[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81529-81531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Extension of Deep Seabed Exploration Licenses: Response to
Comments
AGENCY: Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Due to a clerical error, comments submitted by the Center for
Biological Diversity on a requested extension of Deep Seabed Hard
Mineral Resources Act exploration licenses were not considered until
after the licenses were extended. After reviewing and considering those
comments, NOAA has found that they provide no basis for reconsidering
the requested license extensions or revising the now-extended licenses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Kerry Kehoe, Office for
Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, 301-563-1151,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 28, 2012, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration published a notice in the Federal
Register advising the public of a request from Lockheed Martin
Corporation (Lockheed Martin) to extend its two deep seabed mining
exploration licenses (USA-1 and USA-4) issued under the Deep Seabed
Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA). See 77 FR 12245. Comments on the
proposed extensions were requested at that time. Following the February
28, 2012, Notice, NOAA published a second notice in the Federal
Register announcing the extension of Licenses USA-1 and USA-4 through
2017, and discussing several comments received on the extensions. See
77 FR 40586 (July 10, 2012).
Comments submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
however, were not discussed in the July 10, 2012, notice. The CBD
comments were received by NOAA but, due to a clerical error, the
comments were not routed to the license extension reviewers who were
unaware of CBD's comments until after an inquiry was received from CBD
following the July 10, 2012, publication of the extension notice. Upon
review and consideration of CBD's comments, NOAA determined that the
extension of the exploration licenses should stand without modification
as CBD's comments were based on a misunderstanding of the nature and
scope of the license extensions.
Following the discovery of CBD's comments, the relevant Staff from
NOAA discussed the substance of the comments with CBD and described why
CBD's concerns as articulated in the comments were not relevant to the
USA-1 and USA-4 license extensions. In addition, NOAA is now publishing
a response to the CBD comments to address any public misconceptions
about the extension of the deep seabed mining exploration Licenses USA-
1 and USA-4.
General Response to the CBD Comments
The CBD comments pertain to activities not presently authorized
pursuant to the license extensions. Instead, the CBD comments are
relevant to at-sea exploration activities that, if pursued, would first
require additional NOAA approvals. See 77 FR 12246. As discussed below,
the extension of the Lockheed Martin exploration licenses merely serves
to preserve the legal status and any domestic and international
priority of rights that
[[Page 81530]]
Licenses USA-1 and USA-4 may confer.
As part of Lockheed Martin's request to extend the USA-1 and USA-4
exploration licenses, it submitted a two-phase exploration plan. This
two-phased plan is consistent with all the previous exploration plans
submitted since the issuance of these licenses. Phase I is a
preparatory stage which includes activities for which no license would
be required. Phase II includes activities for which an exploration
license may be required. The current exploration plan includes
statements anticipating that actual exploration activities might be
conducted under Phase II during the requested five-year extension;
however, those statements are qualified. Lockheed Martin has stated
that before it will conduct at-sea activities requiring an exploration
license (i.e., Phase II activities), international security of tenure
must first be obtained.\1\ In order for this to occur, the United
States must first accede to the Law of the Sea Convention. The United
States Department of State, in commenting on the requested license
extension, stated its view that for Lockheed Martin to proceed with
exploration activities without international recognition would be a
violation of the terms, conditions and restrictions of its license. In
the July 10, 2012, Federal Register notice for the issuance of the
extension for the explorations licenses, NOAA acknowledged and accepted
the Department of State's position. See 77 FR 12246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lockheed Martin has also stated that the market price of
metals would need to increase and stabilize to make the deep sea
recovery of such materials commercial viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin also provided NOAA written confirmation that no at-
sea exploration activities, which would require a license, would be
conducted without additional authorization from NOAA. Such
authorization would, at that time, be subject to all necessary
environmental reviews. Although Lockheed Martin may ultimately conduct
at-sea exploration activities pursuant to the USA-1 and USA-4 licenses,
such activities would require additional environmental review and NOAA
authorization before commencement of such exploration pursuant to these
licenses.
Accordingly, upon review and consideration of the CBD comments,
NOAA has found that the extension of the deep seabed mining exploration
licenses should stand without modification. NOAA's specific responses
to the CBD comments are provided below.
Response to CBD Comments
Comment 1: NOAA cannot extend the licenses or approve the
exploration plan unless it fully complies with the environmental review
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through the
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement which includes a full analysis of the impact of direct,
indirect and cumulative effects; alternatives; and mitigation measures
for the action, along with an opportunity for public review and
comment. It is inadequate for NOAA to rely on any prior NEPA analysis
as there is significant new information about the impacts of offshore
mineral exploration. While tiering to a previous environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) may be useful
in complying with NEPA, it does not eliminate the need to analyze the
impacts of site specific actions.
Response: NOAA disagrees that the Agency has failed to fully comply
with the requirements of NEPA.
NOAA has prepared a programmatic EIS in connection with potential
deep ocean mining activities.\2\ In addition, an EIS was prepared for
USA-1 and USA-4 \3\ at the time of issuance and an updated
environmental assessment was prepared in 1989 for the licenses.\4\ When
USA-4 was transferred to Lockheed Martin Company in 1994, an additional
environmental impact statement was prepared that noted that the EIS was
only being prepared to meet the requirements of DSHMRA to prepare an
EIS, and not those of NEPA as the transfer of the license would not
have significant environmental impacts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The programmatic EIS was prepared in 1981 which described
the results of the Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study (DOMES), a
five-year project designed to examine potential effects of nodule
mining. The review covered both exploration and commercial recovery
authorizations; however, it only assessed the environmental impacts
from first generation mining activities with the belief that there
would be a need for further assessments as the industry developed
and evolved. The PEIS found that data collection activities for
assessing resources and determining seafloor characteristics
presented no threat of significant adverse effects on the
environment. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining: Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Sept. 1981.
\3\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining: Final
Environmental Impact Statement, July 1984.
\4\ U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining: An
Updated Environmental Assessment of NOAA Deep Seabed Mining
Licensees' Exploration Plans, Jan. 1989.
\5\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining: Final
Environmental Impact Statement, November 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the instant license extensions, NOAA considered its
environmental compliance obligations and determined that, in order for
the Agency to conduct an environmental review, there must first be a
proposed activity to review. As discussed above, there is no action
triggered or authorized pursuant to the USA-1 and USA-4 license
extensions that has the potential to significantly affect the
environment. The extensions merely preserve any domestic or
international priority of rights the licenses may confer. Lockheed
Martin's revised exploration plan associated with the license
extensions, which like each other exploration plan submitted for these
licenses, has two phases with the first being preparatory land-side
activities that do not require any authorizations and the second
including actual at-sea exploration activities. Lockheed Martin has
noted that its Phase II activities are contingent upon a U.S. accession
to the Law of the Sea Convention and a substantial increase in the
market prices for metals; two events which have not occurred and are
not likely to occur prior to the end of the current term of the
licenses. Should Lockheed Martin decide to conduct any Phase II, at-sea
exploration in connection with USA-1 or USA-4, the terms of the
licenses require additional authorizations from NOAA and other federal
reviewing agencies prior to the commencement of any such activities.
Given the phased nature of these licenses and the uncertainty
associated with possible commencement of Phase II activities, NOAA
believes it would be premature at this stage to conduct the types of
environmental reviews suggested by commenter. Lockheed Martin has not
detailed the specific location(s) within the licensed exploration areas
where any future at-sea activities would be conducted. The company has
also not detailed the specifics of any exploration techniques,
equipment or intensity. Absent this type of information, any
environmental review conducted by NOAA would be speculative at best.
Instead, NOAA believes that environmental reviews, including those that
may be required under NEPA, are appropriate once Lockheed Martin has
decided to pursue NOAA authorization for Phase II activities. Such
environmental review will be subject to public review and comment, and
NOAA encourages CBD to participate in that process should Lockheed
Martin seek approval for Phase II activities.
Comment 2: The extension is an action that must comply with the
Endangered Species Act, Marine
[[Page 81531]]
Mammal Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Response: NOAA disagrees. As described in the response to comment 1
above, no action is presently triggered or authorized pursuant to the
USA-1 and USA-4 license extensions that has the potential to affect
protected species under the cited statutes. As such, NOAA is unaware
of, and commenter has not identified, any outstanding obligations with
respect to these statutes.
Comment 3. The initial phase of the application at issue here will
be comprised of surveys and other activities in preparation for mining.
These exploratory surveys have significant environmental impacts
including acoustic impacts from the use of seismic survey airguns,
mining and lighting impacts. Deepsea [sic] mining also generates waste,
noise, fuel or other spills, vessel traffic, sediment plumes, habitat
disturbance and destruction, and water quality problems. The license
should be denied because it is untenable for NOAA to make a finding
that the exploration proposed in the application cannot reasonably be
expected to result in significant adverse effect [sic] on the quality
of the environment as required for issuing a license under 15 CFR
970.506. Any license should be conditioned on measures that avoid these
environmental impacts.
Response: NOAA disagrees. Contrary to the assertion of the
commenter, the current license extensions do not authorize the at-sea
activities described in the comments. The requested license extensions
only extend the term of the licenses and do not authorize the types of
at-sea exploration activities cited by commenter. Indeed, conducting
such activities may be unnecessary as Lockheed Martin stands in a
unique position as a pre-enactment explorer (i.e., the company
conducted its exploration activities including the acquisition of
manganese nodules from the seafloor for assay purposes prior to the
enactment of the DSHMRA). When USA-4 was transferred to Lockheed Martin
in 1994 following the relinquishment of the license from the consortium
led by Kennecott Corporation, Lockheed Martin's request for the
transfer of the license stated that the company had no plans to conduct
at-sea exploration activities since it already had conducted sufficient
exploration prior to the enactment of DSHMRA. As noted above, when and
if Lockheed Martin decides to seek authorization to commence Phase II
activities, such authorization will trigger appropriate review of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed at-sea exploration
activities.
The CBD comments also contain an extensive discussion of the
impacts of airguns used to conduct seismic surveys. No such activities
have been proposed, let alone authorized.
Additionally, throughout the CBD comments the impacts of mining of
the deep seabed are also discussed. Mining has not been authorized nor
proposed. DSHMRA establishes a licensing requirement for exploration
activities and a separate permit requirement for commercial recovery
(i.e., mining). Both exploration licenses expressly prohibit the
licensee from even testing mining equipment without receiving further
authorization from NOAA. To date, no such authorizations have ever been
requested.
Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419
Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.
Dated: December 22, 2015.
Christopher C. Cartwright,
Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean
Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-32889 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P