Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65923

Vitron Manufacturing, Inc., Phoenix, AZ

Vitullo & Associates, Inc., Warren, MI

Vobeda Machine & Tool Company,

Racine, WI

Vulcan Tool Corporation, Dayton, OH

W + D Machinery Company, Inc.,

Overland Park, KS

W & H Stampings & Fineblanking, Inc.,

Hauppauge, NY

W D & J Machine & Engineering Inc.,

Fullerton, CA

W E C Technologies Corporation,

Amityville, NY

W G Strohwig Tool & Die, Inc.,

Richfield, WI

W W G, Inc., Indianapolis, IN

W. C. Kirby & Son, Inc., Noblesville, IN

W.A.C. Consulting/Coss Systems Inc.,

Northboro, MA

WADKO Precision, Inc., Houston, TX

Wagner Engraving Co., Kirkwood, MO

Wagner Engineering, Inc., Gilbert, AZ

Waiteco Machine, Acton, MA

Wajo Tool and Die, Inc., East

Hampstead, NH

Walker Tool & Machine Company,

Perrysburg, OH

Walker Corporation, Ontario, CA

Wallner Tooling/Expac, Inc., Rancho

Cucamonga, CA

Waltco Engineering, Inc., Gardena, CA

Walter Waukesha, Inc., Waukesha, WI

Walter Tool & Mfg. Inc., Elgin, IL

Walz & Krenzer, Inc., Oxford, CT

Warmelin Precision Products,

Hawthorne, CA

Waukesha Tool & Stamping Inc.,

Sussex, WI

Wayne Manufacturing, Inc., Boulder,

CO

Webco Machine Products, Inc., Valley

View, OH

Weco Metal Products, Ontario, NY

Wejco Instruments Inc., Houston, TX

Wemco Precision Tool, Inc., Meadville,

PA

Wentworth Company, Glastonbury, CT

Werkema Machine Company, Inc.,

Grand Rapids, MI

Wes Products, Madison Heights, MI

West Valley Precision Inc., San Jose, CA

West Valley Milling, Inc., Chatsworth,

CA

West Tool & Manufacturing, Inc.,

Cleveland, OH

West Pharmaceutical Services, Erie, PA

Western Tap Manufacturing Co., Inc.,

Buena Park, CA

Western Air Products, Tucson, AZ

Western Mass. MechTech, Inc., Ware,

MA

Westfield Tool & Die, Inc., Westfield,

MA

Westfield Manufacturing Corp.,

Westfield, IN

Westlake Tool & Die Mfg., Avon, OH

Westool Corporation, Temperance, MI

Westtool Inc., Phoenix, AZ

WGI Inc., Southwick, MA

Whatever Manufacturing, Santa Ana,

CA

White Machine, Inc., North Royalton,

OH

Whitehead Tool & Design, Inc., Guys

Mills, PA

Wiegel Tool Works, Inc., Wood Dale, IL

Wiesen EDM, Inc., Belding, MI

Wightman Engineering Services, Inc.,

Santa Clara, CA

Wilco Die Tool Machine Company,

Maryland Heights, MO

Wilkinson Mfg., Inc., Santa Clara, CA

Willer Tool Corporation, Jackson, WI

William Sopko & Sons Co., Inc.,

Cleveland, OH

Williams Machine, Inc., Lake Elsinore,

CA

Williams Engineering & Manufacturing,

Inc., Chatsworth, CA

Williams Tooling Inc., Dorr, MI

Windsor Tool & Die, Inc., Cleveland, OH

Wintech Industries Inc., Tempe, AZ

Winter’s Grinding Service, Menomonee

Falls, WI

Wire Tech E D M, Inc., Los Alamitos,

CA

Wire Cut Company, Inc., Buena Park,

CA

Wirecut Technologies Inc., Indianapolis,

IN

WireCut E D M, Inc., Dallas, TX

Wiretec, Inc., Delmont, PA

Wisconsin Engraving Company/,

Unitex, New Berlin, WI

Wisconsin Mold Builders, LLC,

Waukesha, WI

Wise Machine Co., Inc., Butler, PA

Wolverine Tool Company, St. Clair

Shores, MI

Wolverine Bronze Company, Roseville,

MI

Wolverine Tool & Engineering, Belmont,

MI

Woodruff Corporation, Torrance, CA

Wright-K Technology, Inc., Saginaw, MI

Wright Brothers Welding & Sheet Metal,

Inc., Hollister, CA

Wright Industries, Inc., Gilbert, AZ

WSI Industries, Inc., Wayzata, MN

X–L Machine Company, Inc., Three

Rivers, MI

XLI Corporation, Rochester, NY

Yarde Metals, Inc., Bristol, CT

Yates Tool, Inc., Medina, OH

Yoder Die Casting Corporation, Dayton,

OH

Youngberg Industries, Inc., Belvidere, IL

Youngers and Sons Manufacturing,

Company, Inc., Viola, KS

Youngstown Plastic Tooling &

Machinery, Inc., Youngstown, OH

Z & Z Machine Products Inc., Racine,

WI

Z M D Mold & Die Inc., Mentor, OH

Zip Tool & Die Co., Inc., Cleveland, OH

Zip Products Inc., Rochester, NY

Zircon Precision Products, Inc., Tempe,

AZ

Zuelzke Tool & Engineering,

Milwaukee, WI

[FR Doc. 01–31498 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 071901A]

Taking and Importing Marine

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals

Incidental to Construction and

Operation of Offshore Oil and Gas

Facilities in the Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of a letter of

authorization.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA), as amended, and

implementing regulations, notification

is hereby given that a letter of

authorization (LOA) to take a small

number of marine mammals incidental

to the production of offshore oil and gas

at the Northstar development in the

Beaufort Sea off Alaska has been issued

to BP Exploration (Alaska), Anchorage,

AK (BPXA).

DATES: This LOA is effective from

December 14, 2001, until November 30,

2002.

ADDRESSES: A copy of BPXA’s

application, the LOA and a list of

references used in this document may

be obtained by writing to the Office of

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

20910, or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed here. Other reports

referenced in this document are

available for review, by appointment

during regular business hours, at the

following offices: Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, and

Western Alaska Field Office, NMFS, 701

C Street, Anchorage, AK 99513, and the

National Marine Mammal Laboratory,

NMFS, Bldg 4, 7600 Sand Point Way

NE, Seattle, WA 98115.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713-

2055, ext. 128, or Brad Smith (907) 271-

5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C.

1361 et seq.) directs NMFS to allow, on

request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of small numbers of

65924 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

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 by NMFS and regulations are

issued. Under the MMPA, the term

‘‘taking’’ means to harass, hunt, capture,

or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt,

capture or kill marine mammals.

Permission may be granted for periods

up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after

notification and opportunity for public

comment, that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s) of marine mammals, will not

have an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of the species or stock(s)

of marine mammals for subsistence

uses, and if regulations are prescribed

setting forth the permissible methods of

taking and the requirements pertaining

to the monitoring and reporting of such

taking. Regulations governing the taking

of marine mammals incidental to

construction and operation of the

offshore oil and gas facility at Northstar

in the Beaufort Sea were published and

made effective on May 25, 2000 (65 FR

34014), and remain in effect until May

25, 2005.

Summary of Request

On May 15, 2001, NMFS received a

request from BPXA for a renewal of an

LOA issued on September 28, 2000 (65

FR 58265) for the taking of marine

mammals incidental to production

operations of the offshore oil and gas

facility at Northstar in state and Federal

waters, under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the

MMPA. This request contained

information in compliance with 50 CFR

216.209 which updated information

provided in BPXA’s original application

for takings incidental to construction

and operations at Northstar. The

previous LOA for the taking of marine

mammals incidental to the construction

of the Northstar facility expired on

November 11, 2001.

Description of Activity

BPXA proposes to produce oil from

the Northstar Unit offshore oil

development facility. This facility is the

first in the Beaufort Sea that uses a

subsea pipeline to transport oil to shore

and then into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

System. The Northstar Unit is located

on Seal Island between 2 and 8 miles

(mi)(3.2 and 12.9 kilometers (km))

offshore from Pt. Storkersen, AK. This

unit is adjacent to the Prudhoe Bay

industrial complex and is

approximately 54 mi (87 km) northeast

of Nuiqsut, a Native Alaskan

community.

The Northstar island and pipelines

were constructed during the winter of

1999 and early 2000. Construction of ice

roads began in November 1999, and was

completed in March 2000. Construction

activity included the construction of

several ice roads, one from West Dock

and Pt. McIntyre to the Northstar gravel

mine, one from the Kuparuk River delta

mine site to Seal Island, and one along

the pipeline route to Seal Island. The

gravel-haul ice road had a parallel

alternate road to transport service

equipment, construction materials and

alternate gravel hauling when

maintenance or repair of the main ice

road was required. Gravel hauling to the

island extended from February to April,

2000. The pipelines were installed

through a trench in the ice from March

through May 2000, and buried to a

depth of 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m) below

the sea floor. Construction work and

installation of facilities on the island

continued during the spring ice breakup and open water season of 2000.

Sheet pile installation at Northstar

island began on March 7, 2000, and

continued through May 29, 2000, via

vibratory and impact pile-driving

techniques. Additional work included

capping the sheet pile retaining wall

and installing the well-conductor pipes,

foundation blocks, concrete slope

protection, utility and permanent living

quarter modules, and the drilling rig

with its module. Monitoring of marine

mammal impacts was conducted during

this construction period and reported in

Richardson and Williams (2000, 2001a,

2001b).

The operational (oil production)

phase at the Northstar facility during

both the ice-covered and open-water

seasons will include two diesel

generators (designated emergency

generators), three gas-turbine generators

for the power plant operating at 50-

percent duty cycle (i.e., up to two will

be operating at any one time), two high

pressure gas-turbine compressors, one

low-pressure flare, and two highpressure flares. All flares will be located

on the 215 ft (66 m) flare tower. There

is no seismic survey work involved with

this activity or being proposed for

authorization under this LOA.

Drilling began in December 2000 and

is expected to continue for about 3

years. The operational phase of

Northstar is considered to begin with

the first oil, likely in November 2001.

Production will commence while

drilling is continuing. Drilling will

continue until 23 development wells (15

production, 7 gas injection) are drilled.

After drilling is completed, only

production-related site activities will

occur.

In order to support operations at

Northstar, the operations activity

includes the annual construction of

three ice roads. One is to be built

parallel to the coast from West Dock and

Pt. McIntyre to the location of the

pipeline shore crossing. A second road

will be constructed along the pipeline

route from the shore crossing to

Northstar Island. A third road from Pt.

McIntyre directly to Northstar is also

anticipated. Ice road construction will

begin sometime during the period from

late-November through January,

depending on ice conditions. Ice roads

are expected to be completed and ready

for traffic by mid-February. Ice roads

will be used to resupply needed

equipment, parts, foodstuffs, and

products, and for hauling wastes back to

existing facilities. For a description of

planned ice-road activities, please refer

to BPXA’s 2001 application.

During the summer, barge trips will

be required between West Dock or

Endicott and the island for resupply.

Year-round helicopter access to

Northstar is planned for movement of

personnel, foodstuffs and emergency

movement of supplies and equipment.

Helicopters will fly at an altitude of at

least 1,000 ft (305 m), except for

takeoffs, landings, and safe-flight

operations.

Comments and Responses

On August 17, 2001 (66 FR 43216),

NMFS published a notice of receipt and

a 30-day public comment period was

provided on the application and

proposed authorization. During the

public comment period, comments were

received from the Marine Mammal

Commission (MMC), the North Slope

Borough (NSB), the Alaska Eskimo

Whaling Commission (AEWC) and

BPXA.

MMPA Concerns

Comment 1: BPXA questions whether

sounds generated from ice road

construction and production activities

at Northstar will incidentally take

ringed seals by harassment during the

first several months of the ice-covered

period. BPXA states that the Court of

Appeals for the 9th Judicial Circuit has

defined ‘‘harass’’ as used in the MMPA

to mean . . . ‘‘direct and serious

disruptions of normal marine mammal

behavior . . ..’’ (US v. Hayashi, 22 F.3d

859, 865, 9th Cir. 1994). BPXA

anticipates that sounds from Northstar

ice road construction and production

activities will not cause direct and

serious disruptions of normal seal

behavior during this period.

Response: The MMPA was amended

in 1994, after Hayashi was decided, to

include a definition of harassment,

which did not exist in the statute at the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65925

time of the alleged violation in that case.

The court had to determine what

harassment meant in the context of how

‘‘take’’ was defined in the statute and

the regulations at that time. Harassment

as defined in the MMPA, as amended,

includes any act of annoyance that has

the potential to injure a marine mammal

or cause disruption of behavioral

patterns. Therefore, NMFS believes that

harassment is broader than the Hayashi

court’s definition. Also, while NMFS

concurs that, prior to March 1, Northstar

ice-road construction will not cause a

serious disruption of normal seal

behavior during this time, both BPXA

(through its application) and NMFS

concur that ice road constructionrelated activities may cause limited and

localized displacement of ringed seals

during this time period.

Comment 2: The AEWC believes that

NMFS is required to issue an

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A)

of the MMPA for takings by oil spills.

The AEWC believes that the narrow

reading provided by NMFS in the

proposed LOA authorization (66 FR

43216, August 17, 2001) equates an

authorization of take by an oil spill with

an authorization to spill oil.

Response: NMFS believes that the

MMPA does not authorize the issuance

of incidental take authorizations when

the taking results from an unlawful

activity. In that regard, the Clean Water

Act (CWA) at 33 USC 1321(b)(3)

prohibits discharge of harmful

quantities into the water. Regulations at

40 CFR 110.3 define harmful quantities

as violating water quality standards or

causing a sheen (i.e., oil spills are

considered a violation of the CWA).

This is the same approach NMFS takes

with respect to incidental take

authorizations under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA); the incidental take

must result from an otherwise lawful

activity (50 CFR 402.02).

Comment 3: The AEWC states that

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

MMPA, NMFS must set an upper

biological limit that it will allow for all

takings that might occur incidental to a

specified activity. In other words,

AEWC asserts that NMFS must

authorize all the takes that may occur

incidental to the specified activity so

long as NMFS is able to make the

necessary determinations for a small

take LOA (negligible impact on species;

no unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence), and then issue an LOA for

that maximum amount. NMFS has not

done this with respect to incidental

taking that might be caused by oil spill

or other discharge at Northstar. (This

comment was made as part of the

previous comment that the LOA must

include authorization for takes that

occur incidental to an oil spill.)

Response: Although the LOA does not

authorize takes that occur incidental to

an oil spill (see response to Comment 2),

the impacts of an oil spill nevertheless

were considered in the analysis for the

impacts of BPXA’s activities on the

affected species or stocks. When

evaluating the impacts of an activity on

marine mammals, NMFS takes into

account the probability of occurrence of

potential impacts and the potential

severity of harm to the species or stock.

If the potential impacts are significant

but the probability of occurrence is low,

a negligible impact determination may

be appropriate. The same is true if the

potential effects of a specified activity

are conjectural or speculative. For a

further explanation of this approach, see

the Final Rule implementing the

regulations governing small takes of

marine mammals incidental to specified

activities, 50 FR 40338, 40343

(September 29, 1989). These

determinations are based on the best

scientific information available as later

supported or negated through required

monitoring program (NMFS, 1995).

For the BPXA LOA, NMFS considered

both the likelihood and the potential

impacts of an oil spill and made these

determinations in the preamble to the

Northstar final rule (66 FR 34014; May

25, 2000), NMFS determined that while

a large oil spill would potentially have

more than a negligible impact on

bowhead whales and other marine

mammals, the likelihood of such an oil

spill and the likelihood of an impact are

low for the five-year period of these

authorizations. This allowed NMFS to

make a determination that the

incidental takings would have a

negligible impact on marine mammals.

Because the likelihood of an oil spill

and the resulting impacts on marine

mammals were low, NMFS deemed that

any calculation of take would be

speculative.

However, NMFS recognizes that in

the unlikely event that a major oil spill

does occur, the impact has some

potential to be more than negligible. As

a result, NMFS has determined that, in

the event a major oil spill occurs, NMFS

will need to reassess immediately its

determination in this document that the

taking of marine mammals by oil and

gas development activities in the

Beaufort Sea is having no more than a

negligible impact on marine mammals

and not having an unmitigable adverse

impact on subsistence uses of marine

mammals. If, because the takings due to

the oil spill are projected to exceed the

levels used in this document to make

the necessary findings, NMFS will

immediately suspend the LOA issued

for the oil development project causing

the impact. Because the LOA

suspension falls under the emergency

determination for LOA suspension

under these regulations, NMFS will not

provide a 30-day public review period

prior to suspension. However, NMFS

believes the possibility of this situation

occurring is remote.

Marine Mammal Concerns

Comment 4: The MMC believes that

the population-level effects and the

impacts on Native subsistence hunting

may not be negligible in the long-term

(i.e., over the expected 15-20 years of

production and related activities).

Response: The issue of making a

negligible impact determination was

addressed in detail in the preamble to

the final rule (see 66 FR 34014, May 25,

2000), especially NMFS’ response to

comments 20 through 23). Essentially,

NMFS does not agree that it should

make a negligible impact assessment

over the 15-20 year lifetime of the

Northstar Unit. Under the MMPA,

NMFS must make a determination that

the ‘‘total of such taking during each 5-

year (or less) period concerned will

have a negligible impact on such species

or stock and will not have an

unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of such species or stock for

taking for subsistence purposes . . ..’’

This is what NMFS did, as detailed in

the final rule. However, by reviewing its

negligible impact determinations every

5 years, as mandated by Congress when

it limited authorizations to no more

than 5 years at a time, NMFS has the

ability to reassess its determinations

through new research, monitoring and

reporting that is required under the

current regulations.

In that regard, it is important to note

that NMFS will not continue to review

the findings made in the preamble to the

final rule and in this document during

future LOA renewals for the Northstar

facility. For future LOA renewals,

NMFS will follow the renewal

instructions published at 50 CFR

216.209 and will not invite public

comment on LOA renewals unless

NMFS receives significant new

information that calls into question the

findings that have been made

previously, or if BPXA fails to comply

with the terms and conditions of its

LOA.

Comment 5: The MMC notes that

while the statement in ‘‘Impacts of

Noise on Marine Mammals in the

Beaufort Sea’’ is correct, some relevant

data shows that when seal structures

were reassessed in May 2000, 87 percent

of the structures identified as active in

65926 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

December (20 of 23) had been either

abandoned or eliminated by

construction activities (6 eliminated; 14

abandoned, 3 active). Three of the

structures found in December were still

active in May. (This compares with an

abandonment rate of 4 percent in earlier

studies--albeit over shorter periods of

time.) However, during May an

additional 18 structures, 15 of which

were active, were found within the

portion of the construction and

monitoring area that was searched

again. These data show that some

individual ringed seals remained near

the industrial area despite the intensive

island and pipeline construction

activities that occurred between

December and May. It is not known

whether the unexpectedly high number

of structures found for the first time in

May was related to local relocation of

seals as a result of construction

activities, or inadequate survey coverage

in December, or a combination of the

two.

Response: The information cited in

the comment is contained in BPXA’s

reports for activities at Northstar during

the winter and spring, 1999-2000

(Richardson and Williams, 2000;

Williams et al. (2001). One additional

possible causal relationship for the high

number of structures identified by the

authors is the natural creation of new

structures as the 9-month ice-covered

season progressed. A second year of the

results of this research was provided to

NMFS in September 2001, after NMFS

had published the notice of proposed

LOA authorization (August 17, 2001 (66

FR 43216)). A summary of relevant

findings from this report is provided

later in this document.

Comment 6: The AEWC questions

NMFS’ statement that interactions

between oil and whales are unlikely in

the spring due to the probable

alongshore trajectory of oil spilled from

Northstar. The AEWC states that no data

are available to support this assertion.

The AEWC references the Minerals

Management Service (MMS, 2001) to

support this statement noting the MMS

states: ‘‘...it is not possible to predict the

location of a spill or its path, and

therefore it is not possible to predict

which ecological, social, or economic

resources would be affected and to what

extent.’’

Response: During spring, bowhead

whales migrate eastward in offshore

leads and no bowheads are expected to

occur within 75 km (46.6 mi) of

Northstar. Under-ice currents are

influenced by coastal storm surges and

regional circulation patterns (Corp of

Engineers (Corps), 1999). While water

mass movement is influenced in open

water by the Beaufort Sea Undercurrent,

there is no indication that significant

alongshore currents exist while under

the ice (current measurements vary from

0.7 in/sec (1.8 cm/sec) to 3.6 in/sec (9

cm/sec)(Corps, 1999)). As a result, while

NMFS has removed this statement from

this document, it continues to adopt the

information contained in the Corps’

final Environmental Impact Statement

(final EIS) (Corps, 1999), as the best

scientific information available that the

probability that an oil spill from

Northstar would reach bowhead whales

during the spring migration period is

very low.

NMFS believes that the AEWC

citation of the MMS’ draft proposed 5-

year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

leasing plan for 2002-2007 to support its

argument is not the appropriate

document for this action as it is a

projection for future lease sales in all

U.S. OCS areas, not just the Beaufort

Sea. Since the Northstar activity is

covered by an final EIS prepared by the

Corps for oil and gas production at

Northstar, and since oil spill trajectories

have been projected for that location,

NMFS believes that the Corps document

is the appropriate supporting

documentation for this action.

Comment 7: The AEWC further states

that historically, the spring leads in the

area of Northstar have tended to be

relatively far offshore, and the State of

Alaska has imposed seasonal drilling

restrictions on BPXA’s Northstar

operations to help address the risk of oil

entering the water during spring breakup or other broken ice periods.

However, satellite images from the past

two winters show the formation of large

ice leads, perpendicular to the shore, in

the vicinity of Northstar.

Response: Thank you for this

information. However, with drilling

restrictions proposed by BPXA (later

adopted by the State of Alaska) that

drilling into oil producing areas will not

take place during springtime ice breakup (and the open water period), this

new information does not affect NMFS’

determination that Northstar oil and gas

production would not have more than a

negligible impact on bowhead whales

and other marine mammals, and would

not have an unmitigable adverse impact

on subsistence uses of marine mammals.

Comment 8: The AEWC also

questions NMFS’ statement that

≥bowhead feeding is uncommon along

the coast near Northstar.≥ In making this

statement, NMFS fails to note repeated

statements by elders and subsistence

whaling captains that they consider the

spring and fall migratory paths of the

bowhead whale (including the waters

shoreward of those paths) to be

important feeding habitat. This

information has been provided to NMFS

in the AEWC’s comments on the

petition to designate critical habitat for

the western stock of bowhead whales

and on NMFS’ draft Arctic Regional

Biological Opinion.

Response: It is recognized both

scientifically and by Traditional

Knowledge that bowhead whales feed

during spring and fall migration in the

Beaufort Sea. However, according to

Richardson (pers. comm. October 19,

2001) bowhead whale feeding during

migration appears to be opportunistic

and probably can occur wherever and

whenever bowheads encounter a

sufficient concentration of prey in the

Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Current

information, according to Richardson,

indicates that bowheads sometimes feed

as they travel even if the prey biomass

is only moderate, but linger in one area

specifically to feed only if prey biomass

is high at some depth in the water

column. However, bowhead aerial

surveys hint that the Northstar area is

not a hotspot for feeding. Feeding very

likely occurs there to some extent, but

less so than in some other places like

the waters near and east of Kaktovik, or

the area east of Barrow, AK. In those

areas (unlike the Northstar area) groups

of bowheads are sometimes observed

feeding intensively and for extended

periods (several days). Aerial survey

results give the impression that

bowheads probably feed more in the

area between Flaxman and Cross Island

than they do from Cross Island

westward past Northstar to Harrison

Bay. However, there have been no

specific studies of feeding between

Cross and Flaxman islands and areas

west of Camden Bay are outside BPXA’s

feeding study area. It should be noted

for future reference that, aside from

mentioning the Cross Island stomach

contents in passing, and the Barrow

stomach contents in detail, BPXA’s

feeding study report will not deal with

the Northstar area or other locations

west of Camden Bay (Richardson, J.

pers. comm. October 19, 2001).

Mitigation Concerns

Comment 9: The MMC recommends

that, if it has not already done so, NMFS

should review and, if necessary

recommend modifications to, the

updated Oil Discharge Prevention and

Contingency Plan (ODPCP) to assure

that the risk of oil spills has been

estimated appropriately, that the

planned measures for containing and

cleaning up oil spills in both the open

ocean and ice-covered areas are likely to

be effective, and that everything feasible

will be done to minimize the impacts of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65927

both oil and contaminant/clean-up

operations on marine mammals.

Response: As noted in the preamble to

the final rule (66 FR 34014; May 25,

2000), NMFS believes that it has neither

the expertise to determine the adequacy

of the ODPCP, nor the authority to

require the ODPCP be modified by

BPXA or to place these requirements on

Federal or state agencies with such

authority. The ODPCP has been

approved by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard,

the MMS, and the State of Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation. For its determinations of

negligible impact, NMFS relied on the

information, including estimates of risk

from oil spills, contained in the final

EIS.

Comment 10: The MMC also

recommends that NMFS provide for

periodic site inspections, as part of the

long-term monitoring program, to

ensure that the contingency plan can be

implemented as and when necessary.

Response: NMFS considers the

ODPCP as part of the Northstar

mitigation program, not a part of

BPXA’s marine mammal monitoring

program. NMFS does not have the

expertise to judge whether or not a

contingency plan can be implemented

and therefore leaves that responsibility

for other federal and state agency

judgements. Oil spill drills are

scheduled periodically and NMFS will

use the other agencies’ findings, as

needed, to make or confirm the

necessary determinations under the

MMPA. However, during previous oilspill containment exercises, it became

widely recognized that oil spill cleanup

activities have not been totally

successful during periods of broken ice.

As a result, BPXA has confirmed to

NMFS that it will not drill into oil

production layers during either broken

ice or open water season when oil spill

impacts would be more difficult to

mitigate (through containment and

clean-up) and would restrict drilling to

the wintertime. This is discussed in

detail later in this document.

Comment 11: The MMC notes that in

‘‘Proposed Mitigation,’’ it is unclear

what is intended. There is no problem

with conducting the baseline survey

after 20 March in areas which are

undisturbed prior to that time. However,

the baseline survey date cannot be

subsequent to the first date of any

disturbance.

Response: NMFS agrees, recognizing

that surveys using trained dogs to locate

ringed seal lairs late in the season are

considered by NMFS as a mitigation

measure to prevent, to the greatest

extent practicable, the death of newborn

pups during that critical period of life.

Accordingly, the March 20 date has

been changed to March 1 because a

ringed seal birth was discovered in early

March, 2001 near Northstar. Discussion

on this survey as a monitoring program

is discussed later in this document.

Monitoring and Reporting Concerns

Comment 12: The MMC believes that

the ongoing and proposed research and

monitoring programs may not be

sufficient to detect non-negligible

effects. The MMC remains concerned

that long-term effects may still occur

and that some type of reliable

monitoring program should be

implemented.

Response: Without a more detailed

explanation on the MMC’s concern that

the monitoring program is insufficient,

NMFS cannot respond in any detail to

the comment. BPXA has submitted

several reports on the results to date on

monitoring and has proposed a

monitoring program that was available

for review during this comment period.

These monitoring plans have been peerreviewed in at least two workshops (see

Monitoring later in this document for

detail) in the past. Also, NMFS has

participated in meetings and workshops

with industry, other government

agencies and Native groups to address

both short-term and cumulative impact

monitoring.

It should be recognized that research

and monitoring of Beaufort Sea marine

mammals are also conducted by

government agencies, or through

government agency funding, that have

not been addressed in recent

documents. This includes, for example,

MMS’ aerial bowhead whale surveys, an

annual population assessment survey

for bowhead whales, a study on

contaminant levels in bowhead whale

tissue, and a bowhead whale health

assessment study. These latter three

studies are funded by, or through,

NMFS. Information on these projects

has been provided to the MMC by

NMFS. Based on this multi-faceted

monitoring program, NMFS has

determined that the monitoring program

is adequate to identify impacts on

marine mammals, both singly from the

project and cumulatively throughout the

industry.

Comment 13: The MMC recommends

that visual monitoring during the openwater season be resumed in future years

if noisy activities, such as impact pipe

driving, were to take place.

Response: Even though

‘‘construction’’ activities are not

planned by BPXA in the near future,

NMFS has added to the LOA a

requirement that visual monitoring be

conducted whenever activities are

planned to take place that potentially

would result in a sound pressure level

(SPL) greater than 180 dB beyond the

island perimeter.

Comment 14: The MMC believes that

the use of trained dogs to locate seal

structures beginning in early January is

appropriate. The BPXA application

states that on-ice activities will avoid

located structures ‘‘when practical.’’

The MMC believes that an explanation

of when such avoidance would not be

practical should be provided.

Response: The primary ice roads used

during Northstar oil production must be

almost straight-line in order to

effectively transport crews and material

to Northstar Island. As a result, there is

little mitigation that has been identified

that would be practical and effective

during the construction of these primary

roads in the early part of the winter

season. One of the reasons for building

the ice roads early in the season is that

it mitigates to the greatest extent

practical interference with seals’

constructing birthing lairs. However,

secondary ice roads constructed later in

the season are not believed to be

confined to a set track and, because of

the potential impact on ringed seal

pups, can and should be constructed to

avoid seal structures. As a result, NMFS

has imposed mitigation measures in the

LOA that require (1) Using trained dogs

to locate seal structures on or in the

vicinity of ice roads, (2) avoiding seal

structures by a minimum of 150 m (492

ft) during construction of any roads

other than the two primary roads, and

(3) avoiding, to the greatest extent

practicable, disturbance of any located

seal structure after March 1.

Section 101(a)(5)(A)(ii)(I) of the

MMPA provides for regulations setting

for the permissible methods of taking

and other means effecting the least

practicable adverse impact on the

affected species or stock and its habitat.

As ringed seals construct several

breathing holes and lairs within their

territory, they do not rely on a single

structure during the year. Ice roads

constructed early in the year will have

the potential to result in some minor

harassment as ringed seals abandon

certain breathing holes, if the noise is

disturbing to them. NMFS believes this

is preferable to avoiding all harassment

of ringed seals during early-season ice

road construction (how that would be

accomplished has not been identified),

allowing seal structures to become

birthing lairs, having the newborn pup

(who may be more sensitive to noise

than an adult) abandon a birthing lair

prior to weaning, and then succumb to

the effects of the disturbance. However,

65928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

NMFS intends to have the results of

recent on-ice monitoring reviewed at the

next on-ice peer review workshop

(tentatively scheduled for September

2002 in Seattle) to determine whether it

is necessary to resume a winter-time

ringed seal monitoring program for the

Northstar project.

Comment 15: The MMC notes that in

Monitoring During the Ice-covered

Season, it is stated that ‘‘if needed, a

recheck of these structures will be

conducted in May 2002 to assess the

proportion of structures abandoned

relative to distance between the

disturbance and the structure.’’ It seems

like such information is exactly the kind

required for monitoring, and that the

recheck in May should be mandatory,

rather than ‘‘if needed.’’

Response: NMFS agrees that

rechecking seal structures in the vicinity

of Northstar in May is appropriate if

road construction, or other significant

disturbance, has taken place after March

1. The LOA has been amended to reflect

this condition.

Comment 16: BPXA requested

clarification on the date for delivery of

the final report to NMFS. The current

regulation, under which the LOA is

authorized, states that the draft

comprehensive report is due to NMFS

on May 1 of each year. However,

language in the (current) LOA states that

the final draft report is due April 1 of

each year. BPXA requests that the

renewed LOA be consistent with the

regulation and the final draft report will

be due to NMFS on May 1 of each year.

Response: NMFS agrees. Under the

LOA, a draft annual comprehensive

report is due on May 1 of each year, as

required by the regulations. This report

will need to contain information from

the just-completed on-ice monitoring

season, and the previous year’s open

water monitoring period. For

background information on this issue,

NMFS recommends readers refer to

NMFS’ response to comment 44 in the

preamble to the Northstar final rule (see

65 FR 34014, May 25, 2000).

Subsistence Concerns

Comment 17: The AEWC states that

NMFS is compelled to provide

mitigation measures for potential

adverse impacts to Alaskan Eskimo

subsistence hunting as part of the LOA

requested by BPXA.

Response: NMFS agrees, noting that

mitigation measures are described in the

proposed LOA notice published in the

Federal Register on August 17, 2001 (66

FR 43216) and in this document. This

includes mitigation for both noise and

potential oil spills, for reasons

explained in both documents.

Comment 18: The NSB has concerns

that NMFS’ proposed mitigation

measures for oil spills are not triggered

unless the spill reaches or exceeds 1,000

barrels. This, the NSB states, is an

artificial limit and there is simply no

basis, logical or scientific, for this being

the standard. The appropriate standard

should be focused on whether or not the

spill causes a reduction in the

subsistence use of marine mammals.

The NSB recommends NMFS adopt the

definition found in the draft Good

Neighbor Policy (GNP) condition B.1.

Response: The GNP is an agreement

between BPXA and the NSB that

outlines mitigation measures that would

take place in the event that an oil spill

occurred at the Northstar facility or its

pipeline. On September 19, 2001, the

AEWC and the Mayor, NSB, informed

BPXA representatives that, if the

outstanding GNP issues could be

resolved to the satisfaction of the

AEWC, the NSB and the Inupiat

Community of the Arctic Slope would

not object to the renewal of BPXA’s

LOA on the basis of the oil spill

mitigation. This private agreement, of

which NMFS is not a party, became

effective on October 22, 2001.

NMFS agrees that the definition

proposed in the GNP is more

appropriate for determining impacts on

subsistence hunting than the standard

industry definition that was provided by

BPXA in its application. Accordingly,

this definition has been added to the

LOA for Northstar and is provided later

in this document.

Comment 19: The AEWC questions

NMFS’ statement in the proposed notice

(66 FR 43216, August 17, 2001) that

almost all bowhead whales travel north

of Northstar during the fall migration.

This assertion ignores the fact that

subsistence hunters have taken

bowheads in the vicinity of Northstar.

Response: The comment has been

taken out of context. NMFS notes a few

sentences later that ‘‘[I]n the case of

bowheads, almost all individuals travel

west north of Northstar. A few

individuals travel west within a few

kilometers north of Northstar, but most

are 10 km (6.2 mi) or more farther

offshore.’’ In fact, in most years (1979-

1995), less than 2 percent of the

westward migrating population are

within 15 km (9.3 mi) of Northstar

(BPXA, 2001). This discussion, which is

concerned about impacts of noise on

marine mammals, does not ignore the

fact that subsistence hunters have taken

bowheads in the vicinity of Northstar.

This discussion is found later in the

referenced proposed LOA document

(and in this document) under impacts

on subsistence uses.

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

documents (Corps, 1999; MMS, 1990,

1992, 1996, 2001; 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 whales

(Delphinapterus leucas), ringed seals

(Phoca hispida), spotted seals (Phoca

largha) and bearded seals (Erignathus

barbatus). Descriptions of the biology

and distribution of these species can be

found in Ferraro et al. (2000), Corps

(1999), MMS (2001) and the BPXA

application (BPXA, 1999 and 2001). The

latter two documents are available upon

request (see ADDRESSES); Ferraro et al.

(2000) is available at the following URL:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot—res/

PR2/Stock—Assessment—Program/

sars.html. Please refer to these

documents for specific information on

marine mammal species.

In addition to the species mentioned

in this paragraph, Pacific walrus

(Odobenus rosmarus) and polar bears

(Ursus maritimus) also have the

potential to be taken. LOAs for the

taking of these species under the MMPA

has been issued by the the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (see 66 FR 10314,

February 14, 2001).

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

Issuance of an LOA for taking marine

mammals incidental to production at

Northstar has been based on findings

that the determinations made in the

preamble to the final rule (66 FR 34014;

May 25, 2000)(that the total takings by

Northstar construction and operations

will result in only small numbers of

marine mammals being taken: have no

more than a negligible impact on marine

mammal stocks in the Beaufort Sea; and

not have an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of the affected marine

mammal stocks for subsistence uses)

remain valid. For that reason, the

following discussion of impacts is

provided. Additional supporting

information on noise, and oil impacts

on marine mammals and on impacts to

subsistence needs can be found in

BPXA, 1999, 2001. Additional

information on noise impact

assessments can be found in Richardson

and Williams (eds.)(2000a, 2000b,

2001a, 2001b).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65929

Impacts of Noise on Marine Mammals

in the Beaufort Sea

Sounds and non-acoustic stimuli will

be generated during oil production

operations by generators, drilling,

production machinery, gas flaring, camp

operations and vessel and helicopter

operations. The sounds generated from

production operations and associated

transportation activities will be

detectable underwater and/or in air

some distance away from the area of the

activity, depending upon the nature of

the sound source, ambient noise

conditions, and the sensitivity of the

receptor. At times, some of these sounds

are likely to be strong enough to cause

an avoidance or other behavioral

disturbance reaction by small numbers

of marine mammals or to cause masking

of signals important to marine

mammals. The type and significance of

behavioral reaction is likely to depend

on the species and season, and the

behavior of the animal at the time of

reception of the stimulus, as well as the

distance and level of the sound relative

to ambient conditions.

Responses of seals to acoustic

disturbance are highly variable, with the

most conspicuous changes in behavior

occurring when seals are hauled out on

ice or land when exposed to human

activities. Seals in open water do not

appear to react as strongly. Activities

planned for the ice-covered seasons

during the production phase of

Northstar are expected to cause no more

than limited and localized displacement

of ringed seals. Results of fixed-wing

aircraft monitoring of hauled out ringed

seals during intensive construction

activities in early 2000 showed no

significant change in seal density in the

areas closest to Northstar (Moulton et

al., 2001a). In 2001, seal densities in

areas close to and including the

Northstar development were higher than

in adjacent areas farther away. These

results indicate that few, if any, seals

were displaced far enough to be

detectable by aerial surveys, and that

any displacement that did occur was

quite localized (Moulton et al., 2001b).

In winter and spring, ice road

construction and travel activities will

displace some small numbers of ringed

seals along the ice road corridors. The

noise and general human activity may

displace female seals away from activity

areas and could negatively affect the

female and young, if the female remains

in the vicinity of the ice road. During

the 2000/2001 season, trained dogs were

used during three surveys to locate and

assess the fate of seal structures in the

vicinity of Northstar. During the third

survey in May 2001, a total of 82 new

ringed seal structures were found in the

Northstar study area. Forty-five of the

structures were breathing holes, 36 were

lairs, and one was unidentified. All 45

breathing holes and 34 of the 36 lairs

were in active use. The status of all

previously located sea structures was

also determined during the May 2001

survey. Of the 35 structures located in

the November/December 2000 survey,

71 percent (20 breathing holes and 5

lairs) had been abandoned by May 2001.

Of the 63 structures located in March

2001, 44 percent (20 breathing holes and

8 lairs) had been abandoned by May

2001. Additionally, 8 of the 81 (10

percent) identified structures first

located in May were abandoned by 22

May, 2001 (2 breathing holes and 6

lairs). Preliminary results suggest a high

abandonment rate for structures out to

3 km (1.9 mi) from Northstar and the

associated on-ice activities.

Alternatively, the continued presence of

ringed seals near Northstar throughout

the winter, and the creation of new

structures near Northstar activities

during the winter, suggest that potential

negative effects to seals may be minor

and highly localized (Williams et al.

(2001b).

In addition to displacement by

harassment, BPXA believes there is a

small possibility of injury or mortality

to a very small number of seal pups

during ice road construction and

transportation activities. However,

planned timing of road construction

(before pups are born) will minimize the

probability of occurrence.

During the open-water season, all six

species of whales and seals could

potentially be exposed to noise from

vessels, the island and from other

stimuli associated with the planned

operations. Vessel traffic is known to

cause avoidance reactions by whales at

certain times (Richardson et al., 1995).

Helicopter operations, and possibly

other production-related activities, may

also lead to disturbance of small

numbers of seals or whales. In addition

to disturbance, some limited masking of

whale calls or other low-frequency

sounds potentially relevant to bowhead

whales could occur (Richardson et al.,

1995; BPXA, 2001).

During the late summer and autumn,

almost all whales are found north of the

barrier islands, and north of Northstar.

In the case of belugas, most individuals

follow a far-offshore migration corridor

at or beyond the edge of the continental

shelf. In the case of bowheads, almost

all individuals travel west north of

Northstar. A few individuals travel west

within a few kilometers north of

Northstar, but most are 10 km (6.2 mi)

or more farther offshore. Gray whales

are rare in the Northstar area.

In the open-water period, the

principal activities on Northstar Island

will be oil drilling and production

activities, and associated helicopter and

vessel traffic. Underwater sounds from

drilling and routine production

activities on the islands are not

expected to be detectable more than

about 5-10 km (3.1-6.2 mi) offshore of

Northstar Island. However, when tugs or

self-propelled barges are in use,

underwater sounds could be faintly

detectable as much as 28 km (17.4 mi)

offshore of Northstar (Blackwell and

Greene, 2001). Avoidance reactions by

bowhead, gray and beluga whales will

be limited to substantially less than that

distance. Cetaceans usually do not show

overt avoidance reactions unless

received levels of industrial noise are

well above natural background noise

level (Richardson et al., 1995). Also,

average noise levels from Northstar are

expected to be lower during production

activities in 2002 and beyond than they

were during construction operations in

2000 (BPXA, 2001). Little disturbance or

displacement of whales by vessel traffic

is expected.

Impacts of Oil Spills on Marine

Mammals in the Beaufort Sea

For reasons stated in the application

(BPXA, 1999, 2001), BPXA believes that

the effects of any oil spills on seals and

whales in the open waters of the

Beaufort Sea are likely to be negligible,

but there could be effects on whales in

areas where both oil and the whales are

at least partially confined in leads or at

the ice edge. In the spring, bowhead and

beluga whales migrate through offshore

leads in the ice, at a distance of more

than 75 km (46.6 mi) from Northstar. As

a result, interactions between oil and

whales are unlikely in the spring. In the

summer, bowheads are normally found

in Canadian waters, and beluga whales

are found far offshore. As a result, at

this time of the year, these species

would be unaffected should a spill

occur. However, oil that persists in the

Beaufort Sea into the fall or winter and

is not contained and/or removed may

impact bowhead whales.

In the fall, the migration route of

bowheads can be close to shore. If

bowheads were moving through leads in

the pack ice, or were concentrated in

nearshore waters, or if the oil migrated

seaward of the barrier islands, some

bowhead whales might not be able to

avoid oil slicks and could be subject to

prolonged contamination. However,

because the autumn migration of

bowhead whales past Northstar extends

over several weeks and because most of

65930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

the whales travel along routes well

north of Northstar, according to BPXA

(1999), only a small minority of the

whales would be likely to intercept

patches of spilled oil. The Corps (Corps,

1999) states that considering the limited

number of days each year that bowhead

whales would be migrating through the

area, the low probability that a spill

would occur, and the very low

probability that oil would move into the

migration corridor of the bowheads, it is

very unlikely that bowhead whales

would be contacted by oil. The effects

of oil on these whales have been

described in several documents (BPXA,

1999; Corps, 1999; Loughlin et al., 1994;

and MMS, 2001).

Ringed seals exposed to oil during the

winter or early spring could die if

exposed to heavy doses of oil for

prolonged periods of time. Prolonged

exposure could occur if fuel or crude oil

was spilled in or reached nearshore

waters, was spilled in a lead used by

seals, or was spilled under the ice when

seals have limited mobility. Individual

seals residing in these habitats may not

be able to avoid prolonged

contamination and some would die.

Studies in Prince William Sound

indicated a long-term decline of 36

percent in numbers of molting harbor

seals located on those haulouts affected

by oil from the EXXON VALDEZ spill.

In addition, newborn seal pups, if

contacted by oil, will likely die from

oiling through loss of insulation and

resulting hypothermia (BPXA, 1999).

Because the number of ringed and

bearded seals in the central Beaufort Sea

represents a relatively small portion of

their total populations, and even large

oil spills are not expected to extend over

large areas, relatively few ringed and

bearded seals would be impacted, and

impacts on regional population size

would be expected to be minor.

In addition to oil contacting marine

mammals, oil spill cleanup activities

could increase disturbance effects on

either whales or seals, causing

temporary disruption and possible

displacement effects (MMS, 1996;

BPXA, 1999). In the event of a spill

contacting and extensively oiling coastal

habitats, the presence of response staff,

equipment, and many low-flying aircraft

involved in the cleanup will (depending

on the time of the spill and cleanup)

potentially displace seals and other

marine mammals. However, the

potential effects on bowhead and beluga

whales are expected to be less than

those on seals. The whales tend to occur

well offshore where cleanup activities

(during the open water season) are

unlikely to be concentrated (BPXA,

1999). Also, because bowheads are

transient and, during the majority of the

year absent from the area, this should

lessen the likelihood of impact by

cleanup activities.

Estimated Level of Incidental Take

BPXA (2001) estimates that, during

the ice-covered period, 53 (maximum

139) ringed seals and 1 (maximum 5)

bearded seals potentially may be

incidentally harassed annually during

oil production activities. BPXA

estimated these takings by harassment

during the ice-covered season by

assuming that seals within 3.7 km (2.3

mi) of Seal Island, and within 0.644 km

(0.4 mi) of ice roads will be ‘‘taken’’

annually. This constitutes a total area of

46.73 km2 (18.0 mi2). These anticipated

levels of potential take are estimated

based on observed densities of seals

during recent (1997-2000) aerial surveys

in the Northstar area during spring

(Miller et al., 1998; Link et al., 1999;

Moulton et al., 2000, 2001) plus

correction factors for seals missed by

aerial surveyors. NMFS however,

concurs with BPXA (1999, 2001) that

these ‘‘take’’ estimates could result in an

overestimate of the actual numbers of

seals ‘‘taken,’’ if all seals within these

disturbance distances do not move from

the area. It should be noted that NMFS

does not consider an animal to be

‘‘taken’’ if it simply hears a noise, but

does not make a biologically significant

response to avoid that noise.

For the ice break-up period, BPXA

assumes that seals within 1 km (3.11

km2) (0.62 mi/1.2 mi2) of Northstar

Island might be affected by activities on

the island. Based on aerial surveys

conducted in 2000 of hauled-out seals,

applying correction factors for seals

present on the ice but not seen and for

seals not hauled out, and assuming a

complete turnover of seals on a weekly

basis, BPXA estimates that the total

number of ringed seals harassed during

the 6 week break-up period will be 25

animals.

During the open-water season, BPXA

(2001) estimates that 17 (maximum 27)

ringed seals, 5 spotted seals, 1-5 bearded

seals, 215 (maximum 774) bowhead

whales, up to 5 gray whales, and 15

(maximum 91) beluga whales may be

incidentally harassed annually due to

operations at Northstar. BPXA assumes

that seals and beluga whales within 1

km (0.6 mi) radius of Northstar Island

will be harassed incidental to oil

production activities on the island.

Assumed ‘‘take’’ radii for bowhead

whales are based on the distance at

which the received level of productionrelated noise from the island would

diminish below 115 dB re 1 μPa. This

distance has been conservatively

estimated at 4 km (2.5 mi), due mostly

to noise from tugs and self-propelled

barges.

Although the potential impacts to the

several marine mammal species

occurring in these areas is expected to

be limited to harassment, a small

number of ringed seals may incur lethal

and serious injury. Most effects,

however, are expected to be limited to

temporary changes in behavior or

displacement from a relatively small

area near the Northstar site and will

involve only small numbers of animals

relative to the size of the populations.

However, the inadvertent and

unavoidable take by injury or mortality

of small numbers of ringed seal pups

may occur during ice clearing for

construction of ice roads. As a result,

BPXA requested that takings by

mortality also be covered by the LOA.

In addition, some injury or mortality of

whales or seals may result in the event

that an oil spill occurs. However,

because of the unpredictable

occurrence, nature, seasonal timing,

duration, and size of an oil spill

occurring, a specific prediction cannot

be made of the estimated number of

takes by an oil spill. According to

BPXA, in the unlikely event of a major

oil spill at Northstar or from the

associated subsea pipeline, numbers of

marine mammals killed or injured are

expected to be small and the effects on

the populations negligible. While NMFS

agrees that a major oil spill is unlikely,

and believes that it is even less likely

that spilled oil will intercept numbers of

marine mammals, NMFS cannot

necessarily conclude that the effects on

all marine mammal populations will be

negligible. Depending upon magnitude

of the spill, its location and seasonality,

an oil spill could have the potential to

affect ringed and bearded seals, and/or

bowhead and beluga whales. Because of

the large population size of ringed seals

and bearded seals and the small number

of animals in the immediate vicinity of

the Northstar facility, and because

spilled oil is unlikely to disperse widely

and, therefore, affect large numbers of

seals, NMFS has determined that the

effect on ringed and bearded seals will

be negligible, even in the unlikely event

that a major oil spill occurred.

Bowhead and beluga whales,

however, while potentially less likely to

come into contact with spilled oil

because of their more prevalent offshore

distribution, and potentially less

seriously affected when in oiled waters

provided their passage is not blocked,

may be affected more seriously, if

impacted, because of their smaller

population sizes. However, based upon

the Corps’ analysis that there is less

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65931

than a 10-percent chance of a major oil

spill occurring during the 20-30 year

lifespan of Northstar, and because

NMFS believes that the potential for a

major oil spill occurring and

intercepting these species would be

significantly less than 10 percent

(approaching 1 percent), NMFS can

make a determination that the taking of

these two species incidental to

operation at the Northstar oil

production facility will have no more

than a negligible impact on them.

However, regardless of the negligible

impact finding, the LOA does not

authorize any marine mammal takes

that occur incidental to an oil spill. The

reason for this is that authorizations are

issued only for takes that are incidental

to otherwise lawful activities, and an oil

spill is not a lawful activity, as

indicated by the CWA. The CWA, at 33

USC 1321(b)(3), prohibits discharge in

harmful quantities into the water, and

regulations at 40 CFR 110.3 define

harmful quantities as violating water

quality standards or causing a sheen

(i.e., oil spills are considered a violation

of CWA), an authorization to take

marine mammals, under section

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, incidental to

an oil spill cannot be issued. Even

though NMFS cannot issue incidental

taking authorizations for oil spills, it

must continue to ensure that potential

takings are reduced to the lowest level

possible. Therefore, the LOA requires

certain mitigation measures to ensure

that oil spills do not occur (see

Mitigation later in this document).

Impacts on Habitat

Invertebrates and fish, the nutritional

basis for those whales and seals found

in the Beaufort Sea, may be affected by

operations at the Northstar project. Fish

may react to noise from Northstar with

reactions being quite variable and

dependent upon species, life history

stage, behavior, and the sound

characteristics of the water.

Invertebrates are not known to be

affected by noise. Fish may have been

displaced when the island was

constructed. These local, short-term

effects, however, are unlikely to have an

impact on marine mammal feeding.

In the event of a large oil spill, fish

and zooplankton in open offshore

waters are unlikely to be seriously

affected. Fish and zooplankton in

shallow nearshore waters could sustain

heavy mortality if an oil spill were to

remain within an area for several days

or longer. These affected nearshore areas

may then be unavailable for use as

feeding habitat for seals and whales.

However, because these seals and

whales are mobile, and bowhead

feeding is uncommon along the coast

near Northstar, effects would be minor

during the open water season. In winter,

effects of an oil spill on ringed seal food

supply and habitat would be locally

significant in the shallow nearshore

waters in the immediate vicinity of the

spill and oil slick. However, overall

effects to the species would be

negligible.

Impacts on Subsistence Uses

This section contains a summary on

the potential impacts from operational

activities on subsistence needs for

marine mammals. A more detailed

description can be found in BPXA’s

applications (BPXA, 1999, 2001). This

information, in addition to information

provided by AEWC and the NSB in their

comments on the final rule, and

information provided in the Corps’ final

EIS for Northstar, is believed by NMFS

to be the best information available to

date on the potential effects on the

availability of marine mammals for

subsistence uses in the Beaufort Sea

area.

Noise Impacts on Subsistence Harvests

The disturbance and potential

displacement of bowhead whales and

other marine mammals by sounds from

vessel traffic and production activities

are one of the principle concerns related

to subsistence use of the area. The

harvest of marine mammals is central to

the culture and subsistence economies

of the coastal North Slope communities.

In particular, if elevated noise levels are

displacing migrating bowhead whales

farther offshore, this could make the

harvest of these whales more difficult

and dangerous for hunters. The harvest

could also be affected if bowheads

become more skittish when exposed to

vessel or loud noise (BPXA, 1999, 2001).

Underwater sounds from drilling and

production operations on the artificial

gravel island are not very strong, and are

not expected to travel more than about

10 km (6.2 mi) from the source. BPXA

states that even those bowheads

traveling along the southern edge of the

migration corridor are not expected to

be able to hear sounds from Northstar

until the whales are well west of the

main hunting area for Nuiqsut.

Nuiqsut is the community closest to

the area of the proposed activity, and it

harvests bowhead whales only during

the fall whaling season. In recent years,

Nuiqsut whalers typically have taken

zero to four whales each season (BPXA,

1999). Nuiqsut whalers concentrate

their efforts on areas north and east of

Cross Island, generally in water depths

greater than 20 m (65 ft). Cross Island,

the principle field camp location for

Nuiqsut whalers, is located

approximately 28.2 km (17.5 mi) east of

the Northstar area.

Whalers from the village of Kaktovik

search for whales east, north, and west

of their village. Kaktovik is located

approximately 200 km (124.3 mi) east of

Northstar. The westernmost reported

harvest location was about 21 km (13

mi) west of Kaktovik, near 70°10′N.

144°W. (Kaleak, 1996). That site is

approximately 180 km (112 mi) east of

Northstar.

Whalers from the village of Barrow

search for bowhead whales much

further from the Northstar area, greater

than 250 km (>175 mi) to the west.

While the effects on migrating

bowheads from noise created by

Northstar production are not expected

to extend into the area where Nuiqsut

hunters usually search for bowheads

and, therefore, are not expected to affect

the accessibility of bowhead whales to

hunters, it is recognized that it is

difficult to determine the maximum

distance at which reactions occur

(Moore and Clark, 1992). As a result, in

order to avoid any unmitigable adverse

impact on subsistence needs and to

reduce potential interference with the

hunt, the timing of various activities at

Northstar as well as barge and aircraft

traffic in the Cross Island area will be

addressed in a Conflict Avoidance

Agreement between BPXA and the

AEWC on behalf of its bowhead whale

subsistence hunters. Information on

impacts on subsistence seal hunting can

be found in the final rule document (65

FR 34014, May 25, 2000).

Oil Spill Impacts on Subsistence

Harvests

Oil spills have the potential to affect

the hunt for bowhead whales. As a

result, the potential for oil spills from

Northstar is of significant concern to the

residents of the NSB. While oil spills

from production drilling or pipelines

could occur at any time of the year,

NMFS believes that a reduction in the

availability of bowhead whales for

subsistence uses would be possible only

if a significant spill occurred just prior

to or during the subsistence bowhead

hunt and spread into offshore waters.

While unlikely, oil spills could extend

into the bowhead hunting area under

certain wind and current conditions.

BPXA (1999, 2001) states that even in

the event of a major spill, it is unlikely

that more than a small number of those

bowheads encountered by hunters

would be contaminated by oil. However,

disturbance associated with

reconnaissance and cleanup activities

could affect bowhead whales and, thus,

accessibility of bowheads to hunters. As

65932 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

a result, in the unlikely event that a

major oil spill occurred during the

relatively short fall bowhead whaling

season, it is possible that bowhead

whale hunting could be significantly

affected. Moreover, even with no more

than a negligible impact on those

marine mammals that would be subject

to subsistence hunting, individuals and

communities may perceive that the

whale or seal meat or products are

tainted or somehow unfit to eat or use.

This could further impact subsistence

hunting of these animals. However,

NMFS believes that because (1) the

probability of a large oil spill is less

than 10 percent over the 20-30 years of

Northstar operations, (2) bowhead

whales in the vicinity of Northstar are

hunted only in the months of September

and October, limiting exposure time, (3)

only under certain wind and sea

conditions would it be likely that oil

would reach the bowhead subsistence

hunting area, (4) there will be an oil

spill response program in effect that will

be as effective as possible considering

operating conditions in Arctic waters,

and (5) other mitigation measures have

been suggested by the applicant and

others (and adopted by NMFS) in the

event that oil did contact bowheads,

NMFS determined in the preamble to

the final rule for implementation of

small takings of marine mammals

incidental to oil production activities at

Northstar (66 FR 34014, May 25, 2000)

that the construction and operation at

Northstar is unlikely to result in an

unmitigable adverse impact on

subsistence uses of marine mammals

during the period of effectiveness of the

regulations. During the period between

that rulemaking and this document,

NMFS has participated in several

meetings with BPXA, the AEWC and the

NSB in recognition that, although

unlikely, if an oil spill were to occur

and reach the bowhead migration

corridor, there is a potential for

significant impacts on the subsistence

hunting of bowheads. These meetings

resulted in identifying several

mitigation measures designed to reduce

the impact.

Mitigation

To minimize the likelihood that

impacts will occur to the species and

stocks of marine mammals and to the

subsistence use of marine mammals, all

activities at Northstar will be conducted

in accordance with all federal, state and

local regulations. BPXA will coordinate

all activities with relevant federal and

state agencies.

In addition to design for safety and

leak prevention (including not having

any valves, flanges, or fittings in the

subsea section to reduce the potential

for equipment failure), the pipeline

(which was installed in 2000), includes

the following measures to mitigate

impacts on the marine environment: (1)

utilize the best available technology leak

detection system to monitor for any

potential leaks, (2) conduct, at a

minimum, weekly helicopter aerial

surveillance of the offshore (and

onshore) pipeline corridor; and (3)

conduct ice-road surveillance of the

pipeline, including checking for

hydrocarbons under the ice by drilling

ice holes.

An oil spill contingency plan has

been developed and was submitted to

the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation, the U.S.

Department of Transportation, U.S.

Coast Guard, and the MMS for review

and approval in March 1999. An

updated plan was submitted by BPXA

on August 8, 2001, to the State of Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation. Also, emergency response

exercises, training and evaluation drills

will occur at regular scheduled

intervals.

To mitigate the potential for an oil

spill to interact with bowhead whales

and affect both the species and the

subsistence harvest by the NSB

villagers, BPXA has confirmed to NMFS

that they will not drill new wells or

sidetracks from existing wells into oilbearing strata during the defined period

of broken ice or open water conditions

which is defined as a period beginning

on June 13, 2002, and ending with the

presence of 18 inches of continuous ice

cover for one-half mile in all directions.

In addition, to ensure that there will

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on

the subsistence uses of marine

mammals, principally bowhead whales,

from an oil spill, this mitigation will

include planning and financial

assistance that will cover the following

oil-spill related costs: (1) annual

transportation to alternative bowhead

whale hunting areas for whaling crews,

(b) annual alternate subsistence food

supplies to replace subsistence food

otherwise provided by a whale, (c)

annual counseling and cultural

assistance for NSB residents and AEWC

members to handle the disruptions to

their lives and culture caused by the oil

spill, and (d) annual assistance to the

NSB and the AEWC to restore the

International Whaling Commission

(IWC) quota for bowhead whales in the

event that an oil spill at Northstar

results in a reduction or loss of the IWC

quota (BPXA Good Neighbor Policy,

March 14, 2001). An oil spill in this

context means any significant discharge

(as discharge is defined in 33 USC

2701(7)) of liquid hydrocarbons

(including crude oil and diesel fuel) into

the waters of the Beaufort Sea,

irrespecive of cause, including Acts of

God, that: (1) causes oil to be present in

the water and the impacts defined in (2)

to be determinable within three years of

the oil spill; and (2)(a) has the

significant potential to adversely affect

bowhead whales or other species

harvested for subsistence use; and (2)(b)

is followed by a reduction in the

availability of these species for

subsistence use in the area(s) in which

they are normally hunted.

During the ice-covered season, BPXA

proposes to use trained dogs to locate

seal structures in previously

undisturbed areas beginning on March

1, which, although before the traditional

March 20 birthing date for ringed seals,

is more appropriate based on the

findings in a report by Williams et al.

(2001). With completion of this report,

as required by the 2000/2001 LOA, and

the concern raised in that report of the

potential negative impact of this

monitoring program, NMFS has

determined that conducting seal

structure surveys beginning January 1

will not be required this year pending

a review by a peer-review group next

year. If that group determines that

additional monitoring is needed, NMFS

will make the necessary modification to

the BPXA LOA. During the open-water

season, a minimum flight altitude of

1,000 ft (304.8 m) will be maintained by

all aircraft unless limited by weather

conditions or emergencies, and except

during takeoff and landing. Helicopter

flights will primarily be conducted

during ice breakup or freeze-up and will

occur in a specified corridor from

Northstar Island to the mainland. In

addition, all non-essential boat, barge

and air traffic will be scheduled to avoid

periods when bowhead whales are

migrating through the area. Essential

traffic will be closely coordinated with

the NSB and the AEWC to avoid

disrupting subsistence hunting. In

addition, BPXA this year has installed a

dock for barges at Northstar. This action

will allow barges to tie up at Northstar

instead of using diesel engines to

remain in place, thereby reducing

underwater noise levels at Northstar.

Monitoring

A detailed description of BPXA’s

proposed monitoring program for

implementation during the production

phase at Northstar can be found in

BPXA’s 2001 application for an LOA

incidental to oil production (BPXA,

2001).

The open-water season portion of

BPXA’s monitoring plan was reviewed

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65933

by scientists and others attending the

annual open-water peer-review

workshop held in Seattle on June 6,

2001, and will be reviewed again in late

spring 2002. Peer review on the on-ice

portion of the application was

conducted on October 14-15, 1999, and

October 2000. A summary of marine

mammal monitoring that will be

conducted during Northstar production

this year is provided here; greater detail

can be found in BPXA’s application

(BPXA, 2001).

Under the recently expired LOA,

BPXA conducted 6 monitoring tasks.

These were to conduct: (1) Fixed-wing,

systematic, aerial surveys of seals

hauled out on the ice in the spring 2001;

(2) on-ice searches, during winter 2000/

2001, for ringed seal breathing holes and

lairs near Northstar and, if needed,

follow-up surveys; (3) measurements of

underwater and in air sounds produced

by any construction, drilling, and

operations to document sounds and

vibrations from Northstar construction,

(4) island-based visual monitoring for

marine mammals during the open water

season, and (5) acoustic monitoring of

bowhead vocalizations during

migration. Task 3, a late-winter

helicopter survey to assess

abandonment rates of seal holes, was

not conducted in the spring 2000, as

such a survey had been attempted in

spring 1999 with limited success. The

results of this monitoring program are

contained in Richardson and Williams

(2001a and 2001b) and were

summarized previously in this

document.

During 2002, BPXA will conduct the

following monitoring activities:

Monitoring During the Ice-covered

Season

During late May/early June, 2002,

BPXA plans to conduct systematic aerial

surveys, using fixed-wing aircraft, of

seals hauled out on the ice. This survey

will be consistent with BPXA surveys of

this type conducted from 1997 through

2001 (see Richardson and Williams,

2001a, 2001b), and will be the last in the

planned series. The initial surveys

(1997-1998) were to provide data on

baseline distribution and density prior

to construction of offshore production

facilities. The subsequent surveys (1999-

2002) provide comparative data during

and after construction at Northstar.

BPXA will also make measurements of

underwater and in-air sounds, as well as

ice vibration produced by any

construction, drilling, and operational

activities occurring in 2002, whose

sounds have not been previously

measured.

If construction activities occur in

previously undisturbed areas after

March 1, 2002, on-ice searches using

trained dogs will be employed to locate

seal structures. If ice road construction

took place after March 1, 2002, a

resurvey of the area surveyed previously

will be conducted in May 2002 to assess

the proportion of structures abandoned

relative to distance between the

disturbance and the structure.

Monitoring During the Open-Water

Season

During the open-water period of 2002,

monitoring activities will include

acoustic measurements of sounds

produced by operational activities and

acoustical monitoring of bowhead

whales. No visual monitoring of marine

mammals are planned for 2002 or in

subsequent years for Northstar

operations. This task was undertaken in

prior years primarily to ensure that no

seals or whales would be exposed to

potentially injurious levels of sounds

from impact pipe driving, or other loud

noise sources during construction.

However, even during pipe driving,

impulse sound levels in the water near

the island did not exceed 155 dB (re 1

μPa) and levels did not approach the

established 180 dB (whales) and 190 dB

(seals) sound level criteria. As BPXA

does not plan to conduct impact pipe

driving or other noisy activities in 2002

and beyond, there is no need to

continue an observer monitoring

program from Northstar. However,

based on a recommendation from the

MMC, NMFS has a requirement in the

2002 LOA that, if activities are

conducted that have the potential to

result in SPLs greater than 190 dB in the

waters offshore of Seal Island, then an

observer monitoring program will need

to be instituted prior to beginning that

activity to ensure that proper mitigation

and monitoring requirements are carried

out.

BPXA plans to use an acoustic

localization technique in 2002 to

document the occurrence and locations

of calling bowhead whales in the

southern part of the migration corridor.

This work will be a continuation of

work conducted in 2000 (Greene et al.,

2001) and planned for 2001 under the

current LOA. The primary objective is to

document the occurrence of calling

bowhead whales in the southern part of

the migration corridor near Northstar

and to determine whether their

distances from the island vary in direct

relation to the sound levels emanating

from the island. This will provide

information on whether Northstar has

affected the distribution and/or the

calling behavior of the whales.

Reporting

Under the regulations, BPXA is

required to provide two 90-day reports

annually to NMFS. The first report is

due 90 days after either the ice roads are

no longer usable or spring aerial surveys

are completed, whichever is later.

Under recent Authorizations, this report

was submitted to NMFS on September

15, 2000 (Richardson and Williams

(eds.), 2000), and September 14, 2001

((Richardson and Williams (eds.), 2001).

The second 90-day report is required to

be forwarded to NMFS 90 days after the

formation of ice in the central Alaskan

Beaufort Sea prevents water access to

Northstar. Under the recently expired

LOA, this report was submitted to

NMFS on January 31, 2001 (Richardson

and Williams (eds.), 2001a). These

reports included the dates and locations

of construction activities, details of

marine mammal sightings, estimates of

the amount and nature of marine

mammal takes, and any apparent effects

on accessibility of marine mammals to

subsistence hunters.

Under the recently expired LOA, a

draft final technical report was required

to be submitted to NMFS by April 1,

2001. This report was submitted to

NMFS on that date (Richardson and

Williams (eds.), 2001b). The draft final

report was subject to peer review in

Seattle, WA on June 6, 2001. The final

technical report will fully describe the

methods and results of all monitoring

tasks and a complete analysis of the

data.

NMFS is requiring that the reporting

requirements described in these

paragraphs will be continued under the

new LOA, except that, in conformance

with the final rule on this action, the

draft final technical report will be due

on May 1, 2002. Endangered Species

Act (ESA)

On March 4, 1999, NMFS concluded

consultation with the Corps on

permitting the construction and

operation at the Northstar site. The

finding of that consultation was that

construction and operation at Northstar

is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the endangered Western

Arctic bowhead whale stock. In

addition, issuance of a small take

authorization to BPXA under section

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA is a Federal

action, NMFS has completed

consultation with itself under section 7

of the ESA on this action. The finding

of this consultation was that the

issuance of the small take authorization

was unlikely to adversely affect the

bowhead whale.

On May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28141),

NMFS announced receipt of a petition

65934 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices

from the Center for Biological Diversity

and the Marine Biodiversity Protection

Center to designate critical habitat for

the Western Arctic stock of bowhead

whales under the ESA. NMFS is

currently reviewing this petition to

determine whether designation of

critical habitat is warranted. However,

while there is no provision under the

ESA that activities that might impact

critical habitat cease while a review is

underway, federally-permitted oil and

gas exploration activities require

consultation under section 7 of the ESA

if endangered or threatened species are

likely to be affected.

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

On June 12, 1998 (63 FR 32207), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

noted the availability for public review

and comment a draft EIS prepared by

the Corps under NEPA on Beaufort Sea

oil and gas development at Northstar.

Comments on that document were

accepted by the Corps until August 31,

1998 (63 FR 43699, August 14, 1998).

On February 5, 1999 (64 FR 5789), the

EPA announced the availability for

public review and comment, a final EIS

prepared by the Corps on Beaufort Sea

oil and gas development at Northstar.

Comments on that document were

accepted by the Corps until March 8,

1999. Based upon a review of the final

EIS, the comments received on the draft

EIS and final EIS, and the comments

received during the rulemaking, NMFS

adopted the Corps’ final EIS as its own

as provided for in the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR 1501.6) and has determined that it

is not necessary to prepare

supplemental NEPA documentation.

Determinations

On May 25, 2000 (65 FR 34014),

NMFS determined that the impact of

construction and oil production at the

Northstar project in the U.S. Beaufort

Sea will result in no more than a

temporary modification in behavior by

certain species of cetaceans and

pinnipeds.

During the ice-covered season,

pinnipeds close to the island may be

subject to incidental harassment due to

the localized displacement from

construction of ice roads, from

transportation activities on those roads,

and from production activities at

Northstar. Subsequently, this

determination has been supported by

monitoring conducted during Northstar

construction, including ice road

construction, and reported in

Richardson and Williams (2001a and

2001b). As cetaceans will not be in the

area during the ice-covered season, they

will not be affected.

While production activities at

Northstar have some potential to

influence seal hunting activities by

residents of Nuiqsut, NMFS believes

that Northstar production-related

activities will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of

these stocks for subsistence uses

because (1) the peak sealing season is

during the winter months, (2) the main

summer sealing is off the Colville Delta,

and (3) the zone of influence from

Northstar on beluga and seals is fairly

small.

During the open-water season, the

principal operations-related noise

activities will be helicopter traffic,

vessel traffic, and other general oil

production activities on Seal Island.

Sounds from production-related

activities on the island are not expected

to be detectable more than about 5-10

km (3.1-6.2 mi) offshore of the island.

Disturbance to bowhead or beluga

whales by on-island activities will be

limited to an area substantially less than

that distance. Helicopter traffic will be

limited to nearshore areas between the

mainland and the island and is unlikely

to approach or disturb whales. Barge

traffic will be located mainly inshore of

the whales and will involve vessels

moving slowly, in a straight line, and at

constant speed. Little disturbance or

displacement of whales by vessel traffic

is expected. While behavioral

modifications may be made by these

species to avoid the resultant noise, this

behavioral change is expected to have

no more than 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 area of operations, the

number of potential harassment takings

is estimated to be small. This is because

the activity is in shallow waters inshore

of the main migration corridor for

bowhead whales and far inshore of the

main migration corridor for belugas. In

addition, no take by injury and/or death

is anticipated, except possibly for a

small take of ringed seals by mortality

incidental to ice-road construction. No

rookeries, areas of concentrated mating

or feeding, or other areas of special

significance for marine mammals occur

within or near the planned area of

Northstar operations.

Because bowhead whales are east of

Seal Island area in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea until late August/early

September, activities at Northstar are

not expected to impact subsistence

hunting of bowhead whales prior to that

date. Appropriate mitigation measures

to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact

on the availability of bowhead whales

for subsistence needs has been, and

continues to be the subject of

consultations between BPXA and

subsistence users. In that regard, on

October 22, 2001, BPXA and the NSB

adopted a Good Neighbor Policy that

identifies measures that BPXA will

implement in the event of an oil spill to

mitigate impacts on subsistence harvests

of marine mammals. In addition, NMFS

expects BPXA and the NSB to finalize

its annual Conflict Avoidance

Agreement in 2002, prior to the

commencement of the westward

bowhead migration in the central and

western Beaufort Sea.

NMFS has determined that the

potential for an offshore oil spill

occurring is low (less than 10 percent

over 20-30 years (Corps, 1999)) and the

potential for that oil intercepting whales

or seals is even lower (about 1.2 percent

(Corps, 1999)). Because of this low

potential and because of the seasonality

of bowheads, NMFS has determined

that the taking of marine mammals

incidental to operation at the Northstar

oil production facility will have no

more than a negligible impact on these

species. In addition, because BPXA has

certified to NMFS that it will not drill

into oil-bearing strata during periods of

open water or broken ice (the time

period between June 13 and ending with

the presence of 18 inches (0.46 m) of

continuous ice cover for one-half mile

(805 m) in all directions), because there

will be an oil spill response program in

effect that will be as effective as possible

considering operating conditions in

Arctic waters, and because other

mitigation measures have been

identified in the event that oil does

contact bowheads (see previous

discussion), NMFS has determined that

there will not be an unmitigable adverse

impact on subsistence uses of marine

mammals.

Authorization

Accordingly, an LOA has been issued

by NMFS to BPXA on this date (see

DATES) authorizing the taking of

bowhead, beluga, and gray whales and

ringed, bearded and spotted seals,

incidental to oil and gas production

activities at the Northstar facility in the

U.S. Beaufort Sea. Issuance of this LOA

is based on findings, described in the

preamble to the final rule, that the total

takings by this activity will result in

only small numbers of marine mammals

being taken, have no more than a

negligible impact on marine mammal

stocks in the Beaufort Sea, and not will

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2001 / Notices 65935

have an unmitigable adverse impact on

the availability of the affected marine

mammal stocks for subsistence uses. In

addition, NMFS finds that, under its

previous LOA, BPXA has met the

requirements contained in the

implementing regulations, including

monitoring and reporting requirements.

This LOA remains valid until

November 30, 2002, provided BPXA is

in conformance with the conditions of

the regulations and the LOA and the

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting

requirements described in this

document and in the LOA are

undertaken.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

David Cottingham,

Deputy Director Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31541 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 121801C]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council will convene a

public meeting of the Shrimp Advisory

Panel (AP).

DATES: The AP will meet beginning at

8:30 a.m. on January 7, 2001 and will

conclude by 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the New Orleans Airport Hilton, 901

Airline Highway, Kenner, LA;

telephone: 504–469–5000.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S.

Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa,

FL 33619.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist,

at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council; telephone: 813–

228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Shrimp AP will receive reports from

NMFS on the status and health of

shrimp stocks in the Gulf and the effects

of the 2001 Cooperative Shrimp Closure

with the state of Texas. The Shrimp AP

may make recommendations for a

cooperative closure with Texas for 2002.

The Shrimp AP will also review an

Options Paper for Amendment 13 to the

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) that includes alternatives to add

rock shrimp to the Shrimp FMP and

establishment of status criteria for

shrimp stocks including maximum

sustainable yields (MSY), optimum

yields (OY), as well as criteria for

determining if any of the shrimp stocks

are undergoing overfishing or should be

classified as overfished. The Options

Paper may also contain alternatives for

bycatch quotas.

Although other non-emergency issues

not on the agenda may come before the

AP for discussion, in accordance with

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act,

those issues may not be the subject of

formal action during these meetings.

Actions of the AP will be restricted to

those issues specifically identified in

the agendas and any issues arising after

publication of this notice that require

emergency action under Section 305(c)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided

the public has been notified of the

Council’s intent to take action to

address the emergency.

Copies of the agenda can be obtained

by calling 813–228–2815.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Anne Alford at the Council (see

ADDRESSES) by December 31, 2001.

Dated: December 18, 2001.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–31542 Filed 12–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 121801B]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene public meetings of the

Standing and Special Reef Fish

Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC) and the Reef Fish Advisory Panel

(AP) from January 7 through January 11,

2002.

DATES: The Council’s Reef Fish AP will

convene at 9 a.m. (EST) on Monday,

January 7, 2002 and conclude by 5 p.m.

Wednesday, January 9, 2002. The

Council will also convene a meeting of

the Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC

at 8:30 a.m. (EST) on Thursday, January

10, 2002 and conclude by 5 p.m. on

Friday, January 11, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the Hilton Tampa Airport Hotel, 2225

Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607;

telephone: 813-877-6688.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S.

Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa,

FL 33619.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Steven Atran, Population Dynamics

Statistician, Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council; telephone: 813–

228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AP

and the SSC will review a report from

the Council’s Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel (RFSAP)

summarizing recent NMFS stock

assessments, recommendations for

allowable biological catch (ABC) and

thresholds for status determination for

gag, vermilion snapper, and gray

triggerfish. They will also review a

report from the Council’s

Socioeconomic Panel (SEP)

summarizing the available economic

and social information and implications

of setting recommended ABC levels for

those stocks. The SSC will comment on

the scientific validity of these reports,

and both the SSC and AP may make

recommendations for setting total

allowable catch (TAC) or other

management measures for these stocks.

Although other non-emergency issues

not on the agenda may come before the

AP/SSC for discussion, in accordance

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act,

those issues may not be the subject of

formal action during these meetings.

Actions of the AP/SSC will be restricted

to those issues specifically identified in

the agendas and any issues arising after

publication of this notice that require

emergency action under Section 305(c)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided

the public has been notified of the

Council’s intent to take action to

address the emergency.

Copies of the agenda can be obtained

by calling 813–228–2815.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other