is indigenous to

these Islands, is also a vector for

transmission of disease to marine

mammals, prohibiting dogs for this

reason would not have any beneficial

value.

Comment 11: Phillips is concerned

because NMFS notes that it intends to

continue to require applicants to use

dogs ‘‘until such time as NMFS has

clear evidence that ice roads and other

activities taking place during the winter

are not having a cumulative impact on

ringed seals... .’’ Phillips states that

NMFS recently stated that it does not

have statutory or regulatory authority to

require applicants to monitor for

cumulative impacts. Thus, Phillips

believes that it is inappropriate to

require it to use dogs to determine

whether cumulative impacts are

occurring.

Response: Trained dogs will be

required as part of the IHA issued to

Phillips for work at McCovey. Since an

IHA is valid for no more than a single

year, NMFS cannot require monitoring

for a period of time after expiration of

the IHA. However, NMFS can require

monitoring be designed and

implemented to detect cumulative

impacts if a project is either proposed to

take place over several years (such as

the Northstar oil production facility) or

when an individual activity is receiving

an annual IHA for conducting

essentially the same activity every year,

such as seismic work in the Beaufort

Sea. At this time, it is the opinion of the

scientists attending the November 6-9,

2000, Beaufort Sea Marine Mammal

Monitoring Workshop in Seattle, WA

that site specific monitoring efforts are

critical components of any cumulative

impacts monitoring program.

Comment 12: Phillips notes that

monitoring requirements on the

industry have only increased over the

years, despite a lack of a more-thannegligible effect on ringed seals and

other marine mammals. Under these

circumstances, Phillips believes that it

is more reasonable to decrease the

monitoring burdens imposed on it than

to continually increase them.

Response: NMFS disagrees that

monitoring has increased significantly

for the oil and gas exploration industry

conducting winter operations. Since

neither Phillips nor its predecessor have

applied for IHAs for constructing ice

roads and an ice island previously,

NMFS questions its concern that

monitoring requirements on it be

reduced. Prior to 1999, ice-road

construction authorizations simply

required the use of biologically trained,

on-site individual(s), approved in

advance by NMFS, to conduct on-ice

searches for ringed seal lairs. Marine

mammal scientists determined that such

monitoring was ineffective in locating

seal structures. That type of monitoring

has been replaced by the use of trained

dogs to locate seal structures. Although

all indications to date are that on-ice

activities are not having more than a

negligible impact on ringed seal

populations, monitoring and research to

conclusively verify or refute this

assumption has not been designed or

implemented. Requiring the use of

trained dogs to monitor impacts on

ringed seal structures, is a first step to

obtaining that information.

Comment 13: The MMC recommends

that NMFS should not accept human

monitoring (i.e., without the use of

trained dogs) until it has been

demonstrated that such monitoring is as

effective as that carried out using dogs.

Response: NMFS notes that there are

only a limited number of dogs trained

to locate seal structures currently

available in Alaska. These dogs are

mostly used in conducting scientific

research. In addition, some industry

components are proposing to use dogs

trained in Canada, but even those are

limited in number and periods of

availability. With increasing levels of

activity in the Beaufort Sea, for which

NMFS is requiring trained dogs to

monitor for ringed seal structures,

NMFS needs to reserve the right to

waive this form of monitoring, if dogs

are not available. NMFS prefers to

return to requiring human searches

using avalanche probes prior to either

not requiring any monitoring, or worse,

allowing the use of untrained dogs

(which would have the potential to

increase the level of ringed seal

disturbance).

Description of Habitat and Marine

Mammals Affected by the Activity

A detailed description of the Beaufort

Sea ecosystem and its associated marine

mammals can be found in several

9296 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

documents (Corps of Engineers, 1999;

Minerals Management Service (MMS),

1990, 1992, 1996; NMFS, 1997).

Marine Mammals

The Beaufort/Chukchi Seas support a

diverse assemblage of marine mammals,

including bowhead whales (Balaena

mysticetus), gray whales (Eschrichtius

robustus), beluga (Delphinapterus

leucas), ringed seals (Phoca hispida),

spotted seals (Phoca largha) and

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus).

Descriptions of the biology and

distribution of these species, as well as

others, can be found in several other

documents (Hill et al., 1999; Hill and

DeMaster, 1999, 1998; NMFS, 1997).

Please refer to those documents for

information on the biology, distribution

and abundance of these species.

However, because the proposed oil

exploration activity will take place only

during the winter, only ringed seals and,

possibly, a few bearded seals have any

potential to be impacted by the project.

A description of the biology and

abundance of these two seal species are

addressed in NMFS’ Environmental

Assessment (EA) on Winter Seismic

Activities (NMFS, 1998). The

documents mentioned here and in other

parts of this document are considered

part of this decision-making process.

In addition to the species mentioned

in the preceding paragraph, polar bears

(Ursus maritimus) also have the

potential to be taken incidental to the

proposed activity. This species is under

the jurisdiction of the USFWS. As a

result, Phillips has applied for a LOA

from the USFWS for the taking of this

species incidental to the McCovey

drilling project.

Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals

Disturbance by noise is the principal

means for potential takings by

harassment by this activity. The marine

mammal most likely to be impacted by

construction of the ice road and ice

island is the ringed seal. A slight

possibility exists to impact bearded

seals. While the applicant noted that

there is a chance that a ringed seal could

be killed during ice road construction

(and ice island construction), NMFS

believes that noise from road and island

construction activity, the timing of the

construction in December, and the

monitoring described later in this

document will make the injury or

mortality of ringed seals very unlikely.

However, the ice island location cannot

be moved due to the engineering

required for ice island design and

construction. As a result, breathing

holes or structures located within the

footprint of the island will be covered

by ice and the seals would need to

relocate. However, constructing the

island in December will mitigate the

potential for damage to birthing lairs

since most ringed seal birth lairs are not

built until later in the winter, pups are

not born until mid-March in this area,

and several structures would be

available for each seal by that time for

use as birthing and pupping lairs.

Site specific ringed seal survey work

was conducted by Western Geophysical

at the McCovey location during April

2000 (Coltrane and Williams, 2000). A

total of 22 seal structures were found in

the core survey area and the

surrounding 1 km (0.62 mi) monitoring

zone. An additional 21 structures were

found in the transit survey route.

Seventeen of the structures were

breathing holes, 20 were lairs, and 6

were unidentified; none of the

identified lairs were birthing lairs.

Coltrane and Williams (2000) reported

that 28 structures were revisited later.

The remaining 15 structures were not

rechecked as these structures were

either of unknown status or frozen at the

time of the initial search. Four breathing

holes were found to be abandoned since

the initial search (one was abandoned

due to research, not industrial activity).

The total abandonment rate of active

seal structures after shallow hazards

survey operations was 11 percent (3 of

28). In addition, the initial survey

revealed that 19 percent (8 of 43) of the

structures located had already been

abandoned prior to any industrial

searches. Coltrane and Williams (2000)

believe that this natural abandonment

rate was comparably higher than the

abandonment rate after industrial

activities in the area (19 percent

compared to 11 percent). As noted at the

2000 Seattle On-Ice Workshop however,

others believe that these rates cannot be

compared because the periods during

which the holes could have become

abandoned are drastically different.

Therefore, it may be unknown whether

abandonment rate due to shallow

hazard survey is the same as the natural

abandonment rate (Angliss, pers.

comm., 2001).

Aerial surveys of seal density and

abundance, conducted in 1997 in

support of the Northstar project (which

is approximately 9 miles (14.5 km) to

the west from the proposed McCovey

Prospect), indicated an average density

over the area (including the McCovey

Prospect area) of 0.43 ringed seals/km2.

The overall observed density on landfast

ice, over water depths of 5-20 m (16.4-

65.6 ft), was 0.42 ringed seals/km2

(Miller et al., 1998). Surveys conducted

in 1999 by Richardson and Williams

(2000) indicated an overall observed

density of 0.56 seals/km2. Excluding

waters less than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep where

ringed seals were rarely seen, the overall

observed density was 0.63 seals/km2.

The overall observed density in areas

greater than 3 m (9.8 ft) deep was higher

in 1999 than in either 1997 or 1998

(0.39 seals/km2).

Based on the methodology for

assessing ringed seal takes by industrial

activities at Northstar (see BP

Exploration (Alaska), 1998), Phillips

estimates that less than 31 ringed seals

may be within an area where

harassment takings might potentially

occur. This estimate is based on the

assumptions that any ringed seals

within 0.4 mi (0.644 km) of the ice road

and within 2.3 mi (3.7 km) of the ice

island may be able to hear the noise

associated with the McCovey Prospect.

This estimate is based on the density

recorded during the 1997 aerial survey

of 0.42 seals/km2 (Miller et al. 1998).

Phillips believes that this estimate of

take is very conservative since the noise

associated with ice island construction

should be less than the noise associated

with construction of the gravel island at

Northstar. The 2.3 mi (3.7 km) was

based on noise measurements made by

Greene (1983) for construction of Seal

Island in 1982. Also, the estimated

‘‘take’’ is based on the entire ice road

length of 12.5 miles (20.12 km) with no

deduction for areas where the ice road

may cross grounded ice (with no ringed

seal presence).

Bearded seals are not expected to be

in the area except in very small numbers

and, therefore, should not be affected by

the activity. Bearded seal preference for

open water further limits the potential

for their being in this area at this time

of the year.

Therefore, based on the preceding

discussion, NMFS concludes that the

taking by noise harassment incidental to

construction of the ice road and ice

island will result in no more than a few

dozen harassment takings by this

activity.

Potential Effects on Subsistence Needs

NMFS has not identified any

unmitigable adverse impacts by this

activity that are likely to occur and

thereby affect the availability of marine

mammals for subsistence needs. While

there is a potential for a significant

impact on the availability of bowhead

whales for subsistence needs should a

large oil spill occur and not be cleaned

up prior to either reaching the spring

leads or remaining in the area all

summer to intercept the westward

migrating bowheads, the potential for

that occurring from a single activity is

considered remote.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9297

Potential Effect on Habitat

The ice island will be a temporary

structure on the winter ice. The

temporary loss of this area is negligible

when compared with the size of the

nearshore Beaufort Sea. When drilling

and well-testing operations are

completed, the well will be plugged and

abandoned in accordance with MMS

and Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation

Commission regulations. This

abandonment will leave the project area

in essentially an unmodified condition

since no wellhead or other structures

will remain above the ocean floor.

In the unlikely event that there is an

oil spill, Phillips has prepared an oil

discharge prevention and contingency

plan (ODPCP) specifically for this

activity. The ODPCP is an extensive

document that addresses spill response,

several spill scenarios, cleanup

activities, and numerous other aspects

of oil spill prevention and response. Oil

spill response teams are located in

Deadhorse, AK. Phillips and other

operators have oil spill response

equipment available in each current or

soon-to-be oil-producing area on the

North Slope.

Mitigation

Several mitigation measures to reduce

the potential for marine mammal

harassment will be implemented by

Phillips as part of its proposed activity.

These include:

(1) Conducting a winter drilling

program using a land-based rig instead

of using the Concrete Island Drilling

System platform, a floating platform, or

a semisubmersible platform. The latter

two platforms would require the need

for icebreaker vessels;

(2) Conducting drilling operations

during winter months instead of during

the open water season, and

(3) Constructing the ice road and ice

island in December before seal

structures are made into fully developed

lairs and especially before ringed seals

birthings begin in mid-March.

Marine Mammal Monitoring

Phillips will utilize trained dogs and

visual observations to assess the level of

take of, and impact to, ringed seals

during project activities. Prior to

commencing ice road or ice island

construction, trained dogs will be used

to locate seal breathing holes and lairs

along the proposed footprint of the ice

road route and ice island pad. An

adjacent 150-m (492-ft) buffer along the

ice road route and a 1-km (0.62-mi)

buffer around the ice island will also be

surveyed by dogs. Although Phillips has

arranged for trained dogs to be available

for this activity, in the event that these

dogs are not available for the survey

(incapacitated, ill, etc), after review and

approval by NMFS, Phillips would be

allowed to employ a visual survey prior

to onset of construction activities. The

visual survey would involve searching

the designated area for breathing holes

and examining pressure ridges, ice

hummocks, and deep ice cracks for

lairs. Attempts will be made to confirm

the presence of lairs by using an

aluminum rod to locate the breathing

hole or lair access hole where practical.

Success in visually locating lairs will be

limited by the relatively low density of

ringed seals combined with the

difficulty of finding breathing holes or

lairs on snow-covered ice during winter

conditions. A professional marine

mammal biologist and an Inupiat hunter

would be conducting the visual survey.

In order to obtain an indication of

ringed seal response to Phillips’

operations, a second seal structure

survey will be conducted near the end

of the McCovey project activities. The

second survey will be conducted by

biologists on snow machines using

Differential Global Positioning System

units to relocate and determine the

presence or absence of seals in lairs

identified during the first survey. Any

new holes would also be noted.

Once drilling begins, a designated

polar bear watch (typically an Inupiat

hunter) will also look for and record

seal activities. Because of the low

expectation of interactions during the

winter with marine mammals that are

under the jurisdiction of NMFS,

dedicated observers are not considered

necessary on the ice island. As a result,

NMFS is requiring, as part of the IHA,

that Phillips instruct the polar bear

watchperson to maintain a sightingsand-behavior log for seals that is

separate from the Polar Bear Sightings

Log. This latter reporting requirement is

mandated by 50 CFR 18.27. Failure to

use dogs when available may be in

violation of the IHA and may result in

suspension or termination of that IHA.

Reporting

The IHA requires Phillips to submit

one report under this proposed

authorization. This report will be

required 90 days after completion of

activities authorized for marine

mammal takings. That report will be

reviewed by NMFS prior to formal

acceptance and modifications may be

required to that report as a result of its

review.

National Environmental Policy Act

The activity proposed by Phillips was

the subject of a Final Environmental

Impact Statement prepared by MMS in

conjunction with Lease Sale 124 (MMS,

1990).

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

No species listed as either threatened

or endangered under section 4 of the

ESA are likely to be taken as a result of

either the activity described in this

document or the issuance of an IHA

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

MMPA.

Conclusions

Based upon the information contained

in the application, in this document,

and in supplemental documentation,

NMFS has determined that the shortterm impact of exploration drilling and

related activities in the U.S. Beaufort

Sea will result, at worst, in a temporary

modification in behavior by certain

species of pinnipeds. While behavioral

modifications may be made by these

species of marine mammals to avoid the

resultant noise from ice road and ice

island construction, or from the

transportation of the oil rig and supplies

on the ice road, or from 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 or death is anticipated,

and takes will be at the lowest level

practicable due to incorporation of the

mitigation measures mentioned

previously. No known 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.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking

would not result in more than the

incidental harassment (as defined by the

MMPA Amendments of 1994) of small

numbers of certain species of marine

mammals, would have only a negligible

impact on these stocks, would not have

an unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of these stocks for

subsistence uses, and would result in

the least practicable impact on the

stocks, NMFS has determined that the

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

the MMPA have been met and the

authorization can be issued.

Authorization

Accordingly, NMFS issued an IHA on

the date of this document to Phillips for

9298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

the possible harassment of small

numbers of ringed seals and bearded

seals incidental to constructing an ice

road and ice island and drilling an oil

exploration well at the McCovey

Prospect during the winter 2000/01,

provided the previously mentioned

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting

requirements are carried out.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

Wanda Cain,

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3182 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Science Board

ACTION: Cancellation of advisory

committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board

Task Force on Options for Acquisition

of the Advanced Targeting Pod and

Advanced Technology FLIR Pod (ATP/

ATFLIR) meeting scheduled for January

26, 2001, was not held.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01–3138 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Science Board

ACTION: Meeting date change of advisory

committee meeting.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board

(DSB) Task Force on Systems

Technology for the Future U.S. Strategic

Posture closed meeting scheduled for

February 13–14, 2001, has been changed

to February 7–8, 2001. The meeting will

be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601

Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington,

VA.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01–3139 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Threat Reduction Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2000 (65 FR

82984), the Department of Defense

published an announcement of a closed

Threat Reduction Advisory Committee

meeting to be held on February 15,

2001. The meeting is hereby postponed

until a later date. A new notice

announcing will be published in the

future.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major Don Culp 703–767–5717.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01–3140 Filed 2–06–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to amend systems of

records.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army

is amending five systems of records

notices in its existing inventory of

record systems subject to the Privacy

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as

amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be

effective without further notice on

March 9, 2001 unless comments are

received which result in a contrary

determination.

ADDRESSES: Records Management

Division, U.S. Army Records

Management and Declassification

Agency, ATTN: TAPC–PDD–RP, Stop

5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA

22060–5603.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Janice Thornton at (703) 806–4390 or

DSN 656–4390 or Ms. Christie King at

(703) 806–3711 or DSN 656–3711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of the Army systems of

records notices subject to the Privacy

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as

amended, have been published in the

Federal Register and are available from

the address above.

The specific changes to the records

systems being amended are set forth

below followed by the notices, as

amended, published in their entirety.

The proposed amendments are not

within the purview of subsection (r) of

the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a),

as amended, which requires the

submission of a new or altered system

report.

February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

A0027 DAJA

SYSTEM NAME:

Civil Process Case Files (July 15,

1997, 62 FR 37891).

CHANGES:

* * * * *

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

Add to entry ‘‘E.O. 9397 (SSN)’’.

* * * * *

STORAGE:

Delete entry and replace with ‘Paper

records and cards in file cabinets and

electronic storage media.’’

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Delete entry and replace with

‘Disposition pending (until NARA

disposition is approved, treat as

permanent)’.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Delete entry and replace with

‘Commander, Office of the Judge

Advocate, Headquarters, U.S. Army

Europe and Seventh Army, Unit 29351,

APO AE 09104–0007.’’

* * * * *

A0027 DAJA

SYSTEM NAME:

Civil Process Case Files.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Office of the Judge Advocate,

Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe and

Seventh Army, Unit 29351, APO AE

09014–0007.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Military members of the Armed

Forces, civilian employees of the U.S.

Government, and their dependents upon

whom service is made of documents

issued by German civil courts, customs

and taxing agencies, and other

administrative agencies.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Documents from German authorities

regarding payment orders, execution

orders, demands for payment of

indebtedness, notifications to establish