[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68973-68983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31906]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

RIN 1018-AF54


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These proposed regulations would authorize the incidental, 
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walrus 
during year-round oil and gas industry (Industry) exploration, 
development, and production operations in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent 
northern coast of Alaska. The operations are similar to and include all 
activities covered by our original 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take 
regulations effective from December 16, 1993, through December 15, 
1998, and current regulations in effect from January 28, 1999, through 
January 30, 2000, except that these proposed regulations would also 
allow incidental, unintentional takes resulting from subsea pipeline 
activities placed offshore at the Northstar facility in the Beaufort 
Sea. We are proposing that this rule be effective for 3 years, from 
January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003.
    We propose a finding that the total expected takings of polar bear 
and Pacific walrus during oil and gas industry exploration, 
development, and production activities will have a negligible impact on 
these species, and no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability 
of these species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We base this 
finding on results from 6 years of monitoring interactions between 
marine mammals and Industry, and using oil spill trajectory models and 
polar bears density models to determine the likelihood of impacts to 
polar bears should an accidental oil release occur.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by January 10, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. By mail to: John Bridges, Office of Marine Mammals Management, 
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 
99503.
    2. By FAX by sending to: 907-786-3816.
    3. By Internet, electronic mail by sending to: [email protected]. 
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include 
``Attn: RIN 1018-AF54'' and your name and return address in your 
Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system 
that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at US 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management, 907-
786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148.
    4. By hand-delivery to: Office of Marine Mammals Management, US 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 
99503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bridges, Office of Marine Mammals 
Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, 
Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 68974]]

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammals Protection Act (Act) 
gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the Director of 
US Fish and Wildlife Service (We) the authority to allow the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals, in response to requests by US citizens (You) [as defined in 50 
CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) in a specified geographics region. We may grant permission for 
incidental takes for periods of up to 5 years.
    Under the provisions of the Act, we would allow the incidental 
taking of these marine mammals only if our Director finds, based on the 
best scientific evidence available, that the total of such taking for 
3-year period will have a negligible impact on these species and will 
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these 
species for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. If these 
findings are made, we will establish regulations for the activity that 
set forth: (1) Permissible methods of taking; (2) Means of effecting 
the least practicable adverse impact on the species and their habitat 
and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and (3) 
Requirement for monitoring and reporting.
    The term ``take'' as defined by the Act means to harass, hunt, 
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, or kill any marine mammal.
    Harrassment as defined by the Act, as amended in 1994, ``* * * 
means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which--
    (i) Has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild; or
    (ii) Has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering.''
    As a result of 1986 amendments to the Act, we amended 50 CFR 18.27 
(i.e., regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental 
to specified activities) with a final rule published on September 29, 
1989. Section 18.27(c) included, among other things, a revised 
definition of ``negligible impact'' and a new definition for 
``unmitigable adverse impact'' as follows. Negligible impact is 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. Unmitigable adverse impact means an impact resulting from the 
specified activity:
    (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a 
level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
    (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting area,
    (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users, or
    (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the 
subsistence hunters, and
    (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to 
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs 
to be met.
    Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production in marine mammals habitat, and risks 
violating the prohibitations on the taking of marine mammals. Although 
there is no legal requirements for Industry to obtain incidental take 
authority, Industry has chosen to seek authorization to avoid the 
uncertainties associated with conducting activities in marine mammal 
habitat. Along with their request for incidental take authority, 
Industry has also developed and implemented polar bear conservation 
measures.
    On December 17, 1991, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., for itself and 
for Amerada Hess Corporation, Amoco Production Company, ARCO Alaska, 
Inc., CGG American Service, Inc., Conoco Inc., Digicon Geophysical 
Corp., Exxon Corporation, GECO Geophysical Co., Halliburton Geophysical 
Service, Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Northern Geophysical of America 
Western, Texaco Inc., Unocal Corporation, and Geophysical Company 
requested that we promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) 
of the Act.
    The geographic region defined in Industry's 1991 application 
included offshore waters beginning at a north/south line at Barrow, 
Alaska, east to the Canadian border, including all Alaska state waters 
and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) waters. The onshore region was 
defined by the name north/south line at Barrow, extending 25 miles 
inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge was excluded from the proposal.
    On November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402), we issued final regulations to 
allow the incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of 
polar bears and Pacific walrus when such taking(s) occurred during 
Industry activities during year-round operations in the Beaufort Sea 
Region as described in the preceding paragraph. The regulations were 
issued for 18 months. At the same time, the Secretary of the Interior 
directed us to develop, then begin implementation of, a polar bear 
habitat conservation strategy before extending the regulations beyond 
the initial 18 months for a total 5-year period as allowed by the Act. 
We developed The Habitat Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears in 
Alaska to ensure that the regulations met with the intent of the 1973 
International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. On August 
17, 1995, we issued the final rule and notice of availability of a 
completed final polar bear habitat conservation strategy (60 FR 42805). 
We then extended the regulations for an additional 42 months to expire 
on December 15, 1998.
    On August 28, 1997, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., submitted a 
petition for itself and for ARCO Alaska, Inc., Exxon Corporation, and 
Western Geophysical Company for rulemaking pursuant to Section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the Act, and Section 553(e) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). Their request sought regulations to allow the 
incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of polar bears 
and Pacific walrus when takings occurred during Industry operations in 
Arctic Alaska. Specifically, they requested an extension of the 
incidental take regulations beginning at 50 CFR 18.121 for an 
additional 5-year term from December 16, 1998, through December 15, 
2003. The geographic extent of the request was the same as that of 
previously issued regulations beginning at 50 CFR 18.121 that were in 
effect through December 15, 1998 (see above).
    The petition to extend the incidental take regulations included two 
new oil fields (Northstar and Liberty). Plans to develop each field 
identified a need for an offshore gravel island and a buried subsea 
pipeline to transport crude oil to existing onshore infrastructure. 
Based on preliminary information related to subsea pipelines published 
in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Northstar 
project, we were unable to make a finding of negligible impact and 
issue regulations for the full 5-year period. The information published 
in the Northstar DEIS suggested that the probability of an oil spill 
was 21-23 percent over the life of the project, and that up to 30 polar 
bears could be killed by a spill.
    On November 17, 1998, we published proposed regulations (63 FR 
63812) to allow the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of 
polar bears and Pacific walrus in the Beaufort Sea and northern coast 
of Alaska. On January 28, 1999, we issued final regulations effective 
through January 30, 2000. These regulations do not authorize the

[[Page 68975]]

incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walrus during construction 
or operation of subsea pipelines in the Beaufort Sea.
    Subsequent to January 28, 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
finalized the Northstar Environmental Impact Statement in February 
1999. Construction of the Northstar gravel island and subsea pipeline 
are scheduled for the winter of 1999-2000, with production beginning in 
the latter half of 2000. The Liberty development is proposed for early 
2003. The Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) has published a Preliminary Draft EIS, and a Draft EIS is 
currently in preparation.

Summary of Current Request

    The proposed regulations respond to the August 28, 1997, request by 
BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. for the extension of incidental take 
regulations. That request was for a period of 5 years, from December 
16, 1998, through December 15, 2003. As previously mentioned, we issued 
regulations for 1 year that will expire on January 30, 2000. The 
current proposal addresses the time period from January 31, 2000, 
through January 31, 2003.

Description of Proposed Regulations

    Due to the preliminary nature of the Liberty environmental 
assessment, we are unable to evaluate the potential impact of that 
development at this time. These proposed regulations are for a 3-year 
period from January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003, and include 
consideration of subsea pipeline activities associated with the 
Northstar project. The proposed regulations will allow Industry to 
incidentally take polar bear and Pacific walrus within the same area as 
covered by our previous regulations; defined by a north/south line at 
Barrow, Alaska, including all Alaska State waters and OCS waters, and 
east of that line to the Canadian border; with the onshore region being 
the same north/south line at Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the 
Canning River. Once again, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 
excluded from the proposal.
    The proposed regulations do not authorize the actual activities 
associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production, 
but rather authorize the incidental, unintentional take of small 
numbers of polar bears and Pacific walrus associated with those 
activities. The MMS and the Bureau of Land Management are responsible 
for permitting activities associated with oil and gas activities in 
Federal waters and on Federal lands, respectively, and the State of 
Alaska is responsible for activities on State lands and in State 
waters.
    As in previous regulations, the proposed rule requires an applicant 
to obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to conduct exploration, 
development, and production activities pursuant to the regulations. 
Each group or individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related 
activity within the area covered by these regulations may request an 
LOA.
    Further, applicants for LOAs must submit a plan to monitor the 
effects on polar bear and walrus that are present during the authorized 
activities. Applicants for LOAs must also include a Plan of 
Cooperation. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that the impact of 
oil and gas activity on the availability of the species or stock for 
subsistence uses continue to be negligible. The Plan must provide the 
procedures on how Industry will work with the affected Native 
communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with 
subsistence hunting of polar bear and walrus.
    Each request for an LOA is evaluated on the specific activity and 
the specific location, and we condition each LOA for that activity and 
location if necessary. For example, a request to conduct activities on 
barrier islands with active polar bear dens or a history of polar bear 
denning will be conditioned to avoid the area until after the bears 
normally exit their dens.

Description of Activity

    In accordance with 50 CFR 18.27, Industry has submitted a request 
for the promulgation of incidental take regulations pursuant to Section 
101(a)(b)(A) of the Act. Activities covered in this proposed rule 
include exploration, development, and production of oil and gas, as 
well as wildlife monitoring associated with these activities.
    Exploration activities include geological and geophysical surveys, 
which may involve geotechnical site investigation, reflective seismic 
exploration, vibrator seismic data collection, air gun and water gun 
seismic data collection, explosive seismic data collection, geological 
surveys, and drilling operations. Drilling operations include drill 
ships, floating drill platforms such as the Kulluk, ice pads, 
artificial islands, caisson-retained islands, and two types of bottom-
founded structures, concrete island drilling system, and single steel 
drilling caisson.
    A large number of variables influence exploration activities, 
therefore, predictions as to the exact dates and locations of 
exploratory operations that will take place over the next 3 years would 
be speculative. However, requests for LOAs must include specific 
details regarding dates, duration, and geographic locations of proposed 
activities.
    Alaska's North Slope encompasses an area 88,280 square miles and 
contains 13 separate oil and gas fields in production: Prudhoe Bay, 
North Prudhoe Bay State, Kuparuk, Endicott, Point McIntyre, Lisburne, 
Milne Point, Cascade, West Beach, Niakuk, Schrader Bluff, Badami and 
Sag Delta North. Additional discoveries have been made at the Northstar 
and Apline fields, both of which are now in the development phase. 
Discovery has also been made at the Liberty site, where development is 
planned for 2003.
    During the period covered by the proposed regulations, we 
anticipate a similar level of activity at existing production 
facilities as during the previous 6 years. One notable difference is 
the new Northstar project, the first offshore production facility on 
the North Slope, and the only offshore production facility considered 
in this proposal.

Biological Information

Pacific Walrus

    Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) typically inhabit the waters of 
the Chukchi and Bering seas. Most of the population congregates near 
the ice edge of the Chukchi Sea pack ice west of Point Barrow during 
the summer. In the winter, walrus inhabit the pack ice of the Bering 
Sea, with concentrations occurring in the Gulf of Anadyr, south of St. 
Lawrence Island, and south of Nunivak Island.
    Walrus occur infrequently in the Beaufort Sea. Data from our 
marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program show that, from 1994 through 
1997, 73 walrus were reported killed by Barrow hunters. Tagging 
certificates show that nearly all of the 73 walrus were taken west of 
Barrow. In 4 years of monitoring Industry's activities in the Beaufort 
Sea, on-site monitors have observed only two walrus.

Polar Bear

    Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) occur in the Northern hemisphere, 
where their distribution is circumpolar, and they live in close 
association with polar ice. In Alaska, their distribution extends from 
south of the Bering Strait to the U.S.-Canada border. Two stocks occur

[[Page 68976]]

in Alaska: the Chukchi/Bering seas stock, whose size is unknown; and 
the Southern Beaufort Sea stock, which was estimated in 1992 to number 
about 1,800 bears.
    Females without dependent cubs breed in the spring and enter 
maternity dens by late November. Females with cubs do not mate. An 
average of two cubs are usually born in December, and the family group 
emerges from the den in late March or early April. Only pregnant 
females den for an extended period during the winter; however, other 
polar bears may burrow out depressions to escape harsh winter winds. 
The average reproduction interval for polar bear is 3-4 years. The 
maximum reported age of reproduction in Alaska is 18 years. Based on 
these data, a polar bear may produce about 10 cubs in her lifetime.
    The fur and blubber of the polar bear protect it from the cold air 
and frigid water. Newly emerged cubs of the year may not have a 
sufficient layer of blubber to maintain body heat when immersed in 
water for long periods of time. Cubs abandoned prior to the normal 
weaning age of 2.5 years likely will not survive.
    Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) are the primary prey species of the 
polar bear; however, occasionally, polar bears hunt bearded seals 
(Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves. Polar bears also scavenge on 
marine mammal carcasses washed up on shore, and eat non-food items such 
as styrofoam, plastic, car batteries, antifreeze, and lubricating 
fluids.
    Polar bears have no natural predators, and they do not appear to be 
prone to death by disease or parasites. The most significant source of 
mortality is humans. Since 1972, with the passage of the Act, only 
Alaska Natives are allowed to hunt polar bears in Alaska. Bears are 
used for subsistence purposes such as the manufacture of handicraft and 
clothing items. The Native harvest occurs without restrictions on sex, 
age, number, or season, providing the population is not depleted and 
takes are non-wasteful. From 1980-1997, the total annual harvest in 
Alaska averaged 103 bears. The majority of this harvest (70 percent) 
came from the Chukchi and Bering seas area.
    Polar bears in the near shore Alaskan Beaufort Sea are widely 
distributed in low numbers across the area with an average density of 
about one bear per 30 to 50 square miles. However, polar bears have 
been observed congregating on barrier islands in the fall and winter 
because of available food and favorable environmental conditions. Polar 
bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale carcasses on barrier 
islands. In November 1996, biologists from the U.S. Geological Survey 
observed 28 polar bears near a bowhead whale carcass on Cross Island, 
and approximately 11 polar bears within a 2-mile radius of another 
bowhead whale carcass near the village of Kaktovik on Barter island. In 
October 1997, we observed 47 polar bears on barrier islands and the 
mainland from Prudhoe Bay to the Canadian border, a distance of 
approximately 100 miles.

Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Marine Mammals and on 
Subsistence Uses

Pacific Walrus

    Oil and gas industry activities that generate noise such as air and 
vessel traffic, seismic surveys, ice breakers, supply ships, and 
drilling may frighten or displace Pacific walrus. As previously stated 
in this document, the primary range of the Pacific walrus is west of 
Point Barrow. Pacific walrus do not normally range into the Beaufort 
Sea. Occasionally, a single walrus may be sighted east of Point Barrow. 
From 1994 to 1997, two Pacific walrus were sighted during an open-water 
seismic program. The program was conducted in the vicinity of Gwyder 
Bay approximately 10 miles west of Prudhoe Bay. Marine mammal monitors 
sighted one sub-adult walrus approximately 5 miles northwest of Howe 
Island and BP Exploration's Endicott Unit. The second, a single adult 
walrus, was observed from a survey aircraft approximately 20 miles 
north of Pingok Island.
    In winter, Pacific walrus inhabit the pack ice of the Bering Sea. 
As the winter range of the Pacific walrus is well beyond the geographic 
area covered by these regulations, we do not expect any impacts to 
walrus from oil and gas activities during winter.
    If walrus are present, their movements may be affected by 
stationary drilling structures. Walrus are attracted to certain 
activities and are repelled from others by noise or smell. In 1989 an 
incident occurred during a drilling operation in the Chukchi Sea where 
a young walrus surfaced in the center hole (i.e., moonpool) of a drill 
ship. The crew used a cargo net to remove the walrus from the drilling 
area, after which the walrus left the scene of the incident and was not 
seen again. No similar incidents have been reported in the area of the 
proposed regulations.
    Seismic surveys generally take place on solid ice or in open water. 
Since walrus activity occurs near the ice edge, interactions between 
walrus and seismic surveys are unlikely.
    Due to the small number of walrus in the area covered by the 
proposed regulations, oil and gas industry activities will not result 
in more than a negligible impact on this species.

Subsistence Use of Pacific Walrus

    As the primary range of Pacific walrus is west and south of the 
Beaufort Sea, it is not surprising that few walrus are harvested in the 
Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of Alaska. Walrus constitute a 
small portion of the total marine mammal harvest for the village of 
Barrow. In the past 6 years, 73 walrus were reported taken by Barrow 
hunters. Reports indicate that all but 1 of the 73 walrus were taken 
west of Point Barrow, beyond the limits of the incidental take 
regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik do not normally hunt 
walrus east of Point Barrow and have taken only one walrus in the last 
10 years.

Polar Bear

    In the southern Beaufort sea, polar bears spend the majority of 
their lives on the ice, which limits the opportunity for impacts from 
Industry. For example, although polar bears have been documented in 
open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, it is a relatively 
rare occurrence. Therefore, exploration activities in the open-water 
season will not have more than a negligible impact on the polar bear.
    Polar bears also spend a limited amount of time on land, coming 
ashore to feed, den, or move to other areas. At time when the ice edge 
is near shore and then quickly retreats northward, bears may remain 
along the coast or on barrier islands for several weeks until the ice 
returns. For those brief periods, there is increased likelihood of 
interactions between polar bears and Industry activities. We have found 
that polar bear interaction planning and training requirements of the 
LOA process have increased polar bear awareness, and have helped 
minimize these encounters. For example, in 1999 Exxon terminated work 
on Flaxman Island due to the presence of several polar bears in the 
vicinity of their work area.
    Disturbances to denning females, either on land or on ice, are of 
particular concern. As part of the LOA application for seismic surveys 
during denning season, Industry provides us with the proposed seismic 
survey routes. To minimize the likelihood of disturbance of denning 
females, we evaluate these routes along with information about known 
polar bear dens, historic denning sites, and probable denning habitat. 
A standard condition of LOAs requires Industry to maintain a one-mile 
buffer

[[Page 68977]]

between survey activities and known denning sites. In addition, we may 
require Industry to avoid denning habitat until bears have left their 
dens. To further reduce the potential for disturbance to denning 
females, we are conducting research in cooperation with Industry to 
evaluate the use of remote sensing techniques, such as Forward Looking 
Infrared (FLIR) imagery to detect active dens.
    Industry activities that occur on or near the ice have greater 
possibility for encountering polar bears. Depending upon the 
circumstances, bears can be either repelled from or attracted to 
sounds, smells, or sights associate with there activities. As mentioned 
above, the LOA process requires the applicant to develop a polar bear 
interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps the 
applicant will take to minimize impacts, such as garage disposal 
procedures to reduce the attraction of polar bears. Interaction plans 
also outline the chain of command for responding to a polar bear 
sighting. In addition to interaction plans, Industry personnel 
participate in polar bear interaction training while on site. The 
result of these polar bear interaction plans and training is that when 
a bear encounters Industry activities, it is detected quickly, and 
responded to appropriately. Most often, this involves deterring the 
bear from the site, with minimal effect. Without such plans and 
training, the undesirable outcome could be lethal take in defense of 
human life.
    Over the span of our incidental take regulations, Industry reported 
103 polar bear sightings. Of these, only 29 were instances where a bear 
was attracted to and/or deterred from the site. We have no indication 
that encounters which merely alter the behavior and movement of 
individual bears have any long-term effects on those bears. It is 
therefore unlikely that the small number of benign encounters between 
polar bears and Industry would have a significant overall effect on the 
population.
    No lethal takes have occurred during the period covered by 
incidental take regulations. Even before regulations were issued, 
lethal takes by Industry were a rare occurrence. Since 1968, there have 
been two documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated with 
oil and gas activities. In both instances, the lethal take was in 
defense of human life.

Oil Spills

    In addition to routine operations, the potential exists for polar 
bears to be impacted by oil spills. Spills of crude oil and petroleum 
products associated with onshore production facilities are usually 
minor spills that are contained and removed upon discovery. As polar 
bears spend the majority of their time onshore, they are unlikely to 
encounter oil from an onshore spill.
    Oil spills are of concern in the marine environment, where spilled 
oil will accumulate at the ice edge, in leads, and similar areas of 
importance to polar bears. Oil spilled from offshore production 
activities was not considered in our previous regulations. The 
Northstar Project will transport crude oil from a reconstructed gravel 
island in the Beaufort Sea to shore via a 5.96-mile buried subsea 
pipeline. The pipeline will be buried in a trench in the sea floor deep 
enough to reduce the risk of damage from ice gouging and strudel scour. 
Construction of Northstar will begin in the winter of 1999-2000.
    Polar bears are at risk from an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea. 
Limited data from a Canadian study suggest that polar bears 
experimentally oiled with crude oil may die. This finding is consistent 
with what is known of other marine mammals that rely on their fur for 
insulation. The Northstar FEIS concluded that mortality of up to 30 
polar bears could occur as the result of an oil spill greater than 
1,000 barrels. This estimate was based on observations of aggregations 
of polar bears on barrier islands in the Beaufort Sea.
    Two independent lines of evidence support our determination that 
only a negligible impact to the Beaufort Sea polar bear stock will 
occur from Northstar, one largely anecdotal, and the other 
quantitative. The largely anecdotal information is based on 
observations of polar bear aggregations on barrier islands and coastal 
areas in the Beaufort Sea. This information suggests that polar bear 
aggregations may occur for brief periods in the fall. The presence and 
duration of these aggregations are influenced by the presence of sea 
ice near shore and the availability of marine mammal carcasses, notably 
bowhead whales. In order for significant impacts to polar bears to 
occur, an oil spill would have to occur, an aggregation of bears would 
have to present, the spill would have to contact the aggregation, and 
many of the bears would have to be killed. We believe the probability 
of all these events occurring simultaneously is low.
    The quantitative rationale for negligible impact is based on a risk 
assessment that considered oil spill probability estimates for the 
Northstar Project, an oil spill trajectory model, and a polar bear 
distribution model. The Northeast FEIS provides estimates of the 
probability that one or more spills greater than 1,000 barrels of oil 
will occur over the project's life of 15 years. We consider here only 
spill probabilities for the drilling platform and subsea pipeline as 
these are the spill locations that would affect polar bears. When 
calculated for the 3-year period covered by the proposed regulations, 
we estimate the likelihood of one or more spills greater than 1,000 
barrels in size occurring in the marine environment is 3-10 percent.
    Applied Sciences Associates, Inc., was contracted by BP Exploration 
Inc. to run the OILMAP oil spill trajectory model. The size of the 
modeled spill was set at 3,600 barrels, simulating rupture and drainage 
of the entire subsea pipeline. Each spill was modeled by tracking the 
location of 100 ``spillets,'' each representing 36 barrels. Spillets 
were driven by wind, and their movements affected by the presence of 
sea ice. Open water and broken ice scenarios were each modeled with 250 
simulations. A solid ice scenario was also modeled, in which oil was 
trapped beneath the ice and did not spread. In this event, we found it 
unlikely that polar bears would contact oil, and removed this scenario 
from further analysis. Each simulation was run for 96 hours with no 
cleanup or containment efforts simulated. At the end of each 
simulation, the size and location of each spill was represented in a 
geographic information system (GIS).
    Telemetry data suggest that polar bears are widely distributed in 
low numbers across the Beaufort Sea with a density of about one bear 
per 30-50 square miles. The U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 
Resources Division, developed a polar bear distribution model based on 
extensive telemetry data that estimates the number of bears expected to 
occur within a grid of the Beaufort Sea with a cell size of 0.25 
km2. Each of the simulated oil spills was overlaid with the 
polar bear distribution grid. If a spillet passed through a grid cell, 
the bears in that cell were considered killed by the spill. In the open 
water scenario, the estimated number of bears killed ranged from less 
than 1 to 78, with a median of 8. In the broken ice scenario, results 
ranged from less than 1 to 108, with a median of 21. These results are 
based on an ``average'' distribution of polar bears and do not include 
potential aggregations of bears.
    We estimated the likelihood of occurrence of mortality for various 
numbers of bears by multiplying the probability of mortality by the 
spill probability for each period for the year, and summing those 
probabilities over the entire year. We calculate that the probability 
of a spill that would cause

[[Page 68978]]

mortality of one or more bears is 0.9-3.1 percent. As the threshold 
number of bears is increased, the likelihood of that event decreases. 
Thus the probability of a spill that would cause a mortality of 5 or 
more bears is 0.7-2.5 percent; for 10 or more bears is 0.6-2.0 percent; 
and for 20 or more bears is 0.3-1 percent.
    The greatest source of uncertainty in our calculations is the 
probability of an oil spill occurring. The oil spill probability 
estimates for the Northstar Project were calculated using data for 
subsea pipelines outside of Alaska and outside of the Arctic. These 
spill probability estimates, therefore, do not reflect conditions that 
are routinely encountered in the Arctic, such as permafrost, ice 
gouging, and strudel scour. They may include other conditions unlikely 
to be encountered in the Arctic, such as damage from anchors and trawl 
nets. Consequently, there is some uncertainty about the validity of oil 
spill probabilities as presented in the Northstar FEIS. However, if the 
probability of a spill were actually twice the estimated value, the 
probability of a spill that would cause a mortality of one or more 
bears is still low (about 6 percent).
    This analysis is dependent on numerous assumptions, some of which 
underestimate, while others overestimate, the potential risk to polar 
bears. These include variation in spill probabilities during the year, 
the length of time the oil spill trajectory model was run, whether or 
not containment occurred during the trajectory model, lack of efforts 
to deter wildlife during the model runs, contact with a spillet 
constitutes mortality, aggregations of bears not included, etc. We 
determined that the assumptions that would overestimate and 
underestimate mortalities were generally in balance.
    We conclude that if an oil spill were to occur during the fall of 
spring broken-ice periods, there could be a significant impact to polar 
bears. However, in balancing the level of impact with the probability 
of occurrence, we conclude that the probability of serious impacts 
(large-volume spills that cause high polar bear mortalities) is low. 
Therefore we conclude that the effect of operations associated with the 
Northstar development will have a negligible impact on polar bears.

Subsistence Use of Polar Bear

    Within the area covered by the proposed regulations, polar bears 
are taken in Barrow, Nuiqsut, or Kaktovik; however, it is not 
considered a primary subsistence species in these villages. Data from 
our Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program indicate that from July 1, 
1993, to June 30, 1998, a total of 94 polar bears was reported 
harvested by residents of Barrow; 7 by residents of the village of 
Nuiqsut; and 10 by residents of the village of Kaktovik. Hunting 
success varies considerably from year to year because of variable ice 
and weather conditions. Native subsistence polar bear hunting could be 
affected by an oil spill. Hunting areas where polar bears are 
historically taken may be viewed as tainted by an oil spill.
    Industry works with local Native groups to achieve a cooperative 
relationship between oil and gas activities and subsistence activities. 
The Industry works with the local Native groups to develop a Plan of 
Cooperation to address subsistence mitigation measures to be 
incorporated into the Industry's plan of operation.

Cumulative Effects

    Based on past LOA monitoring reports, the level of interaction 
between Industry and marine mammals (Pacific walrus and polar bears) 
has had a negligible impact on these species. Additional information, 
such as subsistence harvested levels and incidental observations of 
polar bears near shore, provides evidence that these populations have 
not been adversely affected. The projected level of activities during 
the period covered by the proposed regulations (existing onshore 
development and proposed exploratory activities) are similar in scale 
to previous levels. Therefore, we conclude that projected onshore 
activities will have a negligible impact on polar bears and Pacific 
walrus.
    While the actual construction and operation of the Northstar 
development is not expected to significantly increase the impacts to 
Pacific walrus and polar bears, concern about potential oil spills in 
the marine environment was raised in the Northstar FEIS. We have 
analyzed the likelihood of an oil spill in the marine environment that 
would kill a significant number of polar bears and found it to be 
negligible. Thus, after considering the cumulative effects of existing 
onshore development, proposed exploratory activities, and the new 
Northstar subsea pipeline, we find that these activities will have a 
negligible impact on polar bears and Pacific walrus.

Conclusions

    Based on the previous discussion, we propose the following findings 
regarding this action:

Impact on Species

    We find, based on the best scientific information available, the 
results of monitoring data from our previous regulations and the 
results of our modeling assessments, that the effects of oil and gas 
related exploration, development, and production activities from 
January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003, in the Beaufort Sea and 
adjacent northern coast of Alaska will have a negligible impact on 
polar bears and Pacific walrus and their habitat. In making this 
proposed finding, we are following Congressional direction in balancing 
the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of that 
event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that justifies 
balancing probabilities with impacts follows:

    If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or 
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A 
finding of negligible impact may also 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, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks 
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations. 
Such determination will be made based on the best available 
scientific information. (53 FR at 8474: accord, 132 Cong. Rec. S 
16305 (Oct. 15, 1986)

    In the event of a catastrophic spill, we would reassess the impacts 
to the polar bear and walrus populations and reconsider the 
appropriateness of authorizations for incidental taking through Section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the Act.
    Our proposed finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to oil and 
gas exploration, development, and production activities. The following 
are generic conditions intended to minimize interference with normal 
breeding, feeding, and possible migration patterns to ensure that the 
effects to the species remain negligible. We may expand the conditions 
in the LOAs based upon site-specific and species-specific reasons.
    (1) These regulation do not authorize intentional taking of polar 
bear or Pacific walrus.
    (2)For the protection of pregnant polar bears during denning 
activities (den selection, birthing, and maturation of cubs) in known 
and confirmed denning areas, Industry activities will be restricted in 
specific locations during certain specified times of the year. These 
restrictions will be applied on a case-by-case basis in response to 
each LOA request. In potential denning areas, we may require pre-
activity surveys (e.g., aerial surveys) to determine the presence or 
absence of denning activity.
    (3) Each activity authorized by an LOA requires a site-specific 
plan of

[[Page 68979]]

operation and a site-specific monitoring and reporting plan. The 
purpose of the required plan is to ensure that the level of activity 
and possible takes will be consistent with our proposed finding that 
the cumulative total of incidental takes will have a negligible impact 
on polar bear and Pacific walrus, their habitat, and where relevant, 
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 
these species for subsistence uses.

Impact on Subsistence Take

    We propose to find, based on the best scientific information 
available, and the results of monitoring data, that the effects of oil 
and gas exploration, development, and production activities for the 
next 3 years in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska 
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 
polar bears and Pacific walrus for taking for subsistence uses.
    Polar bear and Pacific walrus represent a small portion, in terms 
of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the 
villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. However, the low numbers do 
not mean that the harvest of these species is not important to Alaska 
Natives. Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to 
us that a Plan of Cooperation has been presented to the subsistence 
communities, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Alaska Nanuuq 
Commission, and the North Slope Borough. The plan will ensure that oil 
and gas activities will continue to not have an unmitigable adverse 
impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence 
uses. This Plan of Cooperation must provide the procedures on how 
Industry will work with the affected Native communities and what 
actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of 
polar bear and walrus.
    If there is evidence that oil and gas activities will affect, or in 
the future may affect, the availability of polar bear or walrus for 
take for subsistence uses, we will reevaluate our findings regarding 
permissible limits of take and the measures required to ensure 
continued subsistence hunting opportunities.

Monitoring and Reporting

    Monitoring plans are required to determine short-term and direct 
effects of authorized oil and gas activities on polar bear and walrus 
in the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 
Monitoring plans must identify the methods used to assess changes in 
the movements, behavior, and habitat use of polar bear and walrus in 
response to Industry's activities. Monitoring activities are summarized 
and reported in a formal report each year. The applicant must submit an 
annual monitoring and reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the 
initiation of a proposed exploratory activity, and the applicant must 
submit a final monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after 
completion of the activity. We base each year's monitoring objective on 
the previous year's monitoring results.
    We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the 
effects of oil and gas industry exploration, development, and 
production activities on polar bear and walrus prior to issuance of an 
LOA. Since development and production activities are continuous and 
long-term, upon approval, LOAs and their required monitoring and 
reporting plans will be issued for the life of the activity or until 
the expiration of the regulations, whichever occurs first. Each year, 
prior to January 15, we will require that the operator submit 
development and production activity monitoring results of the previous 
year's activity. We require annual approval of the monitoring results 
for continued operation under the LOA.

Required Determinations

    We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
conjunction with this proposed rulemaking. Subsequent to closure of the 
comment period for this proposed rule, we will decide whether this is a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. For a copy of the draft 
Environmental Assessment, contact the individual identified above in 
the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This document has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). 
This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the 
economy; will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health of 
safety, of State, local, or tribal governments or communities; will not 
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; does not alter the budgetary 
effects or entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights or obligations of their recipients; and does not raise novel 
legal or policy issues. The proposed rule is not likely to result in an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million of more. Expenses will be 
related to, but not necessarily limited to, the development of 
applications for regulations and LOAs, monitoring, record keeping, and 
reporting activities conducted during Industry oil and gas operations, 
development of polar bear interaction plans, and coordination with 
Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on subsistence 
hunting. Compliance with the rule is not expected to result in 
additional costs to Industry that it has not already been subjected to 
for the previous 6 years. Realistically, these costs are minimal in 
comparison to those related to actual oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production operations. The actual costs to Industry to 
develop the petition for promulgation of regulations (originally 
developed in 1997) and LOA requests probably does not exceed $500,000 
per year, short of the ``major rule'' threshold that would require 
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. As is presently the case, 
profits would accrue to Industry; royalties and taxes would accrue to 
the Government; and the rule would have little or no impact on 
decisions by Industry to relinquish tracts and write off bonus 
payments.
    We have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 
The proposed rule is also not likely to result in a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or government 
agencies or have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic or export markets.
    We have also determined that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil 
companies and their contractors conducting exploration, development, 
and production activities in Alaska have been identified as the only 
likely applicants under the regulations. These potential applicants 
have not been identified as small businesses. The analysis for this 
rule is available from the person in Alaska identified above in the 
section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as 
the following: (1)

[[Page 68980]]

Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule 
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? 
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the 
rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) 
sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is preceded by the 
symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 18.123 When 
is this rule effective? (5) Is the description of the rule in the 
``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule 
easier to understand?
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which 
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or 
address, you must state that prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
    This proposed rule is not expected to have a potential takings 
implication under Executive Order 12630 because it would authorize the 
incidental, but not intentional, take of polar bear and walrus by oil 
and gas industry companies and thereby exempt these companies from 
civil and criminal liability.
    This proposed rule also does not contain policies with Federalism 
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under Executive Order 13132. In accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.), this rule will not 
``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. The Service has determined and 
certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Act that this rulemaking 
will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on 
local or State governments or private entities. This rule will not 
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant 
to the Unfunded Mandates Act that this rulemaking will not impose a 
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State 
governments or private entities.
    The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these 
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
    The information collection contained in this rule has been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) and assigned clearance number 
1018-0070. The OMB approval of our collection of this information will 
expire in October 2001. The proposed section 18.129 contains the public 
notice information--including identification of the estimated burden 
and obligation to respond--required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Information from our Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program is cleared 
under OMB Number 1018-0066 pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. For 
information on our Marking, Tagging, and Report Program, see 50 CFR 
18.23(f)(12).
    Comments and materials received in response to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal working hours of 8:00 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Marine 
Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, 
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements, Transportation.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to 
amend Part 18, Subchapter B of Chapter 1, Title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

    1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as 
follows: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
    2. Revise Subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas 
Exploration, Development, and Production Activities in the Beaufort 
Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of Alaska

Sec.
18.121  What specified activities does this rule cover?
18.122  In what specified geographic region does this rule apply?
18.123  When is this rule effective?
18.124  How do you obtain a Letter of Authorization?
18.125  What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of 
Authorization requests?
18.126  What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
18.127  What activities are prohibited?
18.128  What are the monitoring and reporting requirements?
18.129  What are the information collection requirements?


Sec. 18.121  What specified activities does this rule cover?

    Regulations in this subpart apply to the incidental, but not 
intentional, task of small numbers of polar bear and Pacific walrus by 
you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec. 18.27(c)) while engaged in oil 
and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the 
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. The offshore 
exploration, development, and production facility, known as Northstart, 
is covered by this rule. Further offshore development and production, 
such as the proposed Liberty project, is not covered by this rule.


Sec. 18.122  In what specified geographic region does this rule apply?

    This rule applies to the specified geographic region defined by a 
north/south line at Barrow, Alaska, and includes all Alaska coastal 
areas, State waters, and Outer Continental Shelf waters east of that 
line to the Canadian border and an area 25 miles inland from Barrow on 
the west to the Canning River on the east. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is excluded from this rule.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[[Page 68981]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09DE99.000


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68982]]

Sec. 18.123  When is this rule effective?

    Regulations in this subpart are effective January 31, 2000, through 
January 31, 2003, for year-round oil and gas exploration, development, 
and production activities.


Sec. 18.124  How do you obtain a Letter of Authorization?

    (a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec. 18.27(c) of this 
part.
    (b) If you are conducting an oil and gas exploration, development, 
or production activity in the specified geographic region described in 
Sec. 18.122 that may take a polar bear or Pacific walrus in execution 
of those activities and desire incidental take authorization under this 
rule, you must apply for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration 
activity or a Letter of Authorization for each development and 
production area. You must submit the application for authorization to 
our Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90 
days prior to the start of the proposed activity.
    (c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the 
following information:
    (1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the 
activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by 
that activity.
    (2) A site-specific plan to monitor the effects of the activity on 
the behavior of polar bear and Pacific walrus that may be present 
during the ongoing activities. Your monitoring program must document 
the effects to these marine mammals and estimate the actual level and 
type of take. The monitoring requirements will vary depending on the 
activity, the location, and the time of year.
    (3) A polar bear awareness and interaction plan. For the protection 
of human life and welfare, each employee on site must complete a basic 
polar bear encounter training course.
    (4) A Plan of Cooperation to mitigate potential conflicts between 
the proposed activity and subsistence hunting. This Plan of Cooperation 
must identify measures to minimize adverse effects on the availability 
of polar bear and Pacific walrus for subsistence uses if the activity 
takes place in or near a traditional subsistence hunting area. You must 
contact affected subsistence communities to discuss potential conflicts 
caused by location, timing, and methods of proposed operations. You 
must make reasonable efforts to assure that activities do not interfere 
with subsistence hunting or that adverse effects on the availability of 
polar bear or Pacific walrus are properly mitigated.


Sec. 18.125  What Criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of 
Authorization requests?

    (a) When you request a Letter of Authorization, we will evaluate 
each request for a Letter of Authorization based on the specific 
activity and the specific geographic location. We will determine 
whether the level of activity identified in the request exceeds that 
considered by us in making a finding of negligible impact on the 
species and a finding of no unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species for take for subsistence uses. If the level 
of activity is greater, we will reevaluate our findings to determine if 
those findings continue to be appropriate based on the greater level of 
activity that you have requested. Depending on the results of the 
evaluation, we may allow the authorization to stand as is, add further 
conditions, or withdraw the authorization.
    (b) In accordance with Sec. 18.27(f)(5) of this part, we will make 
decisions concerning withdrawals of Letters of Authorization, either on 
an individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for 
public comment.
    (c) The requirement for notice and public comment in Sec. 18.125(b) 
will not apply should we determine that an emergency exists that poses 
a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stock of polar 
bear or Pacific walrus.


Sec. 18.126  What does a Letter of Authorization allow?

    (a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the incidental, but not 
intentional, take of polar bear and Pacific walrus when you are 
carrying out one or more of the following activities:
    (1) Conducting geological and geophysical surveys and associated 
activities;
    (2) Drilling exploratory wells and associated activities;
    (3) Developing oil fields and associated activities;
    (4) Drilling production wells and performing production support 
operations; and
    (5) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with 
exploration, development, and production activities to determine 
associated impacts.
    (b) You must use methods and conduct activities identified in your 
Letter of Authorization in a manner that minimizes to the greatest 
extent practicable adverse impacts on polar bear and Pacific walrus, 
their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for 
subsistence uses.
    (c) Each Letter of Authorization will identify allowable conditions 
or methods that are specific to the activity and location.


Sec. 18.127  What activities are prohibited?

    (a) Intentional take of polar bear or Pacific walrus; and
    (b) Any take that fails to comply with the terms and conditions of 
these specific regulations or of your Letter of Authorization.


Sec. 18.128  What are the monitoring and reporting requirements?

    (a) We require holders of Letters of Authorization to cooperate 
with us and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to 
monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus.
    (b) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate a qualified 
individual or individuals to observe, record, and report on the effects 
of their activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus.
    (c) We may place an observer on site of the activity on board drill 
ships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or 
vehicles to monitor the impacts of your activity on polar bear and 
Pacific walrus.
    (d) For exploratory activities, holders of a Letters of 
Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director 
within 90 days after completion of activities. For development and 
production activities, holders of a Letters of Authorization must 
submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director by January 15 for the 
preceding year's activities. Reports must include, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (1) Dates and times of activity;
    (2) Dates and locations of polar bear or Pacific walrus activity as 
related to the monitoring activity; and
    (3) Results of the monitoring activities including an estimated 
level of take.


Sec. 18.129  What are the information collection requirements?

    (a) The collection of information contained in this subpart has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned clearance 
number 1018-0070. We need to collect the information in order to 
describe the proposed activity and estimate the impacts of potential 
taking by all persons conducting the activity. We will use the 
information to evaluate the application and determine whether to issue 
specific regulations and, subsequently, Letters of Authorization.
    (b) For the initial year, we estimate your burden to be 200 hours 
to develop an application requesting us to

[[Page 68983]]

promulgate incidental take regulations. For the initial year and 
annually thereafter when you conduct operations under this rule, we 
estimate an 8-hour burden per Letters of Authorization, a 4-hour burden 
for monitoring, and an 8-hour burden per monitoring report. You must 
respond to this information collection request to obtain a benefit 
pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. You 
should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection Clearance 
Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 
Mail Stop 222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, and the 
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1018-
0070), Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: November 17, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-31906 Filed 12-6-99; 12:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M