97-26060. Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling Activities in the Beaufort Sea  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 51637-51643]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-26060]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    [I.D. 070197A]
    
    
    Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
    Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling Activities in the Beaufort Sea
    
    AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
    Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental 
    Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of marine mammals 
    by harassment incidental to conducting oil exploration drilling 
    activities in Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea in waters off Alaska has been 
    issued to ARCO Alaska, Inc. (ARCO).
    
    DATES: This authorization is effective from September 25, 1997, through 
    September 1, 1998.
    
    ADDRESSES: The application and monitoring plan, authorization, and 
    environmental assessment (EA) are available by writing to the Chief, 
    Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
    West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of 
    the contacts listed below.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of 
    Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska 
    Field Office, NMFS, (907) 271-5006.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
         Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
    directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
    incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 
    citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
    fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are 
    made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to 
    harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the 
    public for review.
        Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a 
    negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an 
    unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or 
    stock(s) for subsistence uses, and the permissible methods of taking 
    and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
    taking are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 
    216.103 as `` * * * an impact resulting from the specified activity 
    that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, 
    adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates 
    of recruitment or survival.''
        On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an interim rule 
    establishing, among other things, procedures for issuing incidental 
    harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for 
    activities in Arctic waters, including requirements for peer-review of 
    a monitoring program and a plan of cooperation between the applicant 
    and affected subsistence users. For additional information on the 
    procedures followed for this
    
    [[Page 51638]]
    
    authorization, please refer to that document.
    
    Summary of Request
    
        On May 30, 1997, NMFS received an application from ARCO requesting 
    a 1-year authorization for the possible harassment of small numbers of 
    several species of marine mammals incidental to moving a Concrete 
    Island Drilling System (CIDS) from Prudhoe Bay to Camden Bay, Alaska 
    and drilling an oil exploration well at that location during the 
    winter, 1997/98. Essentially, the project has several stages as 
    summarized below: (a) Deballast the bottom-founded Global Marine 
    Drilling Co. ``Glomar Beaufort Sea #1'' CIDS and move it to the well 
    site in Camden Bay on or about August 15, 1997; (b) Transport drilling 
    supplies, materials and other equipment to the CIDS. Transport fuel 
    from Canada to the site; (c) Warm shutdown mode until such time as ice 
    in Camden Bay is fully formed (estimated to be around November 1, 
    1997). Crew change via helicopter during this and succeeding times; (d) 
    Drilling operations after ice formation on or around November 1, 1997 
    (drilling and well testing operations may occur from that date through 
    mid-May 1998); (e) Cold shutdown mode from completion of drilling and 
    well testing operations until around July 1, 1998; and (f) Towing CIDS 
    from Camden Bay by tug boats to Prudhoe Bay or another location.
        A more detailed description of the work planned is contained in the 
    application and is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Moving the 
    CIDS from Prudhoe Bay began on August 16, 1997. The barging of fuel, 
    equipment and supplies will be completed on or before August 31, 1997.
    
    Comments and Responses
    
        A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization 
    was published on July 15, 1997 (62 FR 37881), and a 30-day public 
    comment period was provided on the application and proposed 
    authorization. During the comment period, comments received were from 
    the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
    Commission (AEWC) and North Slope Borough (NSB), ARCO, Greenpeace 
    Alaska (Greenpeace) and the Trustees for Alaska (Trustees). ARCO's 
    comments which addressed contents in the EA are not discussed further 
    in this document. Information on the activity and authorization request 
    that are not subject to reviewer comments can be found in the proposed 
    authorization notice and is not repeated here. Issues outside either 
    the scope of the IHA process or on the impacts on marine mammals and/or 
    subsistence needs for marine mammals are not addressed in this 
    document.
    
    Negligible impact concerns
    
        Comment 1: Trustees believe that NMFS fails to adequately discuss 
    scientific information which found significant effects from disturbance 
    on whales and other marine mammals. They believe NMFS provided little 
    information in the notice and EA not found in ARCO's application.
        Response: The MMPA requires NMFS to use the best scientific 
    information available when determining whether an activity will have a 
    negligible impact on marine mammals (see the definition of negligible 
    impact above or in 50 CFR 216.103). Extensive monitoring of impacts of 
    oil exploration activities on marine mammals and analyses of the 
    results from those studies have been conducted over the past two 
    decades. This information has also been summarized elsewhere (e.g., 
    Richardson et al. (1995b) on noise impacts). The EA also summarizes 
    this information and incorporates other documentation by reference. 
    Because the best scientific information to date available to NMFS 
    indicates that oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort Sea 
    are not having more than a negligible impact on marine mammals, and 
    because Trustees and other commenters have not provided scientific 
    information to the contrary, an incidental harassment authorization 
    appears warranted.
         NMFS does not contradict commenters' position that bowhead whales 
    and other marine mammals may be harassed by noise from aircraft, 
    tugboats and oil drilling operations. However, the MMPA allows a take 
    by harassment if certain findings are made and certain conditions are 
    met. NMFS believes the level of incidental harassment by the ARCO 
    activity will not adversely affect the species or stocks of marine 
    mammals through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. 
    Therefore, the taking is considered negligible.
    
    Marine mammal concerns
    
        Comment 2: Greenpeace and Trustees both note that NMFS has failed 
    to fully consider the impacts to the bowhead whale population. They 
    believe NMFS should assess impacts from the first arrivals in the 
    western Beaufort Sea and not just on impacts after August 31.
        Response: NMFS agrees and has modified the EA to address this 
    concern. However, NMFS notes that the bowhead whale numbers referenced 
    by Trustees as passing the Camden Bay site are overstated. Moore and 
    Clark (1991) estimated in 1981 through 1983, up to 500 (range 0-500) 
    bowheads may be offshore the Barter Island region; however, no whales 
    were sighted west of that region prior to September 1 during those 
    years. Most sighted bowheads were still in Canadian waters. While NMFS 
    notes that in general, bowhead whales migrate westward through the 
    Alaskan Beaufort Sea from late August to late October, only a portion 
    of the population has been estimated as migrating during this time 
    period. Other bowheads are either undetectable to observers (i.e., 
    under the ice), migrated prior to surveys commencing, or did not 
    migrate to the Canadian Beaufort Sea. As a result of ARCO's agreement 
    with the AEWC to complete moving activities and barge traffic prior to 
    September 1, NMFS believes the majority of the bowhead population will 
    not hear noise emanating from the CIDS because of their presence in the 
    Canadian Beaufort Sea.
        Most westward migrating bowheads sighted are in water ranging from 
    20 to 50 m (65-165 ft) deep (Ljungblad et al. 1984). Scientific 
    evidence indicates that bowhead whale distribution appears to be 
    strongly influenced by ice (but see information provided by Traditional 
    Knowledge discussed below). In heavy ice years, bowheads tend to 
    migrate in deeper water (> 60 m (> 197 ft)), while in light ice years, 
    a larger proportion sighted are found in shallow water (<40 m="">< 131="" ft))="" (nmfs="" 1996).="" a="" few="" may="" occur="" close="" to="" shore.="" therefore,="" there="" is="" some="" potential="" that="" bowhead="" whales="" may="" be="" incidentally="" harassed="" while="" the="" cids="" is="" being="" towed="" westward="" and="" the="" supply="" activities="" prior="" to="" august="" 31.="" however,="" these="" numbers="" are="" considered="" to="" be="" small="" and="" the="" impact="" negligible.="" additional="" information="" on="" this="" issue="" can="" be="" found="" in="" the="" ea.="" comment="" 3:="" trustees="" note="" that="" nmfs="" does="" not="" provide="" a="" specific="" date="" for="" start-up="" of="" drilling,="" nor="" when="" the="" spring="" bowhead="" whale="" migration="" period="" begins="" (when="" the="" cids="" should="" not="" be="" moved),="" nor="" does="" it="" prohibit="" drilling="" operations="" from="" the="" cids="" during="" this="" period,="" if="" drilling="" takes="" longer="" than="" expected.="" response:="" nmfs="" notes="" that="" it="" is="" unaware="" whether="" ice-up="" needs="" to="" be="" complete="" prior="" to="" the="" cids="" commencing="" drilling.="" therefore,="" recognizing="" that="" bowhead="" whales="" may="" be="" migrating="" westward="" through="" the="" offshore="" and="" nearshore="" camden="" bay="" area="" through="" late="" october,="" and="" drilling="" during="" this="" period="" of="" time="" could="" result="" in="" additional="" harassment="" takes="" that="" have="" not="" been="" considered="" in="" the="" negligible="" take="" analysis,="" nmfs="" has="" conditioned="" the="" iha="" so="" that="" drilling="" activities="" prior="" to="" [[page="" 51639]]="" november="" 1,="" 1997,="" are="" not="" covered="" by="" the="" iha="" and="" any="" incidental="" harassment="" of="" bowheads="" resulting="" from="" an="" early="" start-up="" is="" a="" violation="" of="" the="" iha="" and="" the="" mmpa.="" during="" the="" springtime="" eastward="" migration="" bowheads="" are="" presumed="" to="" first="" arrive="" offshore="" camden="" bay="" in="" late="" april="" to="" early="" may.="" this="" migration="" is="" also="" presumed="" to="" occur="" through="" the="" end="" of="" june.="" because="" the="" leads="" through="" the="" ice="" at="" this="" time="" are="" usually="" well="" offshore="" (and="" the="" reason="" there="" is="" not="" a="" springtime="" subsistence="" hunt="" at="" nuiqsuk="" and="" kaktovik),="" no="" incidental="" harassment="" takings="" are="" presumed="" to="" occur="" from="" drilling="" activities.="" however,="" in="" order="" to="" ensure="" bowhead="" migration="" is="" not="" impeded="" by="" anthropogenic="" noise,="" a="" condition="" of="" the="" iha="" prohibits="" any="" oil="" and="" gas="" exploration="" activity="" in="" the="" spring="" leads,="" including="" drilling="" or="" vessel="" noise.="" if="" on-site="" drilling="" activities="" are="" projected="" to="" continue="" into="" the="" time="" bowheads="" enter="" offshore="" camden="" bay,="" prior="" to="" modifying="" the="" iha,="" nmfs="" will="" require="" submission="" and="" implementation="" of="" a="" revised="" monitoring="" program="" to="" ensure="" that="" bowheads="" will="" not="" be="" seriously="" affected="" by="" drilling="" activities="" while="" moving="" through="" the="" spring="" leads.="" in="" accordance="" with="" nmfs="" regulations,="" any="" modification="" of="" an="" iha="" that="" does="" not="" involve="" emergency="" action="" to="" protect="" marine="" mammals="" is="" subject="" to="" a="" 30-day="" public="" comment="" period.="" for="" that="" reason,="" a="" request="" for="" an="" amendment="" to="" the="" iha,="" and="" the="" accompanying="" monitoring="" plan="" will="" need="" to="" be="" provided="" to="" nmfs="" no="" later="" than="" march="" 1,="" 1998.="" if="" the="" cids="" remains="" under="" the="" control="" of,="" or="" under="" contract="" to="" arco="" after="" completion="" of="" the="" drilling="" operation,="" the="" iha="" authorizes="" the="" harassment="" of="" bowheads="" and="" other="" marine="" mammals="" incidental="" to="" moving="" the="" cids="" to="" another="" site="" after="" the="" last="" bowhead="" migration="" pulse="" has="" completed="" its="" eastward="" migration.="" if="" necessary,="" nmfs="" will="" make="" a="" determination="" that="" the="" migration="" is="" complete="" and="" will="" notify="" interested="" parties.="" comment="" 4:="" greenpeace="" states="" that="" the="" impacts="" of="" industrial="" noise="" associated="" with="" exploratory="" drilling="" activities="" during="" the="" bowhead="" migration="" have="" not="" been="" adequately="" evaluated="" by="" nmfs.="" response:="" other="" than="" towing="" the="" cids="" and="" tug/barge="" traffic,="" no="" other="" activities="" related="" to="" the="" cids="" operation="" is="" anticipated="" to="" have="" an="" impact="" on="" bowhead="" whales.="" impacts="" on="" bowheads="" from="" vessel="" noise="" was="" discussed="" in="" the="" ea.="" comment="" 5:="" trustees="" note="" that="" nmfs="" fails="" to="" make="" clear="" that="" the="" drill="" site="" is="" located="" in="" significant="" ringed="" seal="" habitat="" and="" that="" seals="" undergoing="" stresses="" such="" as="" reproduction="" (taking="" place="" during="" drilling="" activities)="" may="" be="" more="" vulnerable="" to="" the="" effects="" of="" contaminants="" or="" disturbance.="" trustees="" also="" notes="" that="" nmfs="" fails="" to="" discuss="" impacts="" from="" seismic="" activities="" and="" vehicle="" traffic.="" response:="" the="" biology,="" abundance="" and="" distribution="" of="" ringed="" seals="" and="" other="" pinnipeds="" were="" addressed="" in="" the="" ea.="" the="" ea="" notes="" that="" some="" reduction="" in="" density="" of="" ringed="" seals="" within="" an="" area="" of="" approximately="" 2.3="" nmi="" (3.7="" km)="" of="" the="" cids="" could="" be="" expected.="" however,="" considering="" winter-time="" ringed="" seal="" densities="" of="" between="" 2-6="" ringed="" seals/="">2, few ringed seals should be affected by the CIDS, whose 
    noise disturbance zone is limited to less than 1 nm. Because drilling 
    operations will begin on or around November 1, 1997, well prior to 
    ringed seals establishing birth lairs, and continue through mid-May 
    1998, ringed seal pupping, (which starts in early April), is unlikely 
    to take place in the vicinity of the CIDS. Therefore, NMFS expects few 
    ringed seals would be affected and that impact will result, at worst, 
    in some displacement. Considering the extensive habitat available to 
    ringed seals and the size of the Alaskan ringed seal population, 
    displacement would not result in more than a negligible impact on the 
    species.
        Incidental harassment for either seismic activities or vehicle 
    traffic over ice has not been requested by ARCO, is not being 
    authorized, and is not anticipated by the applicant, except for the 
    latter in emergency situations, such as an oil spill. NMFS notes 
    however, that the incidental taking by this type of activity is the 
    subject of a separate rulemaking action (see 62 FR 42737, August 8, 
    1997).
    
    Environmental concerns
    
        Comment 6: Trustees believe that the impacts to the Alaska National 
    Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have been ignored by NMFS. One of their concerns 
    is that, to avoid impacts to marine mammals, helicopters would be 
    required to fly over land. However, this would increase the magnitude 
    and extent of impacts to the wilderness.
        Response: NMFS believes no more than a negligible impact will 
    accrue to marine habitats of importance to marine mammals in the waters 
    offshore of ANWR from the wintertime CIDS operation. Once the CIDS is 
    in place and supplied prior to September 1, noise from the CIDS will be 
    limited to generators operating in the warm shutdown mode, and possibly 
    some noise from helicopters supplying the CIDS prior to beginning 
    drilling. Oil drilling noises will not occur until ice-up is complete. 
    Other than small numbers of seals and polar bears (for which the U.S. 
    Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a small take authorization), 
    marine mammals will be unaffected (but see comment 7 below regarding 
    potential for oil spills and comment 8 regarding drilling muds). 
    Impacts relating to issuance of an IHA were addressed in NMFS' EA, 
    other impacts were addressed in the final Environmental Impact 
    Statement (FEIS) for the Beaufort Sea Lease Sale 144 (BSLS 144) and an 
    EA prepared by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) for ARCO's 
    activities.
        ARCO will be required to comply with appropriate MMS and ANWR 
    regulations regarding aircraft overflights. Also to mitigate noise 
    levels for marine mammals, NMFS has conditioned the IHA to require 
    aircraft to remain at an altitude of 1,000 ft (305 m) until within 0.5 
    nm (926 m) of the CIDS, whenever the weather ceiling allows such 
    heights.
        Comment 7: Both Greenpeace and Trustees expressed deep concern over 
    the possibility of an oil spill in the vicinity of ANWR. There was 
    concern that in the event of a crude oil blowout, harm to the marine 
    mammals which reside on the barrier islands and in other habitats along 
    the ANWR shoreline would be devastating.
        Trustees noted that the relief well plan calls for ice roads and 
    support activities with ANWR. This is unacceptable.
        Response: When making a negligible impact determination, NMFS finds 
    that a negligible impact determination may be appropriate if the 
    probability of occurrence is low, but the potential effects may be 
    significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts 
    must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species or 
    stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this balancing 
    test, NMFS evaluates the risks involved and the potential impacts on 
    marine mammal populations and habitat.
        NMFS recognizes that there is still considerable disagreement as to 
    the effects of an oil spill on bowhead whales and other marine mammals 
    in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. MMS used Oil Spill Risk Analysis modelling 
    to estimate the impacts of a worst-case spill on bowhead whales and 
    concluded that this event would result in the mortality of a few 
    individuals with expected recovery to the species' overall population 
    level in 1 to 3 years. However, some data on the anatomy and migratory 
    behavior of bowhead whales suggest that impacts from a large oil spill 
    could pose a grave threat to this species, especially if substantial
    
    [[Page 51640]]
    
    amounts of oil got into the lead system during the spring migration 
    (Albert 1981, Shotts et al. 1990). NMFS notes however, that to date no 
    blowouts have occurred during drilling 81 exploratory wells in Alaskan 
    waters as of 1994 (MMS 1996). As analyzed in more detail in MMS' EA and 
    based upon information provided in that document and the FEIS for BSLS 
    144, NMFS has determined that the potential for a significant oil spill 
    from a single exploration activity site (as contrasted to an oil 
    production site on which oil spill probabilistic analyses are based), 
    and the potential therefore for significant impacts on marine mammals 
    inhabiting the offshore and nearshore waters of Camden Bay, is 
    negligible.
        NMFS notes that ARCO's Oil Spill Contingency Plan has been modified 
    to eliminate all references to relief well planning involving 
    construction on, or movement through, ANWR, including its lagoons.
        Comment 8: Both Greenpeace and Trustees believe NMFS fails to give 
    meaningful consideration to impacts associated with chronic discharges 
    of contaminants (drilling muds, cuttings, biocides, oil) associated 
    with exploratory drilling operations. Greenpeace believes routine and 
    accidental discharges are substantial.
        Response: The discharge of anthropogenic materials from oil 
    platforms, (such as drilling muds, discharged materials and produced 
    water) is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 
    the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. A permit for oil 
    exploration activities has been issued by EPA for this activity. While 
    drilling muds are relatively non-toxic and the metals associated with 
    drilling muds are virtually unavailable for bioaccumulation by marine 
    organisms (Neff 1987), other anthropogenic materials could potentially 
    harm bowhead whales by reducing or contaminating their food resources 
    if found in sufficient quantities. The feeding strategy of bowhead 
    whales could lead to ingestion of oil from oil-contaminated food, if 
    the prey organisms accumulate petroleum hydrocarbons in their tissue. 
    The effect of pollutants including heavy metals on the planktonic 
    organisms (copepods, euphasiids) on which these whales feed is 
    relatively unknown, but may result in either direct mortality or 
    sublethal effects that inhibit growth, longevity and reproduction. If 
    planktonic crustaceans have the ability to detoxify hydrocarbons, these 
    hydrocarbons are less likely to persist and biomagnify in the bowhead 
    whale. The National Research Council (1985) concluded that the risks to 
    most outer continental shelf (OCS) benthic communities from exploratory 
    drilling discharges are small and result primarily from physical 
    benthic effects. In addition, the relatively small area of these 
    discharges further limits their impact in the Beaufort Sea marine 
    environment.
        NMFS has modified its EA to address this concern.
    
    Subsistence concerns
    
        Comment 9: The AEWC has concerns that any major noise-producing 
    activities, including those by ARCO, that occur in the vicinity of a 
    village's subsistence hunt or in the ``upstream'' migration path of the 
    bowhead whales have the potential to interfere with the bowhead 
    subsistence hunt. As a result, the AEWC has requested that all Fall 
    open-water industrial activities with the potential to interfere with 
    the Fall bowhead whale subsistence hunt cease as of August 31, 1997. If 
    the CIDS is not on location at the specified and represented time by 
    ARCO, then the AEWC insists that an approved open water Conflict and 
    Avoidance Agreement (CAA) must be in place prior to the IHA being 
    issued. If the CAA is signed before NMFS issues an IHA, then the AEWC 
    agrees with NMFS that the potential impacts should be sufficiently 
    mitigated to warrant issuance of an IHA with no further mitigation 
    requirements. If the CAA is not signed, the AEWC recommends additional 
    specified mitigation measures. Greenpeace states that no operations 
    should continue east of Cross Island after the end of August.
        Response: NMFS has been informed that a CAA between the AEWC and 
    ARCO has been concluded. As part of that agreement, ARCO has agreed to 
    cease all activities in the vicinity of the CIDS, including barge 
    transport of supplies after August 31, 1997. Once the bowhead whale 
    hunt has concluded, activities can continue as scheduled and discussed 
    in the application and proposed authorization.
        Comment 10: Greenpeace asserts that the proposed action will have a 
    significant impact on the bowhead whale and Inupiat communities that 
    depend on the bowhead whale for subsistence. Because the impacts of the 
    industrial noise associated with the exploratory drilling activities 
    during the bowhead migration have not been adequately evaluated by 
    NMFS, NMFS must deny ARCO's IHA application.
        Response: Impacts to bowhead whales from oil exploration activities 
    were addressed above, in the EA, and in the notice of proposed 
    authorization. NMFS has used the best scientific information available, 
    along with Traditional Knowledge, to assess impacts of vessel, 
    aircraft, and overwinter drilling activities on marine mammals. NMFS 
    believes that a signed CAA supports NMFS determination that there will 
    not be an unavoidable adverse impact on the availability of a species 
    or stock for taking for subsistence needs.
    
    Traditional knowledge concerns
    
        Comment 11: Trustees believe NMFS has ignored valid and relevant 
    scientific information-known through Traditional Knowledge of Native 
    Alaskans-which contradict conclusions that oil industry operations will 
    have a negligible impact. Greenpeace notes that the whaling captains 
    have presented compelling evidence that bowheads are displaced from 
    their migratory route and feeding areas by seismic and drilling 
    operations. Greenpeace also believes that NMFS has dismissed the subtle 
    behavioral effects on bowhead whales (e.g. spookiness) that whaling 
    captains discuss.
        Response: Traditional Knowledge provides information that 
    industrial noise is detectable to bowhead whales at greater underwater 
    distances than empirical scientific information has shown, and that 
    bowheads will deflect from industrial noise, such as seismic airgun 
    noise (up to 30-35 nmi from the airgun array), at great distances. 
    Traditional Knowledge has been added as appropriate to the EA as 
    requested by the AEWC on July 17, 1997.
        NMFS does not dismiss information on behavioral effects from 
    industrial noise on bowheads. These issues are discussed whenever 
    relevant (see for example, NMFS 1996 1). Because ARCO's 
    application noted that activities potentially affecting bowhead whales 
    would not take place during the time when the major portion of the 
    stock migrates through the Beaufort Sea, and therefore, no adverse 
    effects on subsistence takings would occur, lengthy discussion on 
    behavioral effects was unnecessary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ NMFS. 1996. Environmental Assessment: Request by BP 
    Exploration (Alaska) Inc. for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
    to Allow the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in the Beaufort Sea 
    During the 1996 Northstar Seismic Exploration Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Monitoring
    
        Comment 12: Greenpeace finds that ARCO's 1997 proposed monitoring 
    plan is not scientifically rigorous enough to determine impacts to 
    Arctic pinnipeds and cetacean species. Greenpeace contends that ARCO's 
    quasi-scientific experimental design of the monitoring program is aimed 
    at trying to prove that exploratory and other disturbing
    
    [[Page 51641]]
    
    activities will have a negligible impact on the marine mammal 
    populations.
        Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III) of the MMPA mandates a 
    monitoring program to assess impacts to marine mammals by the activity. 
    NMFS has stated previously that a monitoring program should be 
    appropriate to determine the distribution and behavioral responses of 
    potentially affected species of marine mammals before, during, and 
    after exposure to the activities. NMFS believes that timing of each 
    phase of ARCO's activity has mitigated affects on marine mammals to the 
    lowest extent practicable. While additional monitoring can certainly be 
    required under the IHA, NMFS must weigh the information value of such 
    monitoring with costs for conducting the monitoring. If costs outweigh 
    benefits, then NMFS believes the monitoring may not be practical, 
    unless extenuating circumstances exist, such as ongoing subsistence 
    harvests, or critically endangered species are present. An example of 
    unnecessary monitoring includes repeating transmission loss tests for a 
    CIDS during oil drilling activities, even though bowhead whales will 
    not be in the vicinity of the CIDS when it is active.
        Comment 13: Greenpeace believes NMFS must require a comprehensive 
    monitoring plan that is fully subjected to independent peer design and 
    review.
        Response: Section 101(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III) requires an IHA to 
    prescribe, where applicable, the requirements for independent peer-
    review of monitoring plans for activities where the proposed activity 
    may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for 
    subsistence purposes. A signed CAA between the AEWC and the activity 
    participants provides NMFS with documentation that the proposed 
    activity will not have an unavoidable adverse impact on the 
    availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence needs. 
    ARCO's proposed activity was discussed at the Peer-Review Workshop in 
    Seattle on July 17, 1997, with the AEWC. In addition, the monitoring 
    plan has been reviewed by scientists of NMFS and the MMC. The 
    Scientific Director of the MMC, an independent reviewer, was of the 
    opinion that the monitoring plan is adequate to verify that only small 
    numbers of marine mammals are taken, that the taking is by harassment 
    only, and that the impacts on the affected species and stocks are 
    negligible. A similar assessment has been made by NMFS scientists who 
    have reviewed the monitoring plan.
        If at any time NMFS believes that the incidental harassment process 
    would benefit from peer-review, it will promptly conduct this review. 
    For example, if ARCO's oil drilling activities continue into the spring 
    or summer, NMFS will require ARCO to provide a revised monitoring plan. 
    That plan will be independently peer-reviewed to ensure that impacts to 
    bowhead whales are adequately assessed.
        Comment 14: Greenpeace states that NMFS must require ARCO to employ 
    a full array of bottom-mounted hydrophones and deploy sonobuoys to 
    accurately measure bowhead and other marine mammal vocalizations and 
    ambient noise. The monitoring plan must be designed to substantiate the 
    ``zone of influence,'' however distant.
        Response: NMFS disagrees. Under the IHA, during drilling activity 
    phase the harassment of bowhead whales is not authorized. As noted in 
    the application, no drilling will occur prior to complete ice-up, at 
    which time bowhead whales will be in the Bering Sea, and drilling will 
    cease prior to springtime bowhead migration. If, as mentioned in 
    comment 3, drilling activities were to extend into late spring, 1998, 
    and bowheads enter the Camden Bay area, NMFS would require ARCO to 
    request an amendment to its IHA. Included in that request would be a 
    modified monitoring plan.
        Substantiating the zone of influence during wintertime for bowheads 
    is viewed by NMFS as unnecessary in light of the above statement. 
    Substantiating a zone of influence for seals would require disruptive 
    research on seals in lairs which, while likely valuable research, is 
    unnecessarily intrusive on the animals when implemented as a monitoring 
    tool. Because of the potential for an increase in Arctic wintertime 
    drilling and seismic work over the next few years, NMFS encourages MMS 
    to fund additional studies on ringed seal behavior and effects from 
    industrial development.
    
    Authorization concerns
    
        Comment 15: Greenpeace and Trustees were concerned about the 
    adequacy of time for NMFS to give adequate recognition to public 
    comments.
        Response: As noted by this document, NMFS believes that it has 
    given proper review of all public comments.
        Comment 16: ARCO believes that the operational restrictions set out 
    in the IHA are not necessary because no takes of marine mammals are 
    anticipated. For example, ARCO notes that September 1 is only a target 
    date for completing the CIDS supply.
        Response: NMFS presumes that the operational restrictions refer to 
    the mitigation measures proposed in the earlier notice. NMFS notes 
    however, that activities that proceed prior to, or after, the dates 
    ARCO has suggested for each phase of the project, may potentially 
    harass marine mammals, especially activities that may affect bowhead 
    migration in the spring leads. The potential for the incidental 
    harassment of marine mammals having a more than negligible impact on 
    marine mammals during these alternative times has simply not been 
    evaluated at this time. As a result, incidental takings outside the 
    periods specified cannot be authorized. NMFS notes however, that once 
    the NSB has secured its whaleboats for the season, and notifies ARCO of 
    this fact, ARCO may continue resupply of the CIDS via barges.
    
    Cumulative impact concerns
    
        Comment 17: Trustees and Greenpeace believe NMFS ignores the 
    cumulative impacts from oil exploration and development in the Arctic. 
    Trustees provide a statement from one whaling captain that bowheads no 
    longer enter Camden Bay due to industrial activity.
        Response: NMFS has not ignored the cumulative impact from oil and 
    gas exploration on marine mammals or their habitat. Due to distances 
    between oil and gas exploration activities, NMFS does not expect a 
    cumulative impact in 1997. NMFS has identified two oil and gas 
    exploration activities in the Central and Eastern U.S. Beaufort Sea 
    this year, a seismic survey by BP Exploration (Alaska) and the proposed 
    activity. Other than the potential for the CIDS being towed within 
    proximity to the seismic survey during mid-August, and the resulting 
    noise if the seismic array is operating at the time, no cumulative 
    impacts are anticipated. In 1990, NMFS determined that in any one year 
    between 1990 and 1995 in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, there may be 
    between 2 and 5 drilling units operating in Federal waters and two 
    drilling units in state waters. In addition up to 17,000 seismic 
    trackline miles in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas would be conducted 
    over the five years. On July 16, 1990 (55 FR 29207), NMFS determined 
    that this level of industrial activity would not result in more than a 
    negligible impact on marine mammals. No new information has been 
    provided since that time to require a reassessment of cumulative 
    impacts.
        Traditional Knowledge indicates that oil exploration deflects 
    whales further offshore, making them less accessible to whalers. While 
    agreeing with this observation, NMFS notes that because no major oil 
    and gas exploration activities have taken place in Camden
    
    [[Page 51642]]
    
    Bay since 1993, if bowhead whales are not following historic migratory 
    routes (according to Traditional Knowledge), then one or more factors 
    must be influencing their migration. These include: Ice conditions, 
    food distribution and/or abundance, or conditioning by bowhead whales 
    to the previous noise events. NMFS notes that a similar migratory 
    modification has been made by California gray whales in their southward 
    migration along the California coast in order to avoid recreational and 
    commercial vessel traffic south of Pt. Conception.
    
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concerns
    
        Comment 18: Trustees noted that the site-specific impacts of 
    drilling a well in the proposed Warthog area on marine mammals were not 
    addressed in BSLS 144 FEIS, nor in ARCO's exploration plan or oil spill 
    contingency plan. Trustees believe that NMFS' IHA documentation fails 
    to acknowledge the potential effects addressed in ARCO's Oil Spill 
    Contingency Plan.
        Response: MMS released an EA that discusses ARCO's planned scope of 
    work in Camden Bay, alternatives to those activities, and the impacts 
    to the human environment from the proposed action and alternatives.
        Impacts of potential oil spills resulting from exploration 
    activities on BSLS 144 were addressed in that Lease Sale's FEIS and in 
    MMS' 1997 EA. To the extent that those impacts affect marine mammals 
    and their habitat, appropriate parts have been incorporated by 
    reference in NMFS' EA. Incorporation by reference is provided by 
    Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.21).
        Comment 19: Greenpeace and Trustees believe that the proposed 
    action will have a ``significant effect on the human environment'' and 
    therefore NMFS needs to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
    on the action. Greenpeace notes that ARCO proposes to introduce major 
    sources of industrial noise and pollution to a pristine and 
    ecologically significant area off the ANWR. Because the operations 
    associated with, and subsequent exploratory drilling will affect 
    species and habitats that the ANWR is designed to protect, NMFS must 
    prepare a full EIS.
        Response: NMFS disagrees. Commenters have not provided scientific 
    information that the impact would be more than negligible (i. e., 
    significant). Since NMFS must analyze a request for an IHA to determine 
    whether the proposed activity has no more than a negligible impact on a 
    species or stock of marine mammals and does not have an unmitigable 
    adverse impact on subsistence users, it believes that the issuance of a 
    small take authorization only requires the preparation of an EA and not 
    an EIS. In this case, the agency found through preparing an EA that the 
    proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human 
    environment thus making a finding of no significant impact. If the EA 
    results in this finding, no additional documents are required by NEPA 
    (NOAA Directives Manual 02-10).
        Comment 20: Greenpeace notes the alleged inadequacies of the draft 
    EIS on BSLS 144, especially as it relates to marine mammals and 
    habitat-use patterns. Greenpeace references a review of BSLS 144 by the 
    MMC.
        Response: NMFS notes that the MMC comments were submitted in 
    response to a draft EIS prepared by MMS for BSLS 144. Appropriate 
    modifications and a response to MMC comments were provided in the FEIS. 
    In addition, NMFS reviewed BSLS 144 under section 7 of the Endangered 
    Species Act (ESA), and concluded formal consultation on November 16, 
    1995. The finding of that consultation was that, based on the Arctic 
    Regional Biological Opinion, oil exploration activities under BSLS 144 
    is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 
    under its jurisdiction.
        NMFS also notes that ringed seal and other marine mammal biology, 
    distribution and abundance, and impacts were provided in its EA on the 
    proposed action.
    
    Other concerns
    
        Comment 21: Greenpeace and Trustees believe that issuance of an IHA 
    will violate the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451-
    1464). The CZMA provides that a Federal agency may not issue a license 
    or permit to conduct an activity that affects a state's coastal zone 
    before a state concurs with the license applicant's certification that 
    the activity will be consistent with the provisions of the state's 
    plan.
        Response: ARCO submitted the necessary information to the State of 
    Alaska in order to evaluate the consistency of ARCO's activities with 
    Alaska's coastal zone management plan (ACZMP). The State has worked 
    with ARCO to address the State's coastal management concerns regarding 
    ARCO's proposed activities in the Beaufort Sea. In managing Alaska's 
    coastal zone, and in its evaluation of ARCO's proposed activities, the 
    State must balance the competing objectives and purposes of the ACZMP. 
    It is NMFS' understanding that the State has expressed no outstanding 
    concerns regarding the consistency of ARCO's proposed activities with 
    the enforceable policies of the ACZMP. An authorization to drill will 
    not be provided to ARCO by MMS until ARCO has received the State's 
    consistency determination.
        Comment 22: Trustees contend that an Alaska Native Interest Land 
    Claims Act (ANILCA) section 810 study is required. They believe that 
    because the IHA is a required aspect of the decision regarding use of 
    OCS lands for drilling, and the proposed oil industry activities could 
    also harm the availability and use of ANWR lands for subsistence and 
    cause a restriction of subsistence uses, and ANILCA study is necessary.
        Response: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 1987 that, by 
    ANILCA's plain language, section 810 applies only to Federal lands 
    within the State of Alaska's boundaries. ANILCA defines ``public 
    lands'' to mean federal lands situated ``in Alaska,'' a phrase which 
    has a precise geographic/political meaning that can be delineated with 
    exactitude to include coastal waters to a point three miles from the 
    coastline, where the OCS commences. Therefore, an ANILCA section 810 
    analysis/report is not required for ARCO's Warthog project.
        Comment 23: Greenpeace and Trustees both believe ARCO, in 
    deballasting the CIDS and moving the drilling unit to Camden Bay prior 
    to receiving an authorization under the MMPA is in violation of the 
    MMPA because marine mammals will be significantly affected by the 
    action. In addition, NMFS, by not enforcing the MMPA and prohibiting 
    the movement, has also violated the MMPA and the Administrative 
    Procedure Act.
        Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS believes that such an instruction is 
    not authorized by the MMPA, since under the MMPA NMFS authorizes only 
    the taking of marine mammals incidental to that activity, not the 
    activity itself. However, initiating an action that might result in a 
    taking of a marine mammal without an authorization under the MMPA 
    places that activity in jeopardy of violating the MMPA moratorium on 
    taking marine mammals.
        This issue was the subject of a District Court action by 
    Greenpeace. On August 21, 1997, a U.S. District Court Judge for the 
    District of Columbia disallowed Greenpeace's request to the Court for a 
    Temporary Restraining Order to require NMFS to stop ARCO's moving the 
    CIDS to Camden Bay.
    
    [[Page 51643]]
    
    Consultation
    
        Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has completed consultations on the 
    issuance of this authorization.
    
    NEPA
    
        In conjunction with the notice of proposed authorization, NMFS 
    released a draft EA that addresses the impacts on the human environment 
    from issuance of the authorization and the alternatives to the proposed 
    action. Comments received on the draft EA, while leading to an improved 
    EA, did not provide sufficient information that implementation of 
    either the proposed action or the alternatives to that action would 
    have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, as a 
    result of the findings made in the EA, NMFS has concluded that 
    implementation of either the preferred alternative or other identified 
    alternatives would not have a significant impact on the human 
    environment. As a result of that finding, an EIS will not be prepared. 
    A copy of the EA is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    
    Conclusions
    
        NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of exploration 
    drilling and related activities in the Beaufort Sea will result, at 
    worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of 
    pinnipeds, and possibly some individual bowhead or beluga whales. While 
    behavioral modifications may be made by these species of marine mammals 
    to avoid the resultant noise from tugs either towing the CIDS or 
    transporting supplies, or due to drilling activities, this behavioral 
    change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals.
        While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will 
    depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals (which vary 
    annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the 
    activity area, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated 
    to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated 
    and takes will be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation 
    of the mitigation measures mentioned above. No rookeries, mating 
    grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special 
    significance for marine mammals occur within or near the planned area 
    of operations during the season of operations.
        Because bowhead whales are in the Canadian Beaufort Sea until late 
    August/early September, moving the CIDS during August will not impact 
    subsistence hunting of bowhead whales. Appropriate mitigation measures 
    to avoid an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of bowhead 
    whales for subsistence needs was the subject of consultation between 
    ARCO and subsistence users. As a result of discussions between the two 
    parties, a Conflict and Avoidance Agreement has been concluded. This 
    Agreement consists of three main components: (1) Communications, (2) 
    conflict avoidance, and (3) dispute resolution.
        Since NMFS is assured that the taking will not result in more than 
    the incidental harassment (as defined by the MMPA) of small numbers of 
    certain species of marine mammals, would have only a negligible impact 
    on these stocks, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
    availability of these stocks for subsistence uses, and would result in 
    the least practicable impact on the stocks, NMFS has determined that 
    the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) have been met and the 
    authorization can be issued.
    
    Authorization
    
        Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to ARCO Alaska for the above 
    described oil exploration drilling activities in Camden Bay, Beaufort 
    Sea, AK, provided the mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements 
    described in the authorization are undertaken.
    
        Dated: September 25, 1997.
    Patricia A. Montanio,
    Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
    Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 97-26060 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
9/25/1997
Published:
10/02/1997
Department:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
Document Number:
97-26060
Dates:
This authorization is effective from September 25, 1997, through September 1, 1998.
Pages:
51637-51643 (7 pages)
Docket Numbers:
I.D. 070197A
PDF File:
97-26060.pdf