Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice Trails Construction and Maintenance Activities on Alaska's North Slope, 83451-83473 [2020-26346]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83451-83473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 217

[Docket No. 20119-0307]
RIN 0648-BJ24


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice Trails 
Construction and Maintenance Activities on Alaska's North Slope

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; notification of issuance of Letters of 
Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: Upon application from Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) and Eni US 
Operating Co. Inc. (Eni), NMFS is issuing regulations under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals incidental to ice road and ice trail construction, maintenance, 
and operation in Alaska's North Slope, over the course of 5 years 
(2020-2025). These regulations allow NMFS to issue Letters of 
Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during 
the specified construction and maintenance activities carried out 
during the rule's period of effectiveness, set forth the permissible 
methods of taking, set forth other means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their 
habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and 
reporting of the incidental take.

DATES: Effective December 22, 2020 through November 30, 2025.

ADDRESSES: To obtain an electronic copy of the Hilcorp-Eni's LOA 
application or other referenced documents, visit the internet at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents, please call the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action

    This final rule establishes a framework under the authority of the 
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the authorization of take of 
marine mammals incidental to Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads and ice trails 
construction and maintenance activities on Alaska's North Slope.
    We received an application from Hilcorp and Eni requesting 5-year 
regulations and authorization to take marine mammals. Take would occur 
by Level B harassment, Level A harassment and serious injury and/or 
mortality incidental to ice roads and ice trails construction and 
maintenance. Please see Background below for definitions of harassment.

Legal Authority for the Action

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs 
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but 
not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. 
citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to 5 years if, 
after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and 
issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking 
pursuant to that activity and other means of effecting the ``least 
practicable adverse impact'' on the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat (see the discussion below in the Mitigation section), as 
well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I 
provide the legal basis for issuing this rule containing 5-year 
regulations and for any subsequent LOAs. As directed by this legal 
authority, this rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements.

Summary of Major Provisions Within the Rule

    Following is a summary of the major provisions of this rule 
regarding Hilcorp and Eni's construction activities. These measures 
include:
     No initiation of ice road or trail construction if a 
ringed seal is observed within approximately 46 meters (m) (150 feet 
(ft)) of the action area after March 1 through May 30 of each year.
     Requiring monitoring of the construction areas to detect 
the presence of marine mammals before beginning construction 
activities.

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals with certain 
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon

[[Page 83452]]

request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers 
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity 
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region 
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if 
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed incidental 
take authorization (ITA) may be provided to the public for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, 
monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    NMFS received a joint application from Hilcorp and Eni requesting 
authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to construction 
activities related to ice roads and ice trails in the North Slope, 
Alaska. The application was determined to be adequate and complete on 
May 31, 2019. The requested regulations would be valid for 5 years, 
from December 22, 2020 through November 30, 2025. Hilcorp and Eni plan 
to conduct necessary work, including use of heavy machinery on ice, to 
facilitate access to North Slope offshore oil and gas facilities. The 
action may incidentally expose marine mammals occurring in the vicinity 
to elevated levels of sound, human presence on ice habitat, and 
interactions with heavy machinery, thereby resulting in incidental 
take, by Level A and Level B harassment and serious injury or 
mortality. Since Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads and trails construction 
and maintenance activities have the potential to cause serious injury 
or mortality to a few ringed seals, an LOA is appropriate. On January 
17, 2020, NMFS published a proposed rule (85 FR 2988) and proposed 
regulations to govern takes of marine mammals incidental to Hilcorp and 
Eni's ice roads and trails construction and maintenance activities, and 
requested comments on the proposed regulations.

Description of Activity

Overview

    Hilcorp and Eni conduct oil and gas operations at Northstar 
Production Facility (Northstar) and Spy Island Drillsite (SID), 
respectively, in coastal Beaufort Sea, Alaska. During the ice-covered 
season, Hilcorp constructs annual ice roads and trails to connect and 
allow access between West Dock and Northstar. Similarly, Eni builds and 
utilizes an ice road connecting the Oliktok Production Pad (OPP) and 
SID. Eni also builds an annual ice road from shore to the Oooguruk 
Drill Site (ODS) (Figures 1-4). This regulation and the implementing 
LOAs authorize takes of marine mammals incidental to Hilcorp and Eni's 
ice roads and ice trails construction during the ice-covered season on 
Alaska's North Slope.

Dates and Duration

    Both Hilcorp and Eni generally begin constructing sea ice roads and 
ice trails as early as possible, usually by late December depending on 
weather. Maintenance and use of the ice roads and trails continue 
generally through mid-May when the ice becomes too unstable to access. 
Depending on the weather, from the initial surveying until the ice is 
thick enough to allow travel by wheeled vehicles, ice road construction 
takes about six weeks.

Specific Geographic Region

    Northstar, an artificial gravel island, is located in State of 
Alaska coastal waters about 9.7 kilometers (km) (6 miles (mi)) offshore 
from Point Storkersen in the Beaufort Sea (Figure 1). Water depth at 
the island is about 12 m (39 ft). This region is covered by landfast 
ice in winter and with water depths greater than 3 m (10 ft).
    The 0.05 square kilometer (km\2\) (11-acre) SID is also an 
artificial, gravel island constructed in shallow (1.8-2.4 m, 6-8 ft), 
State of Alaska coastal waters approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) north of 
Oliktok Point and just south of the Spy Island barrier island (Figure 
2). While SID is situated in water depths considered unsuitable for 
ringed seals, each year a crack or lead has developed in the road 
between OPP and SID.
    The ODS consists of a 0.024 km\2\ (6-acre) gravel drillsite 
approximately 8 km (5 mi) offshore in 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of water (Figures 
3 and 4). The site is connected to an onshore facility by a flowline 
system consisting of a 9.2 km (5.7 mi) subsea buried flowline bundle 
which transitions onshore to a 3.7 km (2.3 mi) traditional North Slope 
aboveground flowline support system.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 83453]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE20.008


[[Page 83454]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE20.009


[[Page 83455]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE20.010


[[Page 83456]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE20.011


[[Page 83457]]


BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Detailed Description of Specific Activity

Hilcorp: Northstar to West Dock
Ice Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance
    Each year during the ice-covered season an approximately 11.7 km 
(7.3 mi) long ice road is constructed between Northstar and the Prudhoe 
Bay facilities at West Dock to transport personnel, equipment, 
materials, and supplies (Figure 1). Ice roads allow standard vehicles 
such as pick-up trucks, SUVs, buses and other trucks to be used to 
transport personnel and equipment to and from the island during the 
ice-covered period.
    In some years depending on operational needs and weather 
conditions, Hilcorp may elect to not build the main improved ice road. 
In this case, a primary ice trail that can support only tracked, 
lighter-weight vehicles would be built in the location of the improved 
ice road shown on Figure 1. However, to cover all scenarios, Hilcorp 
assumes that an ice road would be built in each year for the next 5 
years.
    In water deeper than 3 m (10 ft), the ice must be approximately 2.4 
m (8 ft) thick to support construction equipment. Ice road construction 
activities occurs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week during the construction 
phase and are only halted in unsafe conditions such as high winds or 
extremely low temperatures. The ice roads are typically constructed by 
specially-designed pumps with ice augers. Seawater for creating the 
offshore ice road is obtained by drilling holes through the existing 
sea ice using augers and pumping salt water to flood the ice surface. 
The rolligons (vehicles with large low-pressure tires) move along the 
road alignment while flooding the surface. Water trucks are used to 
spray a freshwater cap over the thickened sea ice to provide 
durability.
    Following construction, ice road surfaces are maintained using 
graders with snow wings and blowers, or front-end loaders with snow 
blower attachments. Snow can also be cleared by personnel with snow 
blowers. When snow blowing, wind direction is used to assist in 
dispersing the blown snow over a large area so that large berms or 
piles are not created. Delineators may be used to mark the roadway in 
15 m (50 ft) increments down the centerline of the road, and at no more 
than 0.4 km (\1/4\ mi) increments on both sides of the ice road to 
delineate the path of vehicle travel and areas to be maintained. 
Corners of rig mats, steel plates, and other materials used to bridge 
sections of hazardous ice, are clearly marked or mapped using Global 
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of the locations.
    The following steps are used to build the Northstar ice road:
     Clear snow using lighter-weight tracked vehicles;
     Grade or drag the ice to smooth the surface, incorporating 
rubble ice into the road or moving it outside of the expected road 
surface;
     Drill holes through floating ice along the planned ice 
road route using rolligons equipped with ice augers and pumps;
     Pump seawater from drilled holes over floating ice; and
     Flood the ice road. Flooding techniques are dependent on 
the conditions of the sea ice (i.e., grounded vs. floating).
    Grounded ice requires minimal freshwater flooding to either cap or 
repair cracks. Floating ice requires flooding with seawater until a 
desired thickness is achieved. Thickness of floating ice would be 
determined by the required strength and integrity of the ice. After 
achieving desired thickness, floating ice areas may then be flooded 
with fresh water to either cap or repair cracks. This technique 
minimizes the amount of freshwater used to obtain the desired thickness 
of the ice road. Hilcorp would use permitted freshwater sources if 
fresh water is needed to construct the Northstar ice roads. Water would 
be transported by truck from permitted freshwater sources via existing 
roads.
Ice Trails
    Ice trails are unimproved access corridors used by Tuckers (a type 
of tracked vehicle that moves on snow), PistenBullys[supreg] (a type of 
tracked vehicle that moves on snow), snow machines, or similar tracked 
equipment. Seawater flooding of the entire trail and freshwater caps 
are not used. However, small rough areas of a trail may require minimal 
seawater flooding to allow tracked vehicles, rolligons, and the 
hovercraft (if needed) to travel along the corridor.
    To construct the trail, snow machines and light-weight tracked 
vehicles are used to initially mark the corridor as soon as it is 
determined to be safe for access. Sea ice in the unimproved roads would 
be allowed to thicken through natural freeze up as the ice, and snow is 
packed down by larger tracked vehicles. Generally, snow removal or 
large surface modifications are not required for ice trails.
    Hilcorp usually builds the following unimproved ice trails to 
Northstar:
     Along the pipeline corridor from the valve pad near the 
Dew Line site to Northstar (9.5 km, 5.93 mi),
     From West Dock to the pipeline shore crossing (grounded 
ice along the coastline (7.8 km, 4.82 mi), and
     Two unimproved ice road paths from the hovercraft tent at 
Dockhead 2.

One would go under the West Dock causeway bridge to Dockhead 3 (1.4 km, 
0.86 mi) and the other would go around West Dock and intersect the main 
ice road north of the Seawater Treatment Plant (4.6 km, 2.85 mi).
    In addition to these trails, Hilcorp may need to construct several 
shorter length trails into undisturbed areas to work around unstable 
and unsafe areas of ice as the season progresses. Due to safety 
considerations these work-around or detour trails may need to be 
constructed after March 1st. They are constructed similarly to the 
planned ice trails and are not flooded or capped with seawater or 
freshwater. Typically, these detours deviate approximately 23 to 46 m 
(75 to 150 ft) from the original road or trail to allow crews to safely 
go around soft spots or cracks.
Eni: Oliktok Production Pad to SID
Ice Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance
    Each year Eni builds a single ice road and three ice pads. The ice 
road extends 6.8 km (4.2 mi) offshore from OPP to SID (Figure 2). This 
ice road has both supported on water (floating) and grounded ice 
sections; the first 244 m (800 ft) of the road from shore is grounded 
ice (i.e., frozen to the bottom). In addition, Eni typically also 
builds two floating ice pad parking areas at SID: A 152 m by 6 m (500 
ft by 200 ft) area located on the southeast side of SID, and a 91 m by 
46 m (300 ft by 150 ft) area on the northeast side, and one grounded 
ice pad at the Oliktok Point end of the ice road.
    Initial construction of the sea ice road begins with surveying and 
staking the route as soon as the ice is thick enough to support snow 
machines. The floating sections of the road are constructed using the 
free flood method; low pressure pumps flood the ice surface with 
seawater. A 7.6 centimeters (cm) (3 inches (in.)) layer of water is 
applied, some of which may move to lower parts of the roadway. After 
the water has frozen, the next flood can be applied.
    Small rolligon vehicles with augers and pumps are used for augering 
and flooding. Hand augers can be used to check the ice thickness. Ice 
needs to be 41 to 51 cm (16 to 20 in.) thick to

[[Page 83458]]

support these vehicles. Rolligon tires distribute the load over a 
larger tire print. Flooding operations occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week during this phase. Once the ice is about 183 cm (72 in.) thick and 
determined to be able to support full loads, vehicles such as passenger 
trucks, vacuum trucks, drill trucks and other tractor plus trailer 
loads can use the ice road. Up until that time, only rolligon vehicles 
and tracked vehicles are used on the road. The maintained ice road 
width (including the shoulder areas) is 49 m (160 ft).
    Rig mats are used to bridge small leads (fractures within large 
expanse of ice) and wet cracks during construction and maintenance. 
During maintenance activities, fresh water is used for road surfacing 
and repair. Once fully flooded and open to traffic, snow loads on the 
ice road must be managed. Snow on the ice road is cleared frequently 
and the width of the ice road (including the shoulder areas) is 
maintained at 49 m (160 ft). At the end of the ice road season, as 
temperatures and sun exposure increase, snow may be spread over the 
road surface to insulate and shade the ice surface, helping to preserve 
ice road integrity.
Ice Trails
    Following the same general construction methods used at Northstar, 
Eni plans to build an unimproved ice trail just west of and parallel to 
the sea ice road corridor near SID. The ice trail is typically 
approximately 15-30 m (50-100 ft) west of the western edge of the ice 
road shoulder and is used when the ice road is being constructed. Once 
the ice road is open to regular traffic, the ice trail is not used. 
After March 1st, due to safety considerations, Eni may also need to use 
several shorter length trails in undisturbed areas to work around 
unstable and unsafe areas of ice as the season progresses. As described 
above, these work-around or detour trails allow PistenBullys[supreg] 
and other tracked vehicles to safely go around soft spots or cracks.
Eni: Oooguruk Ice Road
Ice Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance
    A single ice road and staging area ice pad are required each year 
to operate the ODS. As shown in Figure 3, the typical or proposed ice 
road extends 8.9 km (5.5 mi) offshore to the ODS. An alternative ice 
road as shown on Figure 4 would be located in shallower water and, 
therefore, can be grounded and used earlier in the season. The 
alternative route extends 11.2 km (7 mi) offshore and is used in years 
when an early road completion is required or when extra heavy loads, 
such as a drilling rig is expected. Either ice road is up to 
approximately 10.7 m (50 ft) wide with a similar width shoulder area on 
each side. The shoulders of the road are used when traffic must 
periodically detour around equipment or in areas where ice road 
maintenance is occurring. In addition, a grounded ice pad staging area 
is constructed on the southwest edge of the ODS (see Figures 3 and 4). 
The dimensions of the staging area are approximately 180 by 140 m (600 
by 450 ft).
    The ODS is located in 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) of water, and the 
area from the site to the shore generally becomes grounded landfast ice 
in winter. The typical and alternate ice road routes shown in Figures 3 
and 4 would be located in grounded rather than floating ice. There is 
one small area near the Colville River that has an open lead for a 
short duration in December but freezes solid within a few weeks. The 
road is clearly marked with delineators and monitored routinely by 
Alaska Clean Seas and industry environmental coordinators. Ice bridges 
or rig mats are not required for construction or maintenance of the ice 
road or ice pad staging area.
    Initial construction of the sea ice road begins with surveying and 
staking the route as soon as the ice is thick enough to support snow 
machines. Low pressure pumps are used to flood the ice surface with 
seawater. Small tractor vehicles with augers and pumps are used for 
augering and flooding. An initial layer of water is applied, some of 
which may move to lower parts of the roadway. After the water has 
frozen, the next flood can be applied. Flooding operations occur 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week during this phase. Depending on weather and 
sea ice conditions, construction of the ice road typically begins in 
early December and is complete by February 1st.
    The ODS operations do not require offshore ice trails. However, a 
coastal trail in very shallow water right off of the beach is 
occasionally needed between Oliktok and the ODS ice road to demobilize 
equipment after tundra travel has been closed.
    Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in 
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and 
Reporting).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on January 
17, 2020 (85 FR 2988). During the 30-day public comment period on the 
proposed rule, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission), ECO49 Consulting, LLC (ECO49) on behalf of Hilcorp and 
Eni, and five private citizens. The comments and our responses are 
provided here, and the comments have been posted online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. Please see the comment letters for the 
full rationales behind the recommendations we respond to below. As a 
result of these comments, NMFS revised the buffer zones for avoidance 
of seals and seal structures and added one additional monitoring and 
reporting measure in the final rule.
    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Hilcorp and 
Eni to (1) meet with ice seal subsistence hunters in Nuiqsut and other 
North Slope communities and with members of the Ice Seal Committee to 
discuss their proposed construction, maintenance, and operation of ice 
roads and ice trails and its BMPs, and (2) revise its mitigation and 
monitoring measures as necessary to minimize disturbance of seals and 
subsistence hunting activities, based on input received.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's specific 
recommendations. Both Hilcorp and Eni have developed Plans of 
Cooperation (POCs) to ensure that no unmitigable adverse impact would 
occur to subsistence uses of marine mammals from their planned ice 
roads and ice trails construction and maintenance activities on the 
North Slope. As stated in the Federal Register notice for the proposed 
rule (85 FR 2988; January 17, 2020), both companies have been engaging 
the communities of Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut, as well as members of the Ice 
Seal Committee and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) to share 
information about planned exploration/development activities and to 
maintain dialogue about measures to minimize potential impacts on 
subsistence harvest. For the ice roads and ice trails construction and 
maintenance activities, Hilcorp and Eni developed further mitigation 
and monitoring measures to minimize the potential impacts to 
subsistence uses of marine mammals in the area based on inputs from 
subsistence users in the area. These measures also include signing a 
Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the AEWC and Whaling Captains' 
Associations of nearby North Slope communities. The CAA describes 
measures to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of bowhead 
whales for subsistence use. To date, the

[[Page 83459]]

Native community has not expressed concerns over interactions with 
seals, particularly during the ice-covered seasons. Hilcorp and Eni 
state that they will continue to address questions and concerns from 
community members, and continue to provide them with contact 
information of project management to which they can direct concerns 
related to these companies' specific activities. Therefore, the 
Commission's recommendations are not necessary.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise the numbers 
of Level B harassment takes for ringed seals using inputs for the 
estimated length of road or trail to be constructed or maintained each 
day and the number of days each season that construction, maintenance, 
and operation of ice roads and ice trails are expected to occur.
    Response: NMFS does not adopt the Commission's recommendation. We 
believe that the method used here is the best way to calculate take 
estimates for these activities. In this case, the take number is based 
on the density multiplied by the action area. Ice road construction, 
operations and maintenance does not occur continuously every day 
throughout the ice road season. While the ice road season is 
approximately December through May, ice road construction, operations 
and maintenance only occur in a small subsection for a given day. In 
addition, construction, operation and maintenance activity does not 
occur each day, and the number of days required for construction, 
maintenance or operations cannot be predicted given the variability in 
weather and ice conditions. For this reason, it is not appropriate to 
use the entire six months as the total duration. Also, it is not 
possible to predict with certainty the amount of time each company 
would use the ice roads each week or month given the seasonal 
variability. The take calculation considers the fact that in over >10 
years of ice road activity (i.e., at Northstar), there have only been 
two seals reported in what is defined as the ``exposure area.'' The 
take calculations consider the total exposure area (in square km) 
multiplied by seal density.
    Comment 3: The Commission recommends that NMFS include Level B 
harassment takes of bearded and spotted seals in the final rule using 
the same take estimation method.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the recommendation and does not 
adopt it. Bearded seals prefer areas of moving ice and open water with 
depths up to 200 m (656 ft) (Burns and Harbo 1972). The Liberty rule 
referenced by the Commission (84 FR 70274; December 20, 2019) included 
bearded seals to be precautionary and considering the other activities 
(such as pile driving) that are part of the Liberty Project in addition 
to ice roads.
    Likewise, spotted seals are not known to remain in the Beaufort Sea 
during the late fall and winter (BOEM, 2018). Given their seasonal 
occurrence and distribution (they are absent from the Beaufort Sea in 
winter) and low numbers in the nearshore waters of the central Alaskan 
Beaufort Sea during other seasons, no spotted seals are expected in the 
Action Areas in late winter and spring during ice road/trail 
activities.
    Therefore, considering the fact that bearded and spotted seals are 
extremely unlikely to occur in the nearshore environment during winter 
months, and the small zone of disturbance that is only related to ice 
road construction and maintenance, including takes of bearded and 
spotted seals is not appropriate.
    Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS revise the buffer 
zones used in section 217.154(c)(3), (5), and (7)(i), and section 
217.155(c) of the proposed rule to reference avoidance of seals within 
50 m and avoidance of seal structures within 150 m, for consistency 
with other recent rulemakings (84 FR 70274; December 20, 2019) 
regarding avoidance of seals and seal structures during construction, 
maintenance, and operation of ice roads and trails on the North Slope. 
Hilcorp and Eni also recommend using the whole metric values for 
mitigation and monitoring distances as stated in the LOA application.
    Response: NMFS concurs with the recommendations and has made the 
corrections in the final rule and the LOAs issued to Hilcorp and Eni.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommends that NMFS require Hilcorp and 
Eni to (1) consult with local hunters regarding the best techniques for 
detecting seals and seal structures with a minimum of disturbance, (2) 
involve local hunters in the training of observers for ice road 
activities, and (3) include in the final reports the methods used for 
detection of seals and seal structures with an assessment of their 
effectiveness.
    Response: NMFS concurs with this recommendation and has adopted it. 
NMFS worked with Hilcorp and Eni on these issues and will require 
Hilcorp and Eni to engage local hunters in Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik and 
Kaktovik through the Ice Seal Committee point of contact to gather 
recommendations on methods for ringed seal detection along sea ice 
roads/trails within the exposure areas. These insights will be 
incorporated into Hilcorp and Eni's training materials provided to 
personnel responsible for monitoring for ringed seals along sea ice 
roads/trails. NMFS also requires Hilcorp and Eni to include the methods 
used for detection of seals and seal structures with an assessment of 
their effectiveness in the final reports. NMFS incorporated these 
recommendations into the final rule.
    Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS initiate a peer 
review of the proposed mitigation and monitoring plan (as described at 
50 CFR 216.108(d)). The Commission states that authorization to take 
ringed seals incidental to construction and maintenance of ice roads 
and ice trails has been included in previous rulemakings that were 
peer-reviewed, most recently in December 2019 (84 FR 70274).
    Response: NMFS does not agree that this is necessary and does not 
adopt the recommendation. As the Commission stated in its comment, 
marine mammal monitoring plans are required to be reviewed by an 
independent peer-review panel if the activities occur in Arctic waters 
and may affect the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for 
subsistence use. As discussed in detail in the proposed rule (85 FR 
2988; January 17, 2020), Hilcorp and Eni's proposed ice roads and ice 
trails construction projects would occur far away from subsistence 
activities, and would be conducted during the time few subsistence 
activities occur. In winter and spring, small numbers of ringed seals 
may be disturbed and possibly displaced from the immediate locations of 
the ice roads and trails. Seal hunters would likely avoid the areas 
near SID, Northstar and ODS in favor of less developed, more productive 
areas closer to the main sealing areas near the Colville River delta. 
Therefore, construction and maintenance of the ice roads and trails is 
unlikely to impact winter subsistence hunting of ringed seals. The 
example that the Commission provided concerning peer-review of a marine 
mammal monitoring plan associated with ice roads and ice trails 
construction and maintenance is Hilcorp's Liberty Drilling and 
Production Island construction, but that project has potential effects 
to subsistence use of marine mammals from pile driving and artificial 
island construction activities during open-water season. NMFS is not 
aware of monitoring plans for ice road/trail construction and 
maintenance undergoing peer review because these activities are not 
typically considered as

[[Page 83460]]

meeting the ``may affect'' requirement pertaining to subsistence uses 
of marine mammal species and stocks.
    Comment 7: ECO49, on behalf of Hilcorp and Eni, notes that takes of 
ringed seals by mortality/serious injury or Level A harassment were 
reduced from the LOA application by NMFS based on analysis using 
historical data. ECO49 states that they understand NMFS' approach in 
take calculation, but request to closely work with NMFS if Level A 
harassment or mortality/serious injury approaches the level authorized, 
to review the manner of take and number of takes authorized.
    Response: As discussed in detail in the proposed rule (85 FR 2988; 
January 17, 2020), the take request of a total of 30 ringed seal 
mortality/serious injury takes presented in the LOA application cannot 
be adequately justified based on historical data and comparable 
activities where takes were authorized (e.g., 2019 Hilcorp Liberty rule 
for ice road and ice trail construction on the North Slope). The 
proposed Level A harassment and mortality/serious injury of a total of 
12 seals were estimated based on the level of activities by Hilcorp and 
Eni over the next 5 years. Based on the analysis, NMFS does not believe 
Hilcorp or Eni would exceed the Level A harassment and/or mortality/
serious injury authorized under the rulemaking, with implementation of 
prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures. However, in the unlikely 
event such situation occurs, NMFS will work with Hilcorp and Eni 
closely to review the manner of take and number of takes authorized, 
and to reinitiate section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA).
    Comment 8: ECO49 points out that language in the proposed rule (85 
FR 2988; January 17, 2020;) should be revised to make clear that an 
additional buffer area was added to the road/trail width for SID so the 
total width is 420 m, not 340 m as indicated. ECO49 proposes the 
following language to clarify the distance used to calculate potential 
seal exposures at SID: ``The total width of the ice road and trail at 
SID accounts for the ice trail being constructed approximately 15 to 30 
m west of the western edge of the ice road shoulder. Therefore, a total 
width of 420 m has been used to calculate potential seal exposures at 
SID whereas, the ice road/trail total width at Northstar and ODS is 340 
m.''
    Response: NMFS revised the description in the Take Estimates 
section below. While the language in the proposed rule contained an 
error, take calculation of ringed seals at SID used the correct 
information (420 m), therefore, the take estimate remains unchanged.
    Comment 9: ECO49 suggests adding a note after the last bullet in 
the subsection Monitoring Measures After March 1st, to read ``During 
this monitoring period, maintenance work will proceed cautiously as to 
minimize impacts or disturbance to area.''
    Response: NMFS understands that there will be limited activities 
after March 1, and that additional monitoring measures are being added 
to minimize impacts or disturbance to ringed seal pupping activities 
after March 1. However, the language ECO49 suggested is not part of the 
specific monitoring measure, therefore NMFS does not consider it 
appropriate to include that in that subsection.
    Comment 10: ECO49 notes that the proposed rule includes language 
describing a process for modifying mitigation or monitoring measures 
should it be warranted. ECO49 states that it understands this language 
is non-binding and requests that NMFS coordinate closely with Hilcorp 
and Eni should any modifications to mitigation measures be needed in 
the future.
    Response: NMFS will coordinate closely with Hilcorp and Eni and 
their contractors should any modifications to mitigation measures be 
needed in the future.
    Comment 11: Four private citizens recommend prohibiting Hilcorp and 
Eni from constructing the ice roads to better protect the environment 
and sensitive wildlife. Another anonymous individual states that it is 
not in the best interest of Alaska and the entire U.S. population to 
continue letting Hilcorp and Eni take animals during their proposed 
ice-road construction.
    Response: NMFS' authority and these final regulations allow for 
issuance of a LOA to authorize takes of marine mammals incidental to 
ice road construction and maintenance activities by Hilcorp and Eni. 
NMFS has no authority over whether the ice road construction project is 
permitted. The MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to 
NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage 
in a specified activity within a specified geographical region.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant).
    Comment 12: One private citizen states their belief that Hilcorp 
and Eni would not be truthful in presenting the data that indicates 
ringed seals are experiencing serious injury/death because of the ice 
road/trial construction and use. The individual states that if Hilcorp 
and Eni find data that might prevent them from building these routes in 
the future they could be tempted to stretch or even hide the truth for 
the benefit of their company's interests. The individual suggests that 
a third-party non-profit entity work with the companies to help monitor 
the seals and report the findings.
    Response: NMFS has no basis for concern that Hilcorp and Eni would 
conceal serious injury/mortality incidents, if such incidents occur. 
The LOAs issued to Hilcorp and Eni authorize limited take by serious 
injury and mortality, therefore, it is not to the companies' interests 
to falsify the monitoring report if such take occurs. In addition, 
falsifying a marine mammal report would lead to revocation of the 
LOA(s) issued to Hilcorp and/or Eni, and would affect any future 
application they might submit to obtain marine mammal ITA, in addition 
to subjecting them to potential legal actions. Therefore, NMFS does not 
believe Hilcorp or Eni would intentionally misrepresent the actual take 
numbers in their marine mammal monitoring reports, including reporting 
of serious injury and/or mortality takes.

Changes From the Proposed to Final Rule

    There is no change in the Hilcorp and Eni's proposed ice roads and 
ice trails construction activities from the proposed rule (85 FR 2988; 
January 17, 2020). NMFS revised the buffers in section 217.154(c)(3), 
(5), (7), and (7)(i), and section 217.155(b)(1) and (1)(ii) and (c)(1) 
and (2) to reference avoidance of seals within 50 m and avoidance of 
seal structures within 150 m. One additional monitoring and reporting 
measure was added to the final rule based on comments received during 
the public comment period. This measure requires that Hilcorp and Eni 
(1) engage local hunters through the Ice Seal Committee point of 
contact to gather recommendations on methods for ringed seal detection 
along sea ice roads/trails within the exposure areas, (2) incorporate 
these recommendations into Hilcorp and Eni's training materials 
provided to personnel responsible for monitoring for ringed seals along 
sea ice roads/trails, and (3) include the methods used for detection of 
seals and seal structures with an assessment of their effectiveness in 
the final reports.

[[Page 83461]]

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments), and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
    Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in 
the Beaufort Sea and summarizes information related to the population 
or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and 
potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its Optimum Sustainable Population (OPS) (as 
described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated, PBR and 
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend 
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in 
NMFS' U.S. 2019 SARs (Carretta et al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020). All 
values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time 
of publication and are available in the 2019 SARs (Carretta et al., 
2020; Muto et al., 2020).

                                         Table 1--Marine Mammals With Potential Presence Within the Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/MMPA status;    Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             Strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\         abundance  survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern North Pacific..  -; N                26,960 (0.05, 25,849).        801        139
Family Balaenidae:
    Bowhead whale...................  Balaena mysticetus.....  Western Arctic.........  E/D; Y              16,820 (0.052, 16,100)        161         46
Family Delphinidae:
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Beaufort Sea...........  -; N                39,258 (0.229, N/A)...      Undet        139
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal \4\.....................  Phoca hispida..........  Alaska.................  T/D; Y              171,418 (NA, 170,000).      4,755        700
Spotted seal........................  Phoca largha...........  Alaska.................  -; N                461,625 (NA, 423,237).     12,697        329
Bearded seal \5\....................  Erignathus barbatus....  Alaska.................  T/D; Y              301,836 (NA, 273,676).      Undet        557
Ribbon seal.........................  Histriophoca fasciata..  Alaska.................  -; N                184,695 (NA, 163,086).      9,785        3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
  designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
  which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
  automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region#reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
  fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value
  or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ Ringed seal estimate is based on surveys conducted in the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the late 1990s and 2000, and in the U.S. portion of
  the Bering Sea in 2012. This is the best available information for use here.
\5\ Bearded seal estimate is based on surveys conducted in the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea in 2012. This is the best available information for use
  here.

    All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey 
areas are included in Table 1. As described below, only the ringed seal 
temporally and spatially co-occurs with the activity to the degree that 
take is reasonably likely to occur. The temporal and/or spatial 
occurrence of the rest of the species listed in Table 1 is such that 
take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further 
beyond the explanation provided here.
    While ringed, spotted, and bearded seals are present in the 
Beaufort Sea during the open-water season, only ringed seals are likely 
to be in the nearshore environment during the ice-covered months. The 
other two species of ice seals only occur in the project area during 
the open-water season. Ribbon seal mostly occurs in the Chukchi Sea and 
western Beaufort Sea, and is considered as extra-limital in the project 
area. Therefore, the potential for encounters with bearded, spotted, 
and ribbon seals during ice road/trail construction and maintenance is 
extremely unlikely. As a result, these ice seal species will not be 
discussed further in this document.
    None of the cetacean species listed above is expected to enter the 
ice-covered action areas during the winter months when ice road 
activities would be occurring. Therefore, the potential for encounters 
with cetaceans during ice road/trail construction and maintenance is 
extremely unlikely. As a result, cetacean species will not be discussed 
further in this document.
    Ringed seal is the only species that would be reasonably likely to 
be affected by the ice road and ice trail construction and maintenance 
activity. A detailed description of this species in the action area is 
provided in the proposed rule (85 FR 2988; January 17, 2020).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity may impact

[[Page 83462]]

marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in 
this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of 
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Mitigation 
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these 
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals 
and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal 
species or stocks.
    The Hilcorp and Eni's sea ice roads and ice trails construction and 
maintenance activities on the North Slope could adversely affect ringed 
seals by exposing them to construction noise and presence of human 
activities, and potential serious injury or mortality in the project 
area.
    A detailed description of the impacts on marine mammals and their 
habitat is provided in the Federal Register notice (85 FR 2988; January 
17, 2020) for the proposed rule, and is not repeated here.

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
that may be authorized through this rulemaking, which will inform both 
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is one of the types of take expected to result from 
these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not 
pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any 
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to 
injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A 
harassment); 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 (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as 
exposure of ringed seals by construction activities and noise has the 
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual 
animals. There could also be potential for serious injury/mortality if 
an animal is crushed by a construction machinery or vehicle while in 
its subnivean lair. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur because the 
overall noise levels generated from the construction activities are 
low. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize 
the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
    Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Marine 
mammals (ringed seals) likely to be exposed to visual and acoustic 
disturbances from ice roads and ice trails construction; (2) the 
density or occurrence of marine mammals within the areas likely to be 
disturbed; and, (3) the number of days of activities. We note that 
while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to 
provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can 
qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., 
previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe 
the factors considered here in more detail and present the take 
estimate. This section includes an overview of estimated ringed seal 
density in the area, a description of the area of potential 
disturbance, estimates for noise sources (under ice-covered conditions 
and in air), and a discussion of the potential for behavioral responses 
or serious injury or mortality due to ice road/trail/pad activities.

Ringed Seal Densities

    Ringed seals are present in the nearshore Beaufort Sea waters and 
sea ice year round, maintaining breathing holes and excavating 
subnivean lairs in the landfast ice during the ice-covered season. 
During this ice-covered season, ringed seals' home ranges are generally 
less than 5 km\2\ (2 mi\2\) in area (Frost et al. 2002, Kelly et al. 
2005). While older datasets from the 1970s and 80s provide important 
context for understanding seal presence in the region, only more recent 
surveys beginning in 1997 have been used to calculate density for this 
rule as described in the following sections.
Winter Densities
    Ringed seals overwinter in the landfast ice in and around the 
project area. Relatively few data are available for ringed seal density 
in the southern Beaufort Sea during the winter months, but several 
studies on ringed seal winter ecology were undertaken during the 1980s 
(Kelly et al. 1986, Frost and Burns 1989). These reports, in addition 
to data associated with the Northstar development and the abandoned 
Seal Island (Williams et al. 2001, Frost et al. 2002) provide 
information on both seal ice structure use (where ice structures 
include both breathing holes and subnivean lairs) and the density of 
ice structures (Table 2).
    Both male and female ringed seals maintain a number of breathing 
holes and haul out in more than one subnivean lair during the ice-
covered season. Kelly et al. (1986) found that of their tagged seals, 
the animals would haul out between one and multiple subnivean lairs. 
The distances between each lair could be as great as 4 km (2.5 mi) with 
numerous breathing holes in between (Kelly et al. 1986). While these 
authors calculated the average number of lairs used by an individual 
seal to be 2.85 (SD=2.51) per animal, they also suggest that this is 
likely to be an underestimate.

               Table 2--Seal Structure Density Along the Beaufort Sea Coast Near the Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Sea  structure
                     Year                          density/km                        Source
                                                      \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982..........................................             3.6  Frost and Burns 1989.
1983..........................................            0.81  Kelly et al. 1986.
Dec. 1999.....................................            0.71  Williams et al. 2001.
May 2000......................................             1.2  Williams et al. 2001.
Average structure density/km \2\..............            1.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1982, aerial surveys were conducted near Reindeer Island, just 
east of the project area (Northstar and SID), where seismic exploration 
activities were occurring. Seal structures were located by searching 
with a dog along 267 km (166 mi) of seismic and control lines as well 
as 28 km (17 mi) of non-systematic search lines (295 linear km (183 
linear mi) total). A total of 157 structures were found resulting in an 
average estimate of 0.53/km seal structures (Kelly et al. 1986) or 3.6 
structures/km\2\ (Frost and Burns 1989).

[[Page 83463]]

    In 1983, the vicinity of Reindeer Island was surveyed again and the 
average number of seal structures recorded was 0.70/km over 
approximately 81 km (50 mi) of linear survey lines resulting in an 
average number of total structures of 0.81/km\2\.
    In 1999, a total of 26 seal structures were located within a 36.5 
km\2\ area encompassing the Northstar Development resulting in an 
estimated 0.71 structures/km\2\ in December 1999 and 1.2 structures/
km\2\ in May 2000 (Richardson and Williams 2001).
    To estimate ringed seal density during the winter, an average 
structure density was divided by the average number of structures used 
by seals (Kelly et al. 1986). Thus, for the winter season ringed seal 
density has been estimated as the average ice structure density (1.58/
km\2\) divided by the average number of ice structures used by an 
individual seal (2.85, SD = 2.51). This results in an estimated density 
of 0.55 ringed seals/km\2\ (for example, 1.58/2.85 = 0.55). However, 
this density is likely to be an overestimate because the equation 
denominator of 2.85 is assumed to be an underestimate (Kelly et al. 
1986).
    Average ice structure density/Average number of structures per seal 
= Estimated Average Winter Seal Density: 1.58/2.85 = 0.55 seals/km\2\.
Spring Densities
    In 1997, prior to Northstar construction, British Petroleum 
Exploration Alaska (BPXA) conducted aerial surveys for seals as part of 
the industry monitoring programs for the Northstar facility. These 
datasets provide the best available information on spring ringed seal 
density for the project area. Information is based on aerial surveys 
were flown around Northstar and west of Prudhoe Bay during late May and 
early June (Frost et al. 2002, Moulton et al. 2002a, b, Richardson and 
Williams 2003) when the greatest percentage of seals have abandoned 
their lairs and are hauled out on the ice (Kelly et al. 2010, Kelly et 
al. 2010).
    Because densities were consistently very low where water depth was 
<3m (and these areas are generally frozen solid during the ice-covered 
season) densities were calculated where water depth was >3m deep 
(Moulton et al. 2002a, b), Richardson and Williams 2003). Frost et al. 
(2002) and Frost et al. (2004) reported slightly higher densities based 
on surveys conducted during this same time period between 1997 and 
1999. As with all aerial surveys, animal densities are underestimated 
because animals are missed, or not counted. This is generally because 
they are not hauled out where they can be seen or are missed by the 
observer. Therefore, these density estimates represent minimum 
estimates during the time and location of the surveys. The average 
uncorrected densities calculated based on these separate datasets 
(1997-1999) are provided in Table 3. It is acknowledged that densities 
of seals near the Eni SID Action Area are likely to be lower than 
densities calculated for the purposes of estimating take in this 
analysis, due to much shallower water near the Eni SID site. However, 
for consistency and as a precautionary measure, the same density 
estimates are used throughout this analysis.

    Table 3--Estimated Ringed Seal Densities (Uncorrected) Based on Spring Aerial Surveys During Ice-Covered
                                              Conditions, 1997-2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Uncorrected seal density (no/km\2\)       Average
                                                        --------------------------------------    uncorrected
                          Year                                                                    ringed seal
                                                           Moulton et al.      Frost et al.       density (no/
                                                            2002, 2005 *        2002, 2004           km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997...................................................               0.43               0.73               0.58
1998...................................................               0.39               0.64               0.52
1999...................................................               0.63               0.87               0.75
2000...................................................               0.47  .................               0.47
2001...................................................               0.54  .................               0.54
2002...................................................               0.83  .................               0.83
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Average density (no/km\2\).............................  .................  .................               0.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Water depths >10 ft.

    For the period 2000, 2001, and 2002, (Moulton et al. 2005) reported 
ringed seal densities (uncorrected) on landfast ice during Northstar 
construction were calculated as 0.47, 0.54, and 0.83 seals/km\2\. Based 
on the average density of surveys flown from 1997 to 2002 the 
uncorrected density of ringed seals during the spring is expected to be 
0.61 ringed seals/km\2\.
    As reported in Frost et al. (2002) habitat-related variables 
including water depth, location relative to the fast ice edge, and ice 
deformation have shown to result in substantial and consistent effects 
on the distribution and abundance of seals. Moulton et al. (2003) and 
Moulton et al. (2005) also reported that environmental factors such as 
date, water depth, degree of ice deformation, presence of meltwater, 
and percent cloud cover had more conspicuous and statistically-
significant effects on seal sighting rates than did any human-related 
factors. Thus, the intra- and inter-annual variability in survey 
conditions and ice characteristics is unavoidable and identifying 
trends in seal abundance or estimating density is challenging.

                     Table 4--Ringed Seal Densities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Spring average
          Winter average density (seal/km\2\)             density (seal/
                                                              km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.55...................................................            0.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, for the purposes of estimating take associated with ice 
road/trail activities, winter and spring densities are assumed to be 
0.55 and 0.61 seals/km\2\ (respectively) as shown in Table 4.

Take Estimates

Level B Harassment
    To estimate exposures of ringed seals to disturbance that may 
result in a take, the total area of potential disturbance (i.e., 
exposure area) associated with construction and maintenance of the 
roads/trails/pads is defined as 170 m (approximately 558 ft) on either 
side of the road/trail/pad centerline; a total width of 340 m 
(approximately 1,115 ft).

[[Page 83464]]

    Again, the total width of the exposure area is 340 m (558 ft). This 
width is then multiplied by the total length of roads/trails likely to 
be constructed each year to calculate the exposure area in km\2\. Due 
to the variability in the length of ice roads/trails that may be needed 
from year to year, a 10 percent buffer is also added to the total 
length and is accounted for in the total area calculated. The total 
area of exposure is then multiplied by the seasonal ringed seal density 
to calculate the total estimated ringed seals exposed each season. 
Since there are two seasons during which ringed seals may be exposed to 
ice road activity (winter and spring), the exposure estimates for 
winter and spring are then added together to calculate the total number 
of seals exposed per year. For example, the following calculation was 
used for Northstar ice roads and trails:

TAE x D = TES
TES (winter) + TES (spring) = TEY

Where:

TAE = Total Area of Exposure
D = Species Density (variable by season)
TES = Total Estimated Seals Exposed Per Season
TEY--Total Estimated Seals Exposed Per Year

For example:

12.96 km\2\ (TAE) x 0.55 (winter density per km\2\) = 7.13 seals/
winter
12.96 km\2\ (TAE) x 0.61 (spring density per km\2\) = 7.91 seals/
spring
7.13 seals/winter + 7.91 seals/spring = 15.03 seals/year

    The total width of the ice road and trail at SID accounts for the 
ice trail being constructed approximately 15 to 30 m west of the 
western edge of the ice road shoulder. Therefore, a total width of 420 
m has been used to calculate potential seal exposures at SID as a more 
conservative approach whereas, the ice road/trail total width at 
Northstar and ODS is 340 m, as shown in Table 5.
    Based on the exposure estimates, Eni and Hilcorp request takes for 
Level B harassment for the 5-year period as shown in Table 5. Takes are 
presented annually for each company and are requested for ice road and 
ice trail construction, operation and maintenance expected to occur 
between December and May of each year, depending on local conditions. 
Potential Level B harassment takes could occur in all 5 years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22DE20.012

    NMFS does not expect Level A harassment of ringed seal to occur, as 
noise and visual exposure to construction activities will not become 
injurious as defined for purposes of a Level A harassment take under 
the MMPA. However, it is possible that a seal may be in its lair during 
ice roads/trails construction and thus, it is possible for a seal to 
become crushed by construction machinery or vehicle while the road/
trail is being erected, resulting in injury, serious injury, or 
mortality. A detailed discussion of such events is provided below.

Potential Serious Injury or Mortality

    Based on a review of literature and monitoring reports from 
Northstar and other North Slope projects, there is documentation of one 
seal mortality associated with a vibroseis program outside the barrier 
islands east of Bullen Point in the eastern Beaufort Sea (MacLean 
1998). During a 1999 NMFS workshop to review on-ice monitoring and 
research, Dr. Brendan Kelly (then of the University of Alaska), also 
indicated that a dead ringed seal pup was found during his research 
using trained dogs to locate seal structures in the ice. The dead 
ringed seal pup was located approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) from the 
Northstar ice road. No data on the age of the pup, date of death, 
necropsy results, or cause of death are available. Therefore, whether 
ice road construction at Northstar could have contributed to the death 
of this pup, or if its death was coincidental to Northstar activities 
cannot be determined (Richardson and Williams 2000).
    While the only recorded mortality of a seal occurred in 1998, Eni 
and Hilcorp also requested 10 takes for each development over the 5-
year period for potential ringed seal serious injury or mortality 
during construction, operation and maintenance of ice roads and trails.
    However, NMFS does not consider this request to be adequately 
justified, and is concerned that the requested mortality in this action 
is much higher than other similar actions.
    For instance, in the 2019 Hilcorp Liberty rule for ice road and ice 
trail construction on the North Slope, there were two lethal takes 
authorized over the first 5 years (and 8 over the following 20 years, 
for 10 total mortalities over 25 years). In that action,

[[Page 83465]]

four ice roads, totaling 51.5 km in length would be constructed: In 
Years 1 through 3, all four roads would be constructed; in Years 4 and 
5, only Road #1 would be constructed (11.3 km in length). By comparing 
the two actions, Hilcorp Northstar and Eni are constructing more ice 
roads/trails than Hilcorp is at the Liberty site over a 5-year period.
    In terms of the distribution of construction activities between the 
two companies, Hilcorp is constructing 1.9 times as many ice road/trail 
kilometers as Eni is at either SID or ODS. However, Eni's construction 
activities encompass two separate sites and each have the potential to 
encounter inhabited seal lairs given an assumed equal distribution of 
species. Based on these factors, NMFS is authorizing three serious 
injury/mortalities for ice road/trail activities at each of Eni's sites 
(Spy Island and Oooguruk), and six serious injury/mortalities at 
Hilcorp's Northstar site, all over 5 years. A summary of serious 
injury/mortality for Hilcorp and Eni over the 5-year period is provided 
in Table 6.

 Table 6--Total Estimated Ringed Seal Takes Annually and Over the 5-Year
                               LOA Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Serious injury/
                                                           mortality for
                                                              5 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eni SID.................................................               3
Eni ODS.................................................               3
Hilcorp Northstar.......................................               6
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals

    Subsistence hunting continues to be an essential aspect of Inupiat 
Native life, especially in rural coastal villages. The Inupiat 
participate in subsistence hunting activities in and around the 
Beaufort Sea. The animals taken for subsistence provide a significant 
portion of the food that will last the community through the year. 
Marine mammals represent on the order of 60-80 percent of the total 
subsistence harvest. Along with the nourishment necessary for survival, 
the subsistence activities strengthen bonds within the culture, provide 
a means for educating the younger generation, provide supplies for 
artistic expression, and allow for important celebratory events.
    The ice roads/trails construction projects are generally remote 
from subsistence use areas. Nuiqsut is the closest Native Alaskan 
community to the Northstar, ODS and SID facilities; located 
approximately 91 km (about 57 mi) southwest from Northstar, 40 km 
(about 25 mi) from ODS, and 56 km (about 35 mi) from SID. Primary 
subsistence users in the area between Oliktok Point and West Dock are 
residents from the village of Nuiqsut. People from Utqiagvik (about 309 
and 264 km [192 and 164 mi] west of Northstar and SID, respectively) 
and Kaktovik harvest marine mammals that pass through the area but 
generally do not hunt there. Kaktovik is 196 km (122 mi) east of 
Northstar and 241 km (150 mi) east of SID.
    Nuiqsut hunters harvest ringed seals primarily during open water 
periods in July through August. In summer, boat crews hunt ringed, 
spotted and bearded seals. The most important seal hunting area for 
Nuiqsut hunters is off the Colville Delta, as far east as Pingok 
Island. The closest edge of the main sealing area at Pingok Island, is 
about 27 km (17 mi) west of Northstar (SRBA 2010, Galginaitis 2014). 
While less frequent than open water hunting, seals are taken by hunters 
on snow machines before break-up.
    In summary, Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads and ice trails construction 
projects would occur far away from subsistence activities, and would be 
conducted during the time few subsistence activities occur. In winter 
and spring, small numbers of ringed seals may be disturbed and possibly 
displaced from the immediate locations of the ice roads and trails 
shown on Figures 1 through 4. Seal hunters would likely avoid the areas 
near SID, Northstar and ODS in favor of less developed more productive 
areas closer to the main sealing areas near the Colville River delta. 
Therefore, construction and maintenance of the ice roads and trails is 
unlikely to impact subsistence hunting of ringed seals.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for ITAs to 
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic 
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such 
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 
216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned), and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on 
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, 
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the 
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.

Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    For Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads and trails construction project, 
Hilcorp and Eni worked with NMFS and proposed the following mitigation 
measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the 
project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are 
to minimize human-seal interactions and to avoid takes by serious 
injury/mortality from the activities, to monitor marine mammals within 
designated zones of influence in the project vicinity and, if seals are 
within the designated shutdown zone after March 1 during the pupping 
season, to initiate immediate pause of all construction activities, 
making it very unlikely potential injury or serious injury/mortality to 
seals would occur and ensuring that Level B behavioral harassment of 
seals would be reduced to the lowest level practicable. Construction 
activities may result after the seals leave the shutdown zone on their 
own.
    The prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures are described 
below.

[[Page 83466]]

Wildlife Training

    Prior to initiation of sea ice road- and ice trail-related 
activities, project personnel associated with ice road construction, 
maintenance, use or decommissioning (i.e., ice road construction 
workers, surveyors, security personnel, and the environmental team) 
will receive annual training on implementing mitigation and monitoring 
measures. Personnel are advised that interactions with, or approaching, 
any wildlife is prohibited. Annual training also includes reviewing the 
company's Wildlife Management Plan. In addition to the mitigation and 
monitoring plans, other topics in the training will include:
     Ringed Seal Identification and Brief Life History;
     Physical Environment (habitat characteristics and how to 
potentially identify habitat);
     Ringed Seal Use in the Ice Road Region (timing, location, 
habitat use, birthing lairs, breathing holes, basking, etc.);
     Potential Effects of Disturbance; and
     Importance of Lairs, Breathing Holes and Basking to Ringed 
Seals.

General Mitigation Measures Implemented Throughout the Ice Road/Trail 
Season

    General mitigation measures will be implemented through the entire 
ice road/trail season (December through May) including during 
construction, maintenance, use and decommissioning.
     Ice road/trail speed limits will be no greater than 
approximately 74.5 km (45 miles) per hour (mph) under typical 
circumstances but may be exceeded in emergency situations. Travel on 
ice roads and trails is restricted to industry staff;
     Following existing safety measures, delineators will mark 
the roadway in a minimum of 0.4 km (\1/4\-mile) increments on both 
sides of the ice road to delineate the path of vehicle travel and areas 
of planned on-ice activities (e.g., emergency response exercises). 
Following existing safety measures currently used for ice trails, 
delineators will mark one side of an ice trail a minimum of every 0.4 
km (\1/4\ mile). Delineators will be color-coded, following existing 
safety protocol, to indicate the direction of travel and location of 
the ice road or trail. These measures will ensure that vehicles stay on 
disturbed ice roads/trails and will not deviate to undisturbed areas;
     Corners of rig mats, steel plates, and other materials 
used to bridge sections of hazardous ice, will be clearly marked or 
mapped using GPS coordinates of the locations, so vehicles travel on 
ice roads/trails will not deviate to undisturbed areas; and
     Personnel will be instructed to remain in the vehicle and 
safely continue, if they encounter a ringed seal while driving on the 
road.

Mitigation Measures After March 1st

    After March 1st, and continuing until decommissioning of ice roads/
trails in late May or early June, the on-ice activities mentioned above 
can occur anywhere on sea ice where water depth is less than 3 m (10 
ft) (i.e., habitat is not suitable for ringed seal lairs). However, if 
the water is greater than 3 m (10 ft) in depth, these activities should 
only occur within the boundaries of the driving lane or shoulder area 
of the ice road/trail and other areas previously disturbed (e.g., spill 
and emergency response areas, snow push areas) when the safety of 
personnel is ensured.
    In addition to the general Mitigation Measures, the following 
measures will also be implemented after March 1st:
     Ice road/trail construction, maintenance and 
decommissioning will be performed within the boundaries of the road/
trail and shoulders, with most work occurring within the driving lane. 
To the extent practicable and when safety of personnel is ensured, 
equipment will travel within the driving lane and shoulder areas;
     Blading and snow blowing of ice roads will be limited to 
the previously disturbed ice road/shoulder areas to the extent safe and 
practicable. Snow will be plowed or blown from the ice road surface;
     In the event snow is accumulating on a road within a 50 m 
(164 ft) radius of an identified downwind seal or seal lair (as 
identified by seal ice structure), operational measures will be used to 
avoid seal impacts, such as pushing snow further down the road before 
blowing it off the roadway. Vehicles will not stop within 50 m (164 ft) 
of identified seals or within 150 m (500 ft) of known seal lairs;
     When safety of personnel is ensured, tracked vehicle 
operation will be limited to the previously disturbed ice trail areas. 
When safety requires a new ice trail to be constructed after March 1st, 
construction activities such as drilling holes in the ice to determine 
ice quality and thickness, will be conducted only during daylight hours 
with good visibility. Ringed seal structures will be avoided by a 
minimum of 50 m (164 ft) during ice testing and new trail construction. 
Once the new ice trail is established, tracked vehicle operation will 
be limited to the disturbed area and when safety of personnel is 
ensured;
     If a seal is observed on ice within 50 m (164 ft) of the 
centerline of the ice road/trail, the following mitigation measure will 
be implemented; and
     Construction, maintenance or decommissioning activities 
associated with ice roads and trails will not occur within 50 m (164 
ft) of the observed ringed seal, but may proceed as soon as the ringed 
seal, of its own accord, moves farther than 50 m (164 ft) distance away 
from the activities or has not been observed within that area for at 
least 24 hours. Transport vehicles (i.e., vehicles not associated with 
construction, maintenance or decommissioning) may continue their route 
within the designated road/trail without stopping.

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an LOA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well 
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density);
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

[[Page 83467]]

     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks;
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat); and
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

General Monitoring Measures Implemented Throughout the Ice Road/Trail 
Season

    General monitoring measures will be implemented through the entire 
ice road/trail season including during construction, maintenance, use 
and decommissioning.
    Hilcorp and Eni are required to implement the following monitoring 
measures.
    If a ringed seal is observed within 50 m (164 ft) of the center of 
an ice road or trail, the operator's Environmental Specialist will be 
immediately notified with the information provided in the Reporting 
section below.
     The Environmental Specialist will relay the seal sighting 
location information to all ice road personnel and the company's office 
personnel responsible for wildlife interaction, following notification 
protocols described in the company-specific Wildlife Management Plan. 
All other data will be recorded and logged.
     The Environmental Specialist or designated person will 
monitor the ringed seal to document the animal's location relative to 
the road/trail. All work that is occurring when the ringed seal is 
observed and the behavior of the seal during those activities will be 
documented until the animal is at least 50 m (164 ft) away from the 
center of the road/trail or is no longer observed.
     The Environmental Specialist or designated person will 
contact appropriate state and Federal agencies as required.

Monitoring Measures After March 1st

    In addition to the general Monitoring Measures, the following 
measures will also be implemented after March 1st:
    If an ice road or trail is being actively used, under daylight 
conditions with good visibility, a dedicated observer (not the vehicle 
operator) will conduct a survey along the sea ice road/trail to observe 
if any ringed seals are within 150 m (500 ft) of the roadway corridor. 
The following survey protocol will be implemented:
     Surveys will be conducted every other day during daylight 
hours;
     Observers for ice road activities need not be trained 
Protected Species Observers (PSOs), but they must have received the 
training described above and understand the applicable sections of the 
Wildlife Interaction Plan. In addition, they must be capable of 
detecting, observing and monitoring ringed seal presence and behaviors, 
and accurately and completely recording data; and
     Observers will have no other primary duty than to watch 
for and report observations related to ringed seals during this survey. 
If weather conditions become unsafe, the observer may be removed from 
the monitoring activity.
    If a ringed seal structure (i.e., breathing hole or lair) is 
observed within 150 m (500 ft) of the ice road/trail, the location of 
the structure will be reported to the Environmental Specialist who will 
then carry out notification protocol identified above and:
     An observer will monitor the structure every 6 hours on 
the day of the initial sighting to determine whether a ringed seal is 
present. Monitoring for the seal will occur every other day the ice 
road is being used unless it is determined the structure is not 
actively being used (i.e., a seal is not sighted at that location 
during monitoring). A lair or breathing hole does not automatically 
imply that a ringed seal is present.

Engaging With Subsistence Hunters for Monitoring Recommendations

    In addition, Hilcorp and Eni are required to (1) engage local 
hunters through the Ice Seal Committee point of contact to gather 
recommendations on methods for ringed seal detection along sea ice 
roads/trails within the exposure areas, and (2) incorporate these 
recommendations into Hilcorp and Eni's training materials provided to 
personnel responsible for monitoring for ringed seals along sea ice 
roads/trails.

Reporting

    Hilcorp and Eni are required to submit a draft report on all ringed 
seals observed annually under the LOA within 90 calendar days of 
decommissioning the ice road/trail. A final report shall be prepared 
and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the 
draft report from NMFS. If 30 days have passed and Hilcorp or Eni does 
not receive comments from NMFS, the draft report is considered to be 
final. The report must include:
     Date, time, location of observation;
     Ringed seal characteristics (i.e., adult or pup, behavior 
(avoidance, resting, etc.);
     Activities occurring during observation including 
equipment being used and its purpose, and approximate distance to 
ringed seal(s);
     Actions taken to mitigate effects of interaction 
emphasizing: (1) Which mitigation and/or monitoring measures were 
successful; (2) which mitigation and/or monitoring measures may need to 
be improved to reduce interactions with ringed seals; (3) the 
effectiveness and practicality of implementing mitigation and 
monitoring measures; (4) any issues or concerns regarding 
implementation of mitigation and/or monitoring measures; and (5) 
potential effects of interactions based on observation data;
     Proposed updates (if any) to Wildlife Management Plan(s) 
or Mitigation and Monitoring Measures; and
     The methods used for detection of seals and seal 
structures with an assessment of their effectiveness.
    In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, Hilcorp or Eni shall report 
the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (301-427-8401), 
NMFS and to the Alaska Region (AKR) regional stranding coordinator (1-
877-925-7773).
    If in the rare event a seal is killed or seriously injured by ice 
road/trail activities, NMFS must be notified immediately. If an ice 
road/trail personnel discover a dead or injured seal but the cause of 
injury or death is unknown or believed not to be related to ice road/
trail activities, NMFS must be notified within 48 hours of discovery.

Mitigation for Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals or Plan of 
Cooperation

    Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) further require ITA applicants 
conducting activities that take place in Arctic waters to provide a POC 
or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or 
will be taken to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes. A plan must include the following:
     A statement that the applicant has notified and provided 
the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation;
     A schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence 
communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential 
conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of 
cooperation;

[[Page 83468]]

     A description of what measures the applicant has taken 
and/or will take to ensure that proposed activities will not interfere 
with subsistence whaling or sealing; and
     What plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the 
affected communities, both prior to and while conducting the activity, 
to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities of any changes in 
the operation.
    As discussed earlier, Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads and trails 
construction is expected to have no unmitigable adverse impacts on 
subsistence use of marine mammals in the project area, and the 
construction projects would occur in areas away from subsistence 
activities during the time when there is no subsistence activities. 
Nevertheless, both Hilcorp and Eni have developed POCs to ensure that 
no impact would occur. Both companies have been engaging the 
communities of Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut to share information about planned 
exploration/development activities and to maintain dialogue about 
measures to minimize potential impacts on the subsistence harvest of 
seals or whales. For the ice roads and ice trails construction and 
maintenance activities, Hilcorp and Eni developed further mitigation 
and monitoring measures to minimize the potential impacts to 
subsistence use of marine mammals in the area. These measures are 
described below.

Hilcorp

    To help minimize disturbances to marine mammal subsistence 
resources, Hilcorp has signed a CAA with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 
Commission (AEWC) and Whaling Captains' Associations of nearby North 
Slope communities. The CAA describes measures to minimize any adverse 
effects on the availability of bowhead whales for subsistence use. 
Hilcorp also conducts the Cross Island whaling survey every year to 
document any conflicts and ensure that operations continue to be 
compatible with the hunt.
    The CAA and much of the coordination focus on whales and whaling 
activities. To date, the Native community has not expressed concerns 
over interactions with seals, particularly during the ice-covered 
seasons. Hilcorp states that it will continue to address questions and 
concerns from community members, and continue to provide them with 
contact information of project management to which they can direct 
concerns related to Northstar operations.
    In addition, Hilcorp has adopted the ``Good Neighbor Policy'' 
originally put in place for Northstar by BPXA. The policy is a 
commitment to the eleven whaling villages, the Inupiat Community and 
the Siberian Yupik Community to establish financial assurance in the 
event of an oil spill. While the focus is on bowhead whales, the policy 
does include other Arctic marine resources including ringed seals. The 
Good Neighbor Policy also outlines how Hilcorp would provide 
transportation for the subsistence community to alternate hunting areas 
in the event that a spill prevents the use of Cross Island or other 
hunting areas. It also has provisions for providing interim alternative 
food supplies to community members, along with counselling and cultural 
assistance. Hilcorp is committed to adhering to the CAA and Good 
Neighbor Policy for the duration of North Slope operations as 
necessary.

Eni

    To help minimize disturbances to marine mammal subsistence 
resources, Eni also signs a CAA each year with the AEWC and Whaling 
Captains' Associations of nearby North Slope communities. The CAA 
describes measures to minimize any adverse effects on the availability 
of bowhead whales for subsistence use. Eni also conducted multiple 
community meetings and meetings with subsistence organizations such as 
the AEWC and NWCA to establish and maintain positive relationships with 
locals that rely on subsistence resources in the area.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS 
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting 
the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating 
grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of 
such species or stock for subsistence uses.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact 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 (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, and 
specific consideration of take by serious injury/mortality previously 
authorized for other NMFS research activities).

Serious Injury and Mortality

    NMFS is authorizing a very small number of serious injuries or 
mortalities that could occur incidental to ice roads and ice trails 
construction and maintenance.
    NMFS considers many factors, when available, in making a negligible 
impact determination, including, but not limited to, the status of the 
species or stock relative to the OSP level (if known), whether the 
recruitment rate for the species or stock is increasing, decreasing, 
stable, or unknown, the size and distribution of the population, and 
existing impacts and environmental conditions. The PBR metric can help 
inform the potential effects of serious injury and mortality caused by 
activities authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA on marine 
mammal stocks.
    PBR is defined in the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)) as the maximum 
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach 
or maintain its OSP, and is a measure to be considered when evaluating 
the effects of serious injury and mortality on a marine mammal species 
or stock. OSP is defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)) as the number 
of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the 
population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the 
habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a 
constituent element. PBR values are calculated by NMFS as the level of

[[Page 83469]]

annual removal from a stock that will allow that stock to equilibrate 
within OSP at least 95 percent of the time.
    To specifically use PBR, along with other factors, to evaluate the 
effects of serious injury and mortality, we first calculate a metric 
that incorporates information regarding ongoing anthropogenic serious 
injury and mortality into the PBR value (i.e., PBR minus the total 
annual anthropogenic mortality/serious injury estimate), which is 
called ``residual PBR''. We then consider how the anticipated potential 
incidental serious injury and mortality from the activities being 
evaluated compares to residual PBR. Anticipated or potential serious 
injury and mortality that exceeds residual PBR is considered to have a 
higher likelihood of adversely affecting rates of recruitment or 
survival, while anticipated serious injury and mortality that is equal 
to or less than residual PBR has a lower likelihood (both examples 
given without consideration of other types of take, which also factor 
into a negligible impact determination). For a species or stock with 
incidental serious injury and mortality less than 10 percent of 
residual PBR, we consider serious injury and mortality from the 
specified activities to represent an insignificant incremental increase 
in ongoing anthropogenic serious injury and mortality that alone (i.e., 
in the absence of any other take) cannot affect annual rates of 
recruitment and survival.
    Regarding the impacts of the specified activities analyzed here, a 
stock-wide PBR for ringed seals is unknown; however, Muto et al. (2019) 
estimate PBR for ringed seals in the Bearing Sea alone to be 4,755 
seals. Total annual mortality and serious injury is 700 for a residual 
PBR (r-PBR) of 4,055, which means that the 10 percent insignificance 
threshold is 406 seals. Currently there is one authorized MMPA ITA 
authorizing takes of serious injury/mortality of ringed seals as a 
result of NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center fisheries research 
activities in the Arctic (84 FR 46788; September 5, 2019). This 
authorization authorizes up to four mortalities annually over the 5-
year regulation. In the case of the Hilcorp-Eni ice roads and ice 
trails construction, the authorized taking, by serious injury and 
mortality, of 12 ringed seals over the course of 5 years, equates to an 
average of less than four seals serious injury/mortality annually. This 
number is far less than the 10 percent r-PBR of 405 seals, when 
considering mortality and serious injuring caused by other 
anthropogenic sources. This amount of take, by mortality and serious 
injury, is considered insignificant and therefore supports our 
negligible impact finding.

Harassment

    Hilcorp and Eni requested, and NMFS is authorizing, take, by Level 
B harassment, of ringed seals. The amount of taking to be authorized is 
low compared to marine mammal abundance. Potential impacts of Hilcorp-
Eni's ice roads and ice trails construction activities are mostly from 
behavioral disturbances due to exposure to machinery and human 
activity. The potential effect of the Level B harassment is expected to 
be localized and brief. The construction crew would be required to 
closely monitor ringed seals in the vicinity of the project activity 
and to make sure that potential impacts are within the levels that are 
analyzed.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     Only 12 ringed seals are authorized to be taken by serious 
injury/mortality over 5 years; i.e., less than 0.1 percent of residual 
PBR (considering only a partial abundance estimate);
     No injury by permanent hearing threshold shift is 
expected;
     The only harassment is Level B harassment in the form of 
brief and localized behavioral disturbance and avoidance;
     The amount of takes, by harassment, is low compared to 
population sizes;
     Critical behaviors such as lairing and pupping by ringed 
seals would be avoided and minimized through implementation of ice road 
Best Management Plans;
     No long lasting modification in marine mammal habitat; and
     Ice roads/trails construction and maintenance would only 
occur between December and May each year.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for specified 
activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, 
where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of 
individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of 
the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an 
authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. 
Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the 
analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    The amount of total taking (i.e., Level B harassment and serious 
injury/mortality) of ringed seal each year is less than 1 percent of 
the population (Table 7).

             Table 7--Amount of Ringed Seal Authorized Take Relative to Population Estimates (Nbest)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Population                      Percent of
                Species                           Stock              estimate       Total take      population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ringed seal...........................  Alaska..................         170,000              27              <1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including 
the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated 
take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals 
will be taken relative to the population sizes of the affected species 
or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    In order to issue an ITA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to

[[Page 83470]]

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 areas; (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.
    As described in the Effects of Specified Activities on Subsistence 
Uses of Marine Mammals section of the document, ringed seal is one of 
the key subsistence species that is being harvested by native 
subsistence users. However, the ice roads/trails construction and 
maintenance would occur far from any subsistence activities and would 
be separated temporarily from subsistence activities. In addition, 
Hilcorp and Eni have proposed and NMFS has included several mitigation 
measures to address potential impacts on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence use. In addition, both Hilcorp and Eni have 
developed POCs and worked with subsistence use communities in the 
vicinity of the project areas. Hilcorp and Eni further indicate that 
they will sign a CAA to ensure that there will be no unmitigable impact 
on subsistence uses of marine mammals during the ice roads and ice 
trails construction and maintenance.
    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures 
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence uses from Hilcorp and Eni's activities.

Adaptive Management

    The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to 
Hilcorp and Eni's ice roads/trails construction and maintenance 
activities contain an adaptive management component.
    The reporting requirements associated with this final rule are 
designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to 
allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of 
adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from 
different sources to determine (with input from Hilcorp and Eni 
regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation 
or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or 
deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests 
that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing 
adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.
    The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data 
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results 
from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) 
results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any 
information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a 
manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, 
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the promulgation of 
regulations and subsequent issuance of incidental take authorization) 
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
    Accordingly, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and 
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (November 2020) to consider 
the environmental impacts associated with the final rule.
    NMFS' final EA is available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, 
funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To 
ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of ITAs, NMFS consults 
internally, in this case with the Alaska Region Protected Resources 
Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or 
threatened species.
    Pursuant to the MMPA and through these regulations and the 
associated LOA, NMFS is authorizing take of Alaska stock of ringed 
seal, which is listed under the ESA.
    The Permit and Conservation Division requested initiation of 
section 7 consultation with the Alaska Region Protected Resources 
Division for the promulgation of 5-year regulations and the subsequent 
issuance of LOAs. The Alaska Region Protected Resources Division issued 
a Biological Opinion (March 2020) concluding that NMFS' action is not 
likely to result in jeopardy to the species named above or adversely 
modify their critical habitat.

Classification

    Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 
12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
final rule is not significant.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration at the proposed rule stage that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Hilcorp and Eni are the only entities that would be subject 
to the requirements in these final regulations. During construction, 
Hilcorp and Eni would employ or contract hundreds of people and the ice 
roads and trails construction would generate a large sum of revenues. 
Therefore, Hilcorp and Eni are not small governmental jurisdictions, 
small organizations, or small businesses, as defined by the RFA. No 
comments were received regarding this certification or on the economic 
impacts of the rule more generally. As a result, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to 
respond to nor must a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. This final rule contains 
collection-of-information requirements subject to the provisions of the 
PRA. These requirements have been approved by OMB under control number 
0648-0151 and include applications for regulations, subsequent LOAs, 
and reports.

Waiver of Delay in Effective Date

    The Assistant Administrator for NMFS has determined that there is 
good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) 
to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. No 
individual or entity other than Hilcorp and Eni is affected by the 
provisions of these regulations. Hilcorp and Eni have informed NMFS 
that they request that this final rule take effect as soon as is 
possible so as to avoid the potential for disruption in Hilcorp and 
Eni's planned activities. The delay in the issuance of the final rule 
would cause serious impacts on operations by Hilcorp and

[[Page 83471]]

Eni in the project areas, as the companies rely on the short ice-
covered season for various activities on the North Slope. NMFS was 
unable to accommodate the 30-day delay of effectiveness period due to 
the need for additional time to address public comment and carry out 
required reviews, including, in particular, to ensure an accurate 
assessment of the likelihood of seal mortality and serious injury from 
Hilcorp and Eni's construction activities. For these reasons, NMFS 
finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Endangered and 
threatened species, Indians, Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    Dated: November 24, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is amended 
as follows:

PART 217--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS 
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Add subpart P to read as follows:

Subpart P--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice 
Trails Construction and Maintenance on Alaska's North Slope

Sec.
217.150 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
217.151 Effective dates.
217.152 Permissible methods of taking.
217.153 Prohibitions.
217.154 Mitigation requirements.
217.155 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
217.156 Letters of Authorization.
217.157 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
217.158-217.159 [Reserved]

Subpart P--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Ice Roads and Ice 
Trails Construction and Maintenance on Alaska's North Slope


Sec.  217.150   Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 
(Hilcorp) and Eni US Operating Co. Inc. (Eni) and those persons they 
authorize or fund to conduct activities on their behalf for the taking 
of marine mammals that occurs in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of 
this section and that occurs incidental to construction and maintenance 
of ice roads and ice trails.
    (b) The taking of marine mammals by Hilcorp and Eni may be 
authorized in two Letters of Authorization (LOAs) only if it occurs on 
Alaska's North Slope.


Sec.  217.151   Effective dates.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective from December 22, 2020 
through November 30, 2025.


Sec.  217.152   Permissible methods of taking.

    Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter 
and 217.156, the Holders of the LOAs (hereinafter ``Hilcorp'' and 
``Eni'') may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals 
within the area described in Sec.  217.150(b) by mortality, serious 
injury, Level A harassment, or Level B harassment associated with ice 
road and ice trail construction and maintenance activities, provided 
the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and 
requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate 
LOAs.


Sec.  217.153   Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec.  217.152 and 
authorized by the LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter 
and 217.156, no person in connection with the activities described in 
Sec.  217.150 may:
    (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and 
requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 
of this chapter and 217.156;
    (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
    (c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner 
other than as specified;
    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or 
stocks of such marine mammal; or
    (e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines 
such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or 
stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses.


Sec.  217.154   Mitigation requirements.

    When conducting the activities identified in Sec.  217.150(a), the 
mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  
216.106 of this chapter and 217.156 must be implemented. These 
mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to:
    (a) General conditions. (1) Hilcorp and Eni must renew, on an 
annual basis, the Plans of Cooperation (POCs), throughout the life of 
the regulations;
    (2) Copies of any issued LOAs must be in the possession of Hilcorp 
and Eni, their designees, and work crew personnel operating under the 
authority of the issued LOAs; and
    (3) Prior to initiation of sea ice road- and ice trail-related 
activities, project personnel associated with ice road construction, 
maintenance, use or decommissioning must receive annual training on 
implementing mitigation and monitoring measures:
    (i) Personnel must be advised that interactions with, or 
approaching, any wildlife is prohibited;
    (ii) Annual training must also include reviewing Hilcorp and Eni's 
Wildlife Management Plan; and
    (iii) In addition to the mitigation and monitoring plans, other 
topics in the training must include:
    (A) Ringed seal identification and brief life history;
    (B) Physical environment (habitat characteristics and how to 
potentially identify habitat);
    (C) Ringed seal use in the ice road region (timing, location, 
habitat use, birthing lairs, breathing holes, basking, etc.);
    (D) Potential effects of disturbance; and
    (E) Importance of lairs, breathing holes and basking to ringed 
seals.
    (b) General mitigation measures throughout the Ice Road/Trail 
Season (December through May). (1) Ice road/trail speed limits must be 
no greater than 72.4 km (45 miles) per hour (mph); speed limits must be 
determined on a case-by-case basis based on environmental, road 
conditions and ice road/trail longevity considerations;
    (2) Following existing safety measures, delineators must mark the 
roadway in a minimum of 0.4 km (\1/4\-mile) increments on both sides of 
the ice road to delineate the path of vehicle travel and areas of 
planned on-ice activities (e.g., emergency response exercises). 
Following existing safety measures currently used for ice trails, 
delineators must mark one side of an ice trail a minimum of every 0.4 
km (\1/4\

[[Page 83472]]

mile). Delineators must be color-coded, following existing safety 
protocol, to indicate the direction of travel and location of the ice 
road or trail;
    (3) Corners of rig mats, steel plates, and other materials used to 
bridge sections of hazardous ice, must be clearly marked or mapped 
using GPS coordinates of the locations; and
    (4) Personnel must be instructed to remain in the vehicle and 
safely continue, if they encounter a ringed seal while driving on the 
road.
    (c) Additional mitigation measures after March 1st. In addition to 
the general mitigation measures listed in Sec.  217.154(b), the 
following measures must also be implemented after March 1st:
    (1) Ice road/trail construction, maintenance and decommissioning 
must be performed within the boundaries of the road/trail and 
shoulders, with most work occurring within the driving lane. To the 
extent practicable and when safety of personnel is ensured, equipment 
must travel within the driving lane and shoulder areas.
    (2) Blading and snow blowing of ice roads must be limited to the 
previously disturbed ice road/shoulder areas to the extent safe and 
practicable. Snow must be plowed or blown from the ice road surface.
    (3) In the event snow is accumulating on a road within a 50 m (164 
ft) radius of an identified downwind seal or seal lair, operational 
measures must be used to avoid seal impacts, such as pushing snow 
further down the road before blowing it off the roadway. Vehicles must 
not stop within 50 m (164 ft) of identified seals or within 150 m (500 
ft) of known seal lairs.
    (4) To the extent practicable and when safety of personnel is 
ensured, tracked vehicle operation must be limited to the previously 
disturbed ice trail areas. When safety requires a new ice trail to be 
constructed after March 1st, construction activities such as drilling 
holes in the ice to determine ice quality and thickness, must be 
conducted only during daylight hours with good visibility.
    (5) Ringed seal structures must be avoided by a minimum of 50 m 
(164 ft) during ice testing and new trail construction.
    (6) Once the new ice trail is established, tracked vehicle 
operation must be limited to the disturbed area to the extent 
practicable and when safety of personnel is ensured.
    (7) If a seal is observed on ice within 50 m (164 ft) of the 
centerline of the ice road/trail, the following mitigation measures 
must be implemented:
    (i) Construction, maintenance or decommissioning activities 
associated with ice roads and trails must not occur within 50 m (164 
ft) of the observed ringed seal, but may proceed as soon as the ringed 
seal, of its own accord, moves farther than 50 m (164 ft) distance away 
from the activities or has not been observed within that area for at 
least 24 hours; and
    (ii) Transport vehicles (i.e., vehicles not associated with 
construction, maintenance or decommissioning) may continue their route 
within the designated road/trail without stopping.


Sec.  217.155   Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) All marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance 
with Hilcorp and Eni's Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 
(4MP). This plan may be modified throughout the life of the regulations 
upon NMFS review and approval.
    (b) General monitoring measures will be implemented through the 
entire ice road/trail season including during construction, 
maintenance, use and decommissioning.
    (1) If a ringed seal is observed within 50 m (164 ft) of the center 
of an ice road or trail, the operator's Environmental Specialist must 
be immediately notified with the information provided in paragraph (e) 
of this section.
    (i) The Environmental Specialist must relay the seal sighting 
location information to all ice road personnel and the company's office 
personnel responsible for wildlife interaction, following notification 
protocols described in the company-specific Wildlife Management Plan. 
All other data will be recorded and logged.
    (ii) The Environmental Specialist or designated person must monitor 
the ringed seal to document the animal's location relative to the road/
trail. All work that is occurring when the ringed seal is observed and 
the behavior of the seal during those activities must be documented 
until the animal is at least 50 m (150 ft) away from the center of the 
road/trail or is no longer observed.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) Additional monitoring measures after March 1st. In addition to 
the general monitoring measures listed in Sec.  217.155(b), the 
following measures must also be implemented after March 1st:
    (1) If an ice road or trail is being actively used, under daylight 
conditions with good visibility, a dedicated observer (not the vehicle 
operator) must conduct a survey along the sea ice road/trail to observe 
if any ringed seals are within 150 m (500 ft) of the roadway corridor. 
The following survey protocol must be implemented:
    (i) Surveys must be conducted every other day during daylight 
hours;
    (ii) Observers for ice road activities must have received the 
training described in Sec.  217.154(a) and understand the applicable 
sections of the Wildlife Interaction Plan;
    (iii) Observers for ice road activities must be capable of 
detecting, observing and monitoring ringed seal presence and behaviors, 
and accurately and completely recording data;
    (iv) Observers must have no other primary duty than to watch for 
and report observations related to ringed seals during this survey; and
    (v) If weather conditions become unsafe, the observer may be 
removed from the monitoring activity.
    (2) If a ringed seal structure (i.e., breathing hole or lair) is 
observed within 50 m (150 ft) of the ice road/trail, the location of 
the structure must be reported to the Environmental Specialist and:
    (i) An observer must monitor the structure every 6 hours on the day 
of the initial sighting to determine whether a ringed seal is present.
    (ii) Monitoring for the seal must occur every other day the ice 
road is being used unless it is determined the structure is not 
actively being used (i.e., a seal is not sighted at that location 
during monitoring).
    (d) Engaging with subsistence hunters for monitoring 
recommendations.
    (1) Hilcorp and Eni must engage local hunters through the Ice Seal 
Committee point of contact to gather recommendations on methods for 
ringed seal detection along sea ice roads/trails within the exposure 
areas.
    (2) Hilcorp and Eni must incorporate these recommendations into 
Hilcorp and Eni's training materials provided to personnel responsible 
for monitoring for ringed seals along sea ice roads/trails.
    (e) Reporting requirement at the end-of-season.
    (1) A final end-of-season report compiling all ringed seal 
observations must be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources 
within 90 days of decommissioning the ice roads/trails annually. The 
report must include:
    (i) Date, time, location of observation;
    (ii) Ringed seal characteristics (i.e., adult or pup, behavior 
(avoidance, resting, etc.));
    (iii) Activities occurring during observation including equipment 
being used and its purpose, and approximate distance to ringed seal(s);
    (iv) Actions taken to mitigate effects of interaction emphasizing:
    (A) Which mitigation and/or monitoring measures were successful;

[[Page 83473]]

    (B) Which mitigation and/or monitoring measures may need to be 
improved to reduce interactions with ringed seals;
    (C) The effectiveness and practicality of implementing mitigation 
and monitoring measures;
    (D) Any issues or concerns regarding implementation of mitigation 
and/or monitoring measures; and
    (E) Potential effects of interactions based on observation data;
    (v) Proposed updates (if any) to Wildlife Interaction Plan(s) or 
Mitigation and Monitoring Measures; and
    (vi) The methods used for detection of seals and seal structures 
with an assessment of their effectiveness.
    (2) In the event a seal is killed or seriously injured by ice road/
trail activities, Hilcorp or Eni must immediately cease the specified 
activities and report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources (301-427-8401) and Alaska Region Stranding Coordinator (877-
925-7773). The report must include the following information:
    (i) Time and date of the incident;
    (ii) Description of the incident;
    (iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., cloud over, and visibility);
    (iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
    (vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    (3) In the event ice road/trail personnel discover a dead or 
injured seal but the cause of injury or death is unknown or believed 
not to be related to ice road/trail activities, Hilcorp or Eni must 
report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (301-427-
8401) and Alaska Region Stranding Coordinator (877-925-7773) within 48 
hours of discovery.


Sec.  217.156   Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these 
regulations, Hilcorp and Eni must apply for and obtain an LOA.
    (b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a 
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
    (c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these 
regulations, Hilcorp or Eni may apply for and obtain a renewal of the 
LOA.
    (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to 
mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, Hilcorp and Eni 
must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in 
Sec.  217.57.
    (e) The LOAs shall set forth:
    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., 
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the 
species for subsistence uses; and
    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
    (f) Issuance of the LOAs shall be based on a determination that the 
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total 
taking allowable under these regulations.
    (g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in 
the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.


Sec.  217.157   Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
217.156 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.150(a) shall be 
renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
    (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as 
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes 
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section); and
    (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
measures required by the previous LOAs under these regulations were 
implemented.
    (b) For LOAs modification or renewal requests by the applicants 
that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management 
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the 
findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor 
change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by 
species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOAs in the 
Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and 
solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
    (c) The LOAs issued under Sec. Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and 
217.156 for the activity identified in Sec.  217.150(a) may be modified 
by NMFS under the following circumstances:
    (1) Adaptive management. NMFS may modify (including augment) the 
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after 
consulting with Hilcorp or Eni regarding the practicability of the 
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more 
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring 
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
    (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision 
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
    (A) Results from Hilcorp or Eni's monitoring from the previous 
year(s).
    (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or 
studies.
    (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken 
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.
    (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS 
will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and 
solicit public comment.
    (2) Emergencies. If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that 
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of 
marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.  216.106 
of this chapter and 217.156, an LOA may be modified without prior 
notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in 
the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.


Sec. Sec.  217.158--217.159   [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2020-26346 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P