Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

RIN 1018-AF54

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: These proposed regulations would authorize the incidental,

unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walrus

during year-round oil and gas industry (Industry) exploration,

development, and production operations in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent

northern coast of Alaska. The operations are similar to and include all

activities covered by our original 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental take

regulations effective from December 16, 1993, through December 15,

1998, and current regulations in effect from January 28, 1999, through

January 30, 2000, except that these proposed regulations would also

allow incidental, unintentional takes resulting from subsea pipeline

activities placed offshore at the Northstar facility in the Beaufort

Sea. We are proposing that this rule be effective for 3 years, from

January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003.

We propose a finding that the total expected takings of polar bear

and Pacific walrus during oil and gas industry exploration,

development, and production activities will have a negligible impact on

these species, and no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability

of these species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We base this

finding on results from 6 years of monitoring interactions between

marine mammals and Industry, and using oil spill trajectory models and

polar bears density models to determine the likelihood of impacts to

polar bears should an accidental oil release occur.

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

2000.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

1. By mail to: John Bridges, Office of Marine Mammals Management,

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK

99503.

2. By FAX by sending to: 907-786-3816.

3. By Internet, electronic mail by sending to: [email protected]

Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include

``Attn: RIN 1018-AF54'' and your name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system

that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at US

Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Marine Mammals Management, 907-

786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148.

4. By hand-delivery to: Office of Marine Mammals Management, US

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska

99503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bridges, Office of Marine Mammals

Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,

Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 68974]]

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammals Protection Act (Act)

gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the Director of

US Fish and Wildlife Service (We) the authority to allow the

incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine

mammals, in response to requests by US citizens (You) [as defined in 50

CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial

fishing) in a specified geographics region. We may grant permission for

incidental takes for periods of up to 5 years.

Under the provisions of the Act, we would allow the incidental

taking of these marine mammals only if our Director finds, based on the

best scientific evidence available, that the total of such taking for

3-year period will have a negligible impact on these species and will

not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these

species for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. If these

findings are made, we will establish regulations for the activity that

set forth: (1) Permissible methods of taking; (2) Means of effecting

the least practicable adverse impact on the species and their habitat

and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and (3)

Requirement for monitoring and reporting.

The term ``take'' as defined by the Act means to harass, hunt,

capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, or kill any marine mammal.

Harrassment as defined by the Act, as amended in 1994, ``* * *

means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which--

(i) Has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild; or

(ii) Has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal

stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,

including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,

feeding, or sheltering.''

As a result of 1986 amendments to the Act, we amended 50 CFR 18.27

(i.e., regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental

to specified activities) with a final rule published on September 29,

1989. Section 18.27(c) included, among other things, a revised

definition of ``negligible impact'' and a new definition for

``unmitigable adverse impact'' as follows. Negligible impact is an

impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably

expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or

survival. Unmitigable adverse impact means an impact resulting from the

specified activity:

(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a

level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:

(i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting area,

(ii) Directly displacing subsistence users, or

(iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the

subsistence hunters, and

(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to

increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs

to be met.

Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration,

development, and production in marine mammals habitat, and risks

violating the prohibitations on the taking of marine mammals. Although

there is no legal requirements for Industry to obtain incidental take

authority, Industry has chosen to seek authorization to avoid the

uncertainties associated with conducting activities in marine mammal

habitat. Along with their request for incidental take authority,

Industry has also developed and implemented polar bear conservation

measures.

On December 17, 1991, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., for itself and

for Amerada Hess Corporation, Amoco Production Company, ARCO Alaska,

Inc., CGG American Service, Inc., Conoco Inc., Digicon Geophysical

Corp., Exxon Corporation, GECO Geophysical Co., Halliburton Geophysical

Service, Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Northern Geophysical of America

Western, Texaco Inc., Unocal Corporation, and Geophysical Company

requested that we promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 101(a)(5)

of the Act.

The geographic region defined in Industry's 1991 application

included offshore waters beginning at a north/south line at Barrow,

Alaska, east to the Canadian border, including all Alaska state waters

and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) waters. The onshore region was

defined by the name north/south line at Barrow, extending 25 miles

inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge was excluded from the proposal.

On November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402), we issued final regulations to

allow the incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of

polar bears and Pacific walrus when such taking(s) occurred during

Industry activities during year-round operations in the Beaufort Sea

Region as described in the preceding paragraph. The regulations were

issued for 18 months. At the same time, the Secretary of the Interior

directed us to develop, then begin implementation of, a polar bear

habitat conservation strategy before extending the regulations beyond

the initial 18 months for a total 5-year period as allowed by the Act.

We developed The Habitat Conservation Strategy for Polar Bears in

Alaska to ensure that the regulations met with the intent of the 1973

International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. On August

17, 1995, we issued the final rule and notice of availability of a

completed final polar bear habitat conservation strategy (60 FR 42805).

We then extended the regulations for an additional 42 months to expire

on December 15, 1998.

On August 28, 1997, BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., submitted a

petition for itself and for ARCO Alaska, Inc., Exxon Corporation, and

Western Geophysical Company for rulemaking pursuant to Section

101(a)(5)(A) of the Act, and Section 553(e) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA). Their request sought regulations to allow the

incidental, but not intentional, take of small numbers of polar bears

and Pacific walrus when takings occurred during Industry operations in

Arctic Alaska. Specifically, they requested an extension of the

incidental take regulations beginning at 50 CFR 18.121 for an

additional 5-year term from December 16, 1998, through December 15,

2003. The geographic extent of the request was the same as that of

previously issued regulations beginning at 50 CFR 18.121 that were in

effect through December 15, 1998 (see above).

The petition to extend the incidental take regulations included two

new oil fields (Northstar and Liberty). Plans to develop each field

identified a need for an offshore gravel island and a buried subsea

pipeline to transport crude oil to existing onshore infrastructure.

Based on preliminary information related to subsea pipelines published

in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Northstar

project, we were unable to make a finding of negligible impact and

issue regulations for the full 5-year period. The information published

in the Northstar DEIS suggested that the probability of an oil spill

was 21-23 percent over the life of the project, and that up to 30 polar

bears could be killed by a spill.

On November 17, 1998, we published proposed regulations (63 FR

63812) to allow the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of

polar bears and Pacific walrus in the Beaufort Sea and northern coast

of Alaska. On January 28, 1999, we issued final regulations effective

through January 30, 2000. These regulations do not authorize the

[[Page 68975]]

incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walrus during construction

or operation of subsea pipelines in the Beaufort Sea.

Subsequent to January 28, 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

finalized the Northstar Environmental Impact Statement in February

1999. Construction of the Northstar gravel island and subsea pipeline

are scheduled for the winter of 1999-2000, with production beginning in

the latter half of 2000. The Liberty development is proposed for early

2003. The Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service

(MMS) has published a Preliminary Draft EIS, and a Draft EIS is

currently in preparation.

Summary of Current Request

The proposed regulations respond to the August 28, 1997, request by

BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. for the extension of incidental take

regulations. That request was for a period of 5 years, from December

16, 1998, through December 15, 2003. As previously mentioned, we issued

regulations for 1 year that will expire on January 30, 2000. The

current proposal addresses the time period from January 31, 2000,

through January 31, 2003.

Description of Proposed Regulations

Due to the preliminary nature of the Liberty environmental

assessment, we are unable to evaluate the potential impact of that

development at this time. These proposed regulations are for a 3-year

period from January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003, and include

consideration of subsea pipeline activities associated with the

Northstar project. The proposed regulations will allow Industry to

incidentally take polar bear and Pacific walrus within the same area as

covered by our previous regulations; defined by a north/south line at

Barrow, Alaska, including all Alaska State waters and OCS waters, and

east of that line to the Canadian border; with the onshore region being

the same north/south line at Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the

Canning River. Once again, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is

excluded from the proposal.

The proposed regulations do not authorize the actual activities

associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production,

but rather authorize the incidental, unintentional take of small

numbers of polar bears and Pacific walrus associated with those

activities. The MMS and the Bureau of Land Management are responsible

for permitting activities associated with oil and gas activities in

Federal waters and on Federal lands, respectively, and the State of

Alaska is responsible for activities on State lands and in State

waters.

As in previous regulations, the proposed rule requires an applicant

to obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to conduct exploration,

development, and production activities pursuant to the regulations.

Each group or individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related

activity within the area covered by these regulations may request an

LOA.

Further, applicants for LOAs must submit a plan to monitor the

effects on polar bear and walrus that are present during the authorized

activities. Applicants for LOAs must also include a Plan of

Cooperation. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that the impact of

oil and gas activity on the availability of the species or stock for

subsistence uses continue to be negligible. The Plan must provide the

procedures on how Industry will work with the affected Native

communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interference with

subsistence hunting of polar bear and walrus.

Each request for an LOA is evaluated on the specific activity and

the specific location, and we condition each LOA for that activity and

location if necessary. For example, a request to conduct activities on

barrier islands with active polar bear dens or a history of polar bear

denning will be conditioned to avoid the area until after the bears

normally exit their dens.

Description of Activity

In accordance with 50 CFR 18.27, Industry has submitted a request

for the promulgation of incidental take regulations pursuant to Section

101(a)(b)(A) of the Act. Activities covered in this proposed rule

include exploration, development, and production of oil and gas, as

well as wildlife monitoring associated with these activities.

Exploration activities include geological and geophysical surveys,

which may involve geotechnical site investigation, reflective seismic

exploration, vibrator seismic data collection, air gun and water gun

seismic data collection, explosive seismic data collection, geological

surveys, and drilling operations. Drilling operations include drill

ships, floating drill platforms such as the Kulluk, ice pads,

artificial islands, caisson-retained islands, and two types of bottom-

founded structures, concrete island drilling system, and single steel

drilling caisson.

A large number of variables influence exploration activities,

therefore, predictions as to the exact dates and locations of

exploratory operations that will take place over the next 3 years would

be speculative. However, requests for LOAs must include specific

details regarding dates, duration, and geographic locations of proposed

activities.

Alaska's North Slope encompasses an area 88,280 square miles and

contains 13 separate oil and gas fields in production: Prudhoe Bay,

North Prudhoe Bay State, Kuparuk, Endicott, Point McIntyre, Lisburne,

Milne Point, Cascade, West Beach, Niakuk, Schrader Bluff, Badami and

Sag Delta North. Additional discoveries have been made at the Northstar

and Apline fields, both of which are now in the development phase.

Discovery has also been made at the Liberty site, where development is

planned for 2003.

During the period covered by the proposed regulations, we

anticipate a similar level of activity at existing production

facilities as during the previous 6 years. One notable difference is

the new Northstar project, the first offshore production facility on

the North Slope, and the only offshore production facility considered

in this proposal.

Biological Information

Pacific Walrus

Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) typically inhabit the waters of

the Chukchi and Bering seas. Most of the population congregates near

the ice edge of the Chukchi Sea pack ice west of Point Barrow during

the summer. In the winter, walrus inhabit the pack ice of the Bering

Sea, with concentrations occurring in the Gulf of Anadyr, south of St.

Lawrence Island, and south of Nunivak Island.

Walrus occur infrequently in the Beaufort Sea. Data from our

marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program show that, from 1994 through

1997, 73 walrus were reported killed by Barrow hunters. Tagging

certificates show that nearly all of the 73 walrus were taken west of

Barrow. In 4 years of monitoring Industry's activities in the Beaufort

Sea, on-site monitors have observed only two walrus.

Polar Bear

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) occur in the Northern hemisphere,

where their distribution is circumpolar, and they live in close

association with polar ice. In Alaska, their distribution extends from

south of the Bering Strait to the U.S.-Canada border. Two stocks occur

[[Page 68976]]

in Alaska: the Chukchi/Bering seas stock, whose size is unknown; and

the Southern Beaufort Sea stock, which was estimated in 1992 to number

about 1,800 bears.

Females without dependent cubs breed in the spring and enter

maternity dens by late November. Females with cubs do not mate. An

average of two cubs are usually born in December, and the family group

emerges from the den in late March or early April. Only pregnant

females den for an extended period during the winter; however, other

polar bears may burrow out depressions to escape harsh winter winds.

The average reproduction interval for polar bear is 3-4 years. The

maximum reported age of reproduction in Alaska is 18 years. Based on

these data, a polar bear may produce about 10 cubs in her lifetime.

The fur and blubber of the polar bear protect it from the cold air

and frigid water. Newly emerged cubs of the year may not have a

sufficient layer of blubber to maintain body heat when immersed in

water for long periods of time. Cubs abandoned prior to the normal

weaning age of 2.5 years likely will not survive.

Ringed seals (Phoca hispida) are the primary prey species of the

polar bear; however, occasionally, polar bears hunt bearded seals

(Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves. Polar bears also scavenge on

marine mammal carcasses washed up on shore, and eat non-food items such

as styrofoam, plastic, car batteries, antifreeze, and lubricating

fluids.

Polar bears have no natural predators, and they do not appear to be

prone to death by disease or parasites. The most significant source of

mortality is humans. Since 1972, with the passage of the Act, only

Alaska Natives are allowed to hunt polar bears in Alaska. Bears are

used for subsistence purposes such as the manufacture of handicraft and

clothing items. The Native harvest occurs without restrictions on sex,

age, number, or season, providing the population is not depleted and

takes are non-wasteful. From 1980-1997, the total annual harvest in

Alaska averaged 103 bears. The majority of this harvest (70 percent)

came from the Chukchi and Bering seas area.

Polar bears in the near shore Alaskan Beaufort Sea are widely

distributed in low numbers across the area with an average density of

about one bear per 30 to 50 square miles. However, polar bears have

been observed congregating on barrier islands in the fall and winter

because of available food and favorable environmental conditions. Polar

bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale carcasses on barrier

islands. In November 1996, biologists from the U.S. Geological Survey

observed 28 polar bears near a bowhead whale carcass on Cross Island,

and approximately 11 polar bears within a 2-mile radius of another

bowhead whale carcass near the village of Kaktovik on Barter island. In

October 1997, we observed 47 polar bears on barrier islands and the

mainland from Prudhoe Bay to the Canadian border, a distance of

approximately 100 miles.

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

Subsistence Uses

Pacific Walrus

Oil and gas industry activities that generate noise such as air and

vessel traffic, seismic surveys, ice breakers, supply ships, and

drilling may frighten or displace Pacific walrus. As previously stated

in this document, the primary range of the Pacific walrus is west of

Point Barrow. Pacific walrus do not normally range into the Beaufort

Sea. Occasionally, a single walrus may be sighted east of Point Barrow.

From 1994 to 1997, two Pacific walrus were sighted during an open-water

seismic program. The program was conducted in the vicinity of Gwyder

Bay approximately 10 miles west of Prudhoe Bay. Marine mammal monitors

sighted one sub-adult walrus approximately 5 miles northwest of Howe

Island and BP Exploration's Endicott Unit. The second, a single adult

walrus, was observed from a survey aircraft approximately 20 miles

north of Pingok Island.

In winter, Pacific walrus inhabit the pack ice of the Bering Sea.

As the winter range of the Pacific walrus is well beyond the geographic

area covered by these regulations, we do not expect any impacts to

walrus from oil and gas activities during winter.

If walrus are present, their movements may be affected by

stationary drilling structures. Walrus are attracted to certain

activities and are repelled from others by noise or smell. In 1989 an

incident occurred during a drilling operation in the Chukchi Sea where

a young walrus surfaced in the center hole (i.e., moonpool) of a drill

ship. The crew used a cargo net to remove the walrus from the drilling

area, after which the walrus left the scene of the incident and was not

seen again. No similar incidents have been reported in the area of the

proposed regulations.

Seismic surveys generally take place on solid ice or in open water.

Since walrus activity occurs near the ice edge, interactions between

walrus and seismic surveys are unlikely.

Due to the small number of walrus in the area covered by the

proposed regulations, oil and gas industry activities will not result

in more than a negligible impact on this species.

Subsistence Use of Pacific Walrus

As the primary range of Pacific walrus is west and south of the

Beaufort Sea, it is not surprising that few walrus are harvested in the

Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of Alaska. Walrus constitute a

small portion of the total marine mammal harvest for the village of

Barrow. In the past 6 years, 73 walrus were reported taken by Barrow

hunters. Reports indicate that all but 1 of the 73 walrus were taken

west of Point Barrow, beyond the limits of the incidental take

regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik do not normally hunt

walrus east of Point Barrow and have taken only one walrus in the last

10 years.

Polar Bear

In the southern Beaufort sea, polar bears spend the majority of

their lives on the ice, which limits the opportunity for impacts from

Industry. For example, although polar bears have been documented in

open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, it is a relatively

rare occurrence. Therefore, exploration activities in the open-water

season will not have more than a negligible impact on the polar bear.

Polar bears also spend a limited amount of time on land, coming

ashore to feed, den, or move to other areas. At time when the ice edge

is near shore and then quickly retreats northward, bears may remain

along the coast or on barrier islands for several weeks until the ice

returns. For those brief periods, there is increased likelihood of

interactions between polar bears and Industry activities. We have found

that polar bear interaction planning and training requirements of the

LOA process have increased polar bear awareness, and have helped

minimize these encounters. For example, in 1999 Exxon terminated work

on Flaxman Island due to the presence of several polar bears in the

vicinity of their work area.

Disturbances to denning females, either on land or on ice, are of

particular concern. As part of the LOA application for seismic surveys

during denning season, Industry provides us with the proposed seismic

survey routes. To minimize the likelihood of disturbance of denning

females, we evaluate these routes along with information about known

polar bear dens, historic denning sites, and probable denning habitat.

A standard condition of LOAs requires Industry to maintain a one-mile

buffer

[[Page 68977]]

between survey activities and known denning sites. In addition, we may

require Industry to avoid denning habitat until bears have left their

dens. To further reduce the potential for disturbance to denning

females, we are conducting research in cooperation with Industry to

evaluate the use of remote sensing techniques, such as Forward Looking

Infrared (FLIR) imagery to detect active dens.

Industry activities that occur on or near the ice have greater

possibility for encountering polar bears. Depending upon the

circumstances, bears can be either repelled from or attracted to

sounds, smells, or sights associate with there activities. As mentioned

above, the LOA process requires the applicant to develop a polar bear

interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps the

applicant will take to minimize impacts, such as garage disposal

procedures to reduce the attraction of polar bears. Interaction plans

also outline the chain of command for responding to a polar bear

sighting. In addition to interaction plans, Industry personnel

participate in polar bear interaction training while on site. The

result of these polar bear interaction plans and training is that when

a bear encounters Industry activities, it is detected quickly, and

responded to appropriately. Most often, this involves deterring the

bear from the site, with minimal effect. Without such plans and

training, the undesirable outcome could be lethal take in defense of

human life.

Over the span of our incidental take regulations, Industry reported

103 polar bear sightings. Of these, only 29 were instances where a bear

was attracted to and/or deterred from the site. We have no indication

that encounters which merely alter the behavior and movement of

individual bears have any long-term effects on those bears. It is

therefore unlikely that the small number of benign encounters between

polar bears and Industry would have a significant overall effect on the

population.

No lethal takes have occurred during the period covered by

incidental take regulations. Even before regulations were issued,

lethal takes by Industry were a rare occurrence. Since 1968, there have

been two documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated with

oil and gas activities. In both instances, the lethal take was in

defense of human life.

Oil Spills

In addition to routine operations, the potential exists for polar

bears to be impacted by oil spills. Spills of crude oil and petroleum

products associated with onshore production facilities are usually

minor spills that are contained and removed upon discovery. As polar

bears spend the majority of their time onshore, they are unlikely to

encounter oil from an onshore spill.

Oil spills are of concern in the marine environment, where spilled

oil will accumulate at the ice edge, in leads, and similar areas of

importance to polar bears. Oil spilled from offshore production

activities was not considered in our previous regulations. The

Northstar Project will transport crude oil from a reconstructed gravel

island in the Beaufort Sea to shore via a 5.96-mile buried subsea

pipeline. The pipeline will be buried in a trench in the sea floor deep

enough to reduce the risk of damage from ice gouging and strudel scour.

Construction of Northstar will begin in the winter of 1999-2000.

Polar bears are at risk from an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea.

Limited data from a Canadian study suggest that polar bears

experimentally oiled with crude oil may die. This finding is consistent

with what is known of other marine mammals that rely on their fur for

insulation. The Northstar FEIS concluded that mortality of up to 30

polar bears could occur as the result of an oil spill greater than

1,000 barrels. This estimate was based on observations of aggregations

of polar bears on barrier islands in the Beaufort Sea.

Two independent lines of evidence support our determination that

only a negligible impact to the Beaufort Sea polar bear stock will

occur from Northstar, one largely anecdotal, and the other

quantitative. The largely anecdotal information is based on

observations of polar bear aggregations on barrier islands and coastal

areas in the Beaufort Sea. This information suggests that polar bear

aggregations may occur for brief periods in the fall. The presence and

duration of these aggregations are influenced by the presence of sea

ice near shore and the availability of marine mammal carcasses, notably

bowhead whales. In order for significant impacts to polar bears to

occur, an oil spill would have to occur, an aggregation of bears would

have to present, the spill would have to contact the aggregation, and

many of the bears would have to be killed. We believe the probability

of all these events occurring simultaneously is low.

The quantitative rationale for negligible impact is based on a risk

assessment that considered oil spill probability estimates for the

Northstar Project, an oil spill trajectory model, and a polar bear

distribution model. The Northeast FEIS provides estimates of the

probability that one or more spills greater than 1,000 barrels of oil

will occur over the project's life of 15 years. We consider here only

spill probabilities for the drilling platform and subsea pipeline as

these are the spill locations that would affect polar bears. When

calculated for the 3-year period covered by the proposed regulations,

we estimate the likelihood of one or more spills greater than 1,000

barrels in size occurring in the marine environment is 3-10 percent.

Applied Sciences Associates, Inc., was contracted by BP Exploration

Inc. to run the OILMAP oil spill trajectory model. The size of the

modeled spill was set at 3,600 barrels, simulating rupture and drainage

of the entire subsea pipeline. Each spill was modeled by tracking the

location of 100 ``spillets,'' each representing 36 barrels. Spillets

were driven by wind, and their movements affected by the presence of

sea ice. Open water and broken ice scenarios were each modeled with 250

simulations. A solid ice scenario was also modeled, in which oil was

trapped beneath the ice and did not spread. In this event, we found it

unlikely that polar bears would contact oil, and removed this scenario

from further analysis. Each simulation was run for 96 hours with no

cleanup or containment efforts simulated. At the end of each

simulation, the size and location of each spill was represented in a

geographic information system (GIS).

Telemetry data suggest that polar bears are widely distributed in

low numbers across the Beaufort Sea with a density of about one bear

per 30-50 square miles. The U.S. Geological Survey, Biological

Resources Division, developed a polar bear distribution model based on

extensive telemetry data that estimates the number of bears expected to

occur within a grid of the Beaufort Sea with a cell size of 0.25

km2. Each of the simulated oil spills was overlaid with the

polar bear distribution grid. If a spillet passed through a grid cell,

the bears in that cell were considered killed by the spill. In the open

water scenario, the estimated number of bears killed ranged from less

than 1 to 78, with a median of 8. In the broken ice scenario, results

ranged from less than 1 to 108, with a median of 21. These results are

based on an ``average'' distribution of polar bears and do not include

potential aggregations of bears.

We estimated the likelihood of occurrence of mortality for various

numbers of bears by multiplying the probability of mortality by the

spill probability for each period for the year, and summing those

probabilities over the entire year. We calculate that the probability

of a spill that would cause

[[Page 68978]]

mortality of one or more bears is 0.9-3.1 percent. As the threshold

number of bears is increased, the likelihood of that event decreases.

Thus the probability of a spill that would cause a mortality of 5 or

more bears is 0.7-2.5 percent; for 10 or more bears is 0.6-2.0 percent;

and for 20 or more bears is 0.3-1 percent.

The greatest source of uncertainty in our calculations is the

probability of an oil spill occurring. The oil spill probability

estimates for the Northstar Project were calculated using data for

subsea pipelines outside of Alaska and outside of the Arctic. These

spill probability estimates, therefore, do not reflect conditions that

are routinely encountered in the Arctic, such as permafrost, ice

gouging, and strudel scour. They may include other conditions unlikely

to be encountered in the Arctic, such as damage from anchors and trawl

nets. Consequently, there is some uncertainty about the validity of oil

spill probabilities as presented in the Northstar FEIS. However, if the

probability of a spill were actually twice the estimated value, the

probability of a spill that would cause a mortality of one or more

bears is still low (about 6 percent).

This analysis is dependent on numerous assumptions, some of which

underestimate, while others overestimate, the potential risk to polar

bears. These include variation in spill probabilities during the year,

the length of time the oil spill trajectory model was run, whether or

not containment occurred during the trajectory model, lack of efforts

to deter wildlife during the model runs, contact with a spillet

constitutes mortality, aggregations of bears not included, etc. We

determined that the assumptions that would overestimate and

underestimate mortalities were generally in balance.

We conclude that if an oil spill were to occur during the fall of

spring broken-ice periods, there could be a significant impact to polar

bears. However, in balancing the level of impact with the probability

of occurrence, we conclude that the probability of serious impacts

(large-volume spills that cause high polar bear mortalities) is low.

Therefore we conclude that the effect of operations associated with the

Northstar development will have a negligible impact on polar bears.

Subsistence Use of Polar Bear

Within the area covered by the proposed regulations, polar bears

are taken in Barrow, Nuiqsut, or Kaktovik; however, it is not

considered a primary subsistence species in these villages. Data from

our Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program indicate that from July 1,

1993, to June 30, 1998, a total of 94 polar bears was reported

harvested by residents of Barrow; 7 by residents of the village of

Nuiqsut; and 10 by residents of the village of Kaktovik. Hunting

success varies considerably from year to year because of variable ice

and weather conditions. Native subsistence polar bear hunting could be

affected by an oil spill. Hunting areas where polar bears are

historically taken may be viewed as tainted by an oil spill.

Industry works with local Native groups to achieve a cooperative

relationship between oil and gas activities and subsistence activities.

The Industry works with the local Native groups to develop a Plan of

Cooperation to address subsistence mitigation measures to be

incorporated into the Industry's plan of operation.

Cumulative Effects

Based on past LOA monitoring reports, the level of interaction

between Industry and marine mammals (Pacific walrus and polar bears)

has had a negligible impact on these species. Additional information,

such as subsistence harvested levels and incidental observations of

polar bears near shore, provides evidence that these populations have

not been adversely affected. The projected level of activities during

the period covered by the proposed regulations (existing onshore

development and proposed exploratory activities) are similar in scale

to previous levels. Therefore, we conclude that projected onshore

activities will have a negligible impact on polar bears and Pacific

walrus.

While the actual construction and operation of the Northstar

development is not expected to significantly increase the impacts to

Pacific walrus and polar bears, concern about potential oil spills in

the marine environment was raised in the Northstar FEIS. We have

analyzed the likelihood of an oil spill in the marine environment that

would kill a significant number of polar bears and found it to be

negligible. Thus, after considering the cumulative effects of existing

onshore development, proposed exploratory activities, and the new

Northstar subsea pipeline, we find that these activities will have a

negligible impact on polar bears and Pacific walrus.

Conclusions

Based on the previous discussion, we propose the following findings

regarding this action:

Impact on Species

We find, based on the best scientific information available, the

results of monitoring data from our previous regulations and the

results of our modeling assessments, that the effects of oil and gas

related exploration, development, and production activities from

January 31, 2000, through January 31, 2003, in the Beaufort Sea and

adjacent northern coast of Alaska will have a negligible impact on

polar bears and Pacific walrus and their habitat. In making this

proposed finding, we are following Congressional direction in balancing

the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of that

event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that justifies

balancing probabilities with impacts follows:

If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or

speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A

finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the

probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be

significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts

must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species

or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this

balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks

involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations.

Such determination will be made based on the best available

scientific information. (53 FR at 8474: accord, 132 Cong. Rec. S

16305 (Oct. 15, 1986)

In the event of a catastrophic spill, we would reassess the impacts

to the polar bear and walrus populations and reconsider the

appropriateness of authorizations for incidental taking through Section

101(a)(5)(A) of the Act.

Our proposed finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to oil and

gas exploration, development, and production activities. The following

are generic conditions intended to minimize interference with normal

breeding, feeding, and possible migration patterns to ensure that the

effects to the species remain negligible. We may expand the conditions

in the LOAs based upon site-specific and species-specific reasons.

(1) These regulation do not authorize intentional taking of polar

bear or Pacific walrus.

(2)For the protection of pregnant polar bears during denning

activities (den selection, birthing, and maturation of cubs) in known

and confirmed denning areas, Industry activities will be restricted in

specific locations during certain specified times of the year. These

restrictions will be applied on a case-by-case basis in response to

each LOA request. In potential denning areas, we may require pre-

activity surveys (e.g., aerial surveys) to determine the presence or

absence of denning activity.

(3) Each activity authorized by an LOA requires a site-specific

plan of

[[Page 68979]]

operation and a site-specific monitoring and reporting plan. The

purpose of the required plan is to ensure that the level of activity

and possible takes will be consistent with our proposed finding that

the cumulative total of incidental takes will have a negligible impact

on polar bear and Pacific walrus, their habitat, and where relevant,

will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of

these species for subsistence uses.

Impact on Subsistence Take

We propose to find, based on the best scientific information

available, and the results of monitoring data, that the effects of oil

and gas exploration, development, and production activities for the

next 3 years in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska

will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of

polar bears and Pacific walrus for taking for subsistence uses.

Polar bear and Pacific walrus represent a small portion, in terms

of the number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the

villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. However, the low numbers do

not mean that the harvest of these species is not important to Alaska

Natives. Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to

us that a Plan of Cooperation has been presented to the subsistence

communities, the Eskimo Walrus Commission, the Alaska Nanuuq

Commission, and the North Slope Borough. The plan will ensure that oil

and gas activities will continue to not have an unmitigable adverse

impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence

uses. This Plan of Cooperation must provide the procedures on how

Industry will work with the affected Native communities and what

actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of

polar bear and walrus.

If there is evidence that oil and gas activities will affect, or in

the future may affect, the availability of polar bear or walrus for

take for subsistence uses, we will reevaluate our findings regarding

permissible limits of take and the measures required to ensure

continued subsistence hunting opportunities.

Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring plans are required to determine short-term and direct

effects of authorized oil and gas activities on polar bear and walrus

in the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent northern coast of Alaska.

Monitoring plans must identify the methods used to assess changes in

the movements, behavior, and habitat use of polar bear and walrus in

response to Industry's activities. Monitoring activities are summarized

and reported in a formal report each year. The applicant must submit an

annual monitoring and reporting plan at least 90 days prior to the

initiation of a proposed exploratory activity, and the applicant must

submit a final monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after

completion of the activity. We base each year's monitoring objective on

the previous year's monitoring results.

We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the

effects of oil and gas industry exploration, development, and

production activities on polar bear and walrus prior to issuance of an

LOA. Since development and production activities are continuous and

long-term, upon approval, LOAs and their required monitoring and

reporting plans will be issued for the life of the activity or until

the expiration of the regulations, whichever occurs first. Each year,

prior to January 15, we will require that the operator submit

development and production activity monitoring results of the previous

year's activity. We require annual approval of the monitoring results

for continued operation under the LOA.

Required Determinations

We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in

conjunction with this proposed rulemaking. Subsequent to closure of the

comment period for this proposed rule, we will decide whether this is a

major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human

environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. For a copy of the draft

Environmental Assessment, contact the individual identified above in

the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This document has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the

economy; will not adversely affect in a material way the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health of

safety, of State, local, or tribal governments or communities; will not

create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency; does not alter the budgetary

effects or entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights or obligations of their recipients; and does not raise novel

legal or policy issues. The proposed rule is not likely to result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100 million of more. Expenses will be

related to, but not necessarily limited to, the development of

applications for regulations and LOAs, monitoring, record keeping, and

reporting activities conducted during Industry oil and gas operations,

development of polar bear interaction plans, and coordination with

Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on subsistence

hunting. Compliance with the rule is not expected to result in

additional costs to Industry that it has not already been subjected to

for the previous 6 years. Realistically, these costs are minimal in

comparison to those related to actual oil and gas exploration,

development, and production operations. The actual costs to Industry to

develop the petition for promulgation of regulations (originally

developed in 1997) and LOA requests probably does not exceed $500,000

per year, short of the ``major rule'' threshold that would require

preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. As is presently the case,

profits would accrue to Industry; royalties and taxes would accrue to

the Government; and the rule would have little or no impact on

decisions by Industry to relinquish tracts and write off bonus

payments.

We have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

The proposed rule is also not likely to result in a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or government

agencies or have significant adverse effects on competition,

employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United

States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in

domestic or export markets.

We have also determined that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil

companies and their contractors conducting exploration, development,

and production activities in Alaska have been identified as the only

likely applicants under the regulations. These potential applicants

have not been identified as small businesses. The analysis for this

rule is available from the person in Alaska identified above in the

section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make

this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as

the following: (1)

[[Page 68980]]

Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule

contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the

rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter)

sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is preceded by the

symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, Sec. 18.123 When

is this rule effective? (5) Is the description of the rule in the

``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule

easier to understand?

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home

addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular

business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold

their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to

the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which

we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,

as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state that prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make

all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations

or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

This proposed rule is not expected to have a potential takings

implication under Executive Order 12630 because it would authorize the

incidental, but not intentional, take of polar bear and walrus by oil

and gas industry companies and thereby exempt these companies from

civil and criminal liability.

This proposed rule also does not contain policies with Federalism

implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment under Executive Order 13132. In accordance with the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.), this rule will not

``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small

Government Agency Plan is not required. The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Act that this rulemaking

will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on

local or State governments or private entities. This rule will not

produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e.,

it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant

to the Unfunded Mandates Act that this rulemaking will not impose a

cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State

governments or private entities.

The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these

regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

The information collection contained in this rule has been approved

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) and assigned clearance number

1018-0070. The OMB approval of our collection of this information will

expire in October 2001. The proposed section 18.129 contains the public

notice information--including identification of the estimated burden

and obligation to respond--required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Information from our Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program is cleared

under OMB Number 1018-0066 pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. For

information on our Marking, Tagging, and Report Program, see 50 CFR

18.23(f)(12).

Comments and materials received in response to this action are

available for public inspection during normal working hours of 8:00

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Office of Marine

Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,

Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,

Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Transportation.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to

amend Part 18, Subchapter B of Chapter 1, Title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as set forth below.

PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as

follows: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. Revise Subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas

Exploration, Development, and Production Activities in the Beaufort

Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of Alaska

Sec.

18.121 What specified activities does this rule cover?

18.122 In what specified geographic region does this rule apply?

18.123 When is this rule effective?

18.124 How do you obtain a Letter of Authorization?

18.125 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of

Authorization requests?

18.126 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?

18.127 What activities are prohibited?

18.128 What are the monitoring and reporting requirements?

18.129 What are the information collection requirements?

Sec. 18.121 What specified activities does this rule cover?

Regulations in this subpart apply to the incidental, but not

intentional, task of small numbers of polar bear and Pacific walrus by

you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec. 18.27(c)) while engaged in oil

and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the

Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. The offshore

exploration, development, and production facility, known as Northstart,

is covered by this rule. Further offshore development and production,

such as the proposed Liberty project, is not covered by this rule.

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

This rule applies to the specified geographic region defined by a

north/south line at Barrow, Alaska, and includes all Alaska coastal

areas, State waters, and Outer Continental Shelf waters east of that

line to the Canadian border and an area 25 miles inland from Barrow on

the west to the Canning River on the east. The Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge is excluded from this rule.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[[Page 68981]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09DE99.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 68982]]

Sec. 18.123 When is this rule effective?

Regulations in this subpart are effective January 31, 2000, through

January 31, 2003, for year-round oil and gas exploration, development,

and production activities.

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

(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec. 18.27(c) of this

part.

(b) If you are conducting an oil and gas exploration, development,

or production activity in the specified geographic region described in

Sec. 18.122 that may take a polar bear or Pacific walrus in execution

of those activities and desire incidental take authorization under this

rule, you must apply for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration

activity or a Letter of Authorization for each development and

production area. You must submit the application for authorization to

our Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90

days prior to the start of the proposed activity.

(c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the

following information:

(1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the

activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by

that activity.

(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the effects of the activity on

the behavior of polar bear and Pacific walrus that may be present

during the ongoing activities. Your monitoring program must document

the effects to these marine mammals and estimate the actual level and

type of take. The monitoring requirements will vary depending on the

activity, the location, and the time of year.

(3) A polar bear awareness and interaction plan. For the protection

of human life and welfare, each employee on site must complete a basic

polar bear encounter training course.

(4) A Plan of Cooperation to mitigate potential conflicts between

the proposed activity and subsistence hunting. This Plan of Cooperation

must identify measures to minimize adverse effects on the availability

of polar bear and Pacific walrus for subsistence uses if the activity

takes place in or near a traditional subsistence hunting area. You must

contact affected subsistence communities to discuss potential conflicts

caused by location, timing, and methods of proposed operations. You

must make reasonable efforts to assure that activities do not interfere

with subsistence hunting or that adverse effects on the availability of

polar bear or Pacific walrus are properly mitigated.

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

Authorization requests?

(a) When you request a Letter of Authorization, we will evaluate

each request for a Letter of Authorization based on the specific

activity and the specific geographic location. We will determine

whether the level of activity identified in the request exceeds that

considered by us in making a finding of negligible impact on the

species and a finding of no unmitigable adverse impact on the

availability of the species for take for subsistence uses. If the level

of activity is greater, we will reevaluate our findings to determine if

those findings continue to be appropriate based on the greater level of

activity that you have requested. Depending on the results of the

evaluation, we may allow the authorization to stand as is, add further

conditions, or withdraw the authorization.

(b) In accordance with Sec. 18.27(f)(5) of this part, we will make

decisions concerning withdrawals of Letters of Authorization, either on

an individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for

public comment.

(c) The requirement for notice and public comment in Sec. 18.125(b)

will not apply should we determine that an emergency exists that poses

a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stock of polar

bear or Pacific walrus.

Sec. 18.126 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?

(a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the incidental, but not

intentional, take of polar bear and Pacific walrus when you are

carrying out one or more of the following activities:

(1) Conducting geological and geophysical surveys and associated

activities;

(2) Drilling exploratory wells and associated activities;

(3) Developing oil fields and associated activities;

(4) Drilling production wells and performing production support

operations; and

(5) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with

exploration, development, and production activities to determine

associated impacts.

(b) You must use methods and conduct activities identified in your

Letter of Authorization in a manner that minimizes to the greatest

extent practicable adverse impacts on polar bear and Pacific walrus,

their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals for

subsistence uses.

(c) Each Letter of Authorization will identify allowable conditions

or methods that are specific to the activity and location.

Sec. 18.127 What activities are prohibited?

(a) Intentional take of polar bear or Pacific walrus; and

(b) Any take that fails to comply with the terms and conditions of

these specific regulations or of your Letter of Authorization.

Sec. 18.128 What are the monitoring and reporting requirements?

(a) We require holders of Letters of Authorization to cooperate

with us and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to

monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and

production activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus.

(b) Holders of Letters of Authorization must designate a qualified

individual or individuals to observe, record, and report on the effects

of their activities on polar bear and Pacific walrus.

(c) We may place an observer on site of the activity on board drill

ships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or

vehicles to monitor the impacts of your activity on polar bear and

Pacific walrus.

(d) For exploratory activities, holders of a Letters of

Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director

within 90 days after completion of activities. For development and

production activities, holders of a Letters of Authorization must

submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director by January 15 for the

preceding year's activities. Reports must include, at a minimum, the

following information:

(1) Dates and times of activity;

(2) Dates and locations of polar bear or Pacific walrus activity as

related to the monitoring activity; and

(3) Results of the monitoring activities including an estimated

level of take.

Sec. 18.129 What are the information collection requirements?

(a) The collection of information contained in this subpart has

been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned clearance

number 1018-0070. We need to collect the information in order to

describe the proposed activity and estimate the impacts of potential

taking by all persons conducting the activity. We will use the

information to evaluate the application and determine whether to issue

specific regulations and, subsequently, Letters of Authorization.

(b) For the initial year, we estimate your burden to be 200 hours

to develop an application requesting us to

[[Page 68983]]

promulgate incidental take regulations. For the initial year and

annually thereafter when you conduct operations under this rule, we

estimate an 8-hour burden per Letters of Authorization, a 4-hour burden

for monitoring, and an 8-hour burden per monitoring report. You must

respond to this information collection request to obtain a benefit

pursuant to Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. You

should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other

aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection Clearance

Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,

Mail Stop 222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, and the

Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1018-

0070), Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: November 17, 1999.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-31906 Filed 12-6-99; 12:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M