[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13454-13493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5035]



[[Page 13453]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 48

March 11, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 18



Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 13454]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

[Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098; 71490-1351-0000-L5-FY11]
RIN 1018-AX32


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes regulations 
that would authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of 
small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses during year-round oil 
and gas industry (Industry) exploration, development, and production 
operations in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 
Industry operations for the covered period are similar to, and include 
all activities covered by the previous 5-year Beaufort Sea incidental 
take regulations that were effective from August 2, 2006, through 
August 2, 2011. We propose a finding that the total expected takings of 
polar bears and Pacific walruses during oil and gas industry 
exploration, development, and production activities will have a 
negligible impact on these species and will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence use 
by Alaska Natives. We base this finding on the results of 17 years of 
data on the encounters and interactions between polar bears, Pacific 
walruses, and Industry; recent studies of potential effects of Industry 
on these species; oil spill risk assessments; potential and documented 
Industry impacts on these species; and current information regarding 
the natural history and status of polar bears and Pacific walruses. We 
are proposing that this rule be effective for 5 years from date of 
issuance.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 11, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the 
following methods:
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203; Attention: Beaufort Sea 
Incidental Take Regulations; or
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-
FHC-2010-0098.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments Solicited section below for more 
information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Office of Marine Mammals 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, 
Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3810 or 1-800-362-5148, or 
Internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 
through the Director of the Service (we) the authority to allow the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 50 CFR 
18.27(c)] engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial 
fishing) in a specified geographic region. According to the MMPA, we 
shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding that the 
total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period will have no more 
than 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, and (2) we issue 
regulations that set forth (a) permissible methods of taking, (b) 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 (c) requirements for monitoring and reporting. If regulations 
allowing such incidental taking are issued, we issue Letters of 
Authorization (LOA) to conduct activities under the provisions of these 
regulations when requested by citizens of the United States.
    The term ``take,'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt, 
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any 
marine mammal. Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, 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'' (the MMPA calls this 
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'' (the MMPA calls 
this Level B harassment).
    The terms ``small numbers,'' ``negligible impact,'' and 
``unmitigable adverse impact'' are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., 
regulations governing small takes of marine mammals incidental to 
specified activities) as follows. ``Small numbers'' is defined as ``a 
portion of a marine mammal species or stock whose taking would have a 
negligible impact on that species or stock.'' It is necessary to note 
that the Service's analysis of ``small numbers'' complies with the 
agency's regulatory definition and is an appropriate reflection of 
Congress' intent. As was noted during the development of this 
definition (48 FR 31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself recognized the 
``imprecision of the term small numbers,'' but was unable to offer a 
more precise formulation because the concept is not capable of being 
expressed in absolute numerical limits.'' See H.R. Report No. 97-228 at 
19. Thus, Congress itself focused on the anticipated effects of the 
activity on the species and stated that authorization should be 
available to persons ``whose taking of marine mammals is infrequent, 
unavoidable, or accidental.''
    ``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 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.''
    Industry conducts activities such as oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production in marine mammal habitat that may result in 
the taking of marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal 
requirement to obtain incidental take authorization, since 1993, 
Industry has requested, and we have issued, a series of regulations for 
incidental take authorization for conducting activities in areas of 
polar bear and walrus habitat. Since the inception of these incidental 
take regulations (ITRs), polar bear/walrus monitoring observations 
associated with

[[Page 13455]]

the regulations have recorded over 2,000 polar bear observations 
associated with Industry activities. The large majority of reported 
encounters have been passive observations of bears moving through the 
oil fields. Monitoring of Industry activities indicates that encounters 
with walruses are insignificant with only 18 walruses recorded during 
the same period.
    A detailed history of our past regulations can be found in our most 
recent regulation, published on August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). In 
summary, these past regulations were published on: November 16, 1993 
(58 FR 60402); August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 28, 1999 (64 FR 
4328); February 3, 2000 (65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16828); 
November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66744); and August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926).

Summary of Current Request

    In 2009, the Service received a petition to promulgate a renewal of 
regulations for nonlethal incidental take of small numbers of walruses 
and polar bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of 5 years (2011-
2016). The request was submitted on April 22, 2009, by the Alaska Oil 
and Gas Association (AOGA) on behalf of its members and other 
participating parties. The petition is available at: (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm).
    AOGA's application indicates that they request regulations that 
will be applicable to any company conducting oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production activities as described within the request. 
This includes members of AOGA and other parties planning to conduct oil 
and gas operations in the geographic region. Members of AOGA 
represented in the petition include:
     Alyeska Pipeline Service Company;
     Anadarko Petroleum Corporation;
     BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.;
     Chevron USA, Inc.;
     Eni Petroleum;
     ExxonMobil Production Company;
     Flint Hills Resources, Inc.;
     Marathon Oil Company;
     Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.;
     Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.;
     Petro Star Inc.;
     Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc.;
     Shell Exploration & Production Company;
     Statoil Hydro;
     Tesoro Alaska Company; and
     XTO Energy, Inc.
    Other participating parties include ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 
(CPAI), CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation (BRPC), and 
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy Services. The 
activities and geographic region specified in AOGA's request, and 
considered in these regulations, are described in the ensuing sections 
titled ``Description of Geographic Region'' and ``Description of 
Activities.''
    Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J in 
response to this request, we must evaluate the level of industrial 
activities, their associated potential impacts to polar bears and 
Pacific walruses, and their effects on the availability of these 
species for subsistence use. The information provided by the 
petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas activities over this 
time frame will encompass onshore and offshore exploration, 
development, and production activities. The petitioners have also 
specifically requested that these regulations be issued for nonlethal 
take. Industry has indicated that, through implementation of the 
mitigation measures, it is confident a lethal take will not occur. The 
Service is tasked with analyzing the impact that lawful oil and gas 
industry activities will have on polar bears and walruses during normal 
operating procedures. In addition, the potential for impact by the oil 
and gas industry outside normal operating conditions warrant an 
analysis of the risk of an oil spill and its potential impact on polar 
bears and walruses.

Description of Proposed Regulations

    The regulations that we propose to issue include: Permissible 
methods of nonlethal taking; measures to ensure the least practicable 
adverse impact on the species and the availability of these species for 
subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and reporting. If 
promulgated, these regulations will not authorize, or ``permit,'' the 
actual activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development, 
and production. Rather, they will authorize the nonlethal incidental, 
unintentional take of small numbers of polar bears and Pacific walruses 
associated with those activities based on standards set forth in the 
MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting activities associated 
with oil and gas activities in Federal waters and on Federal lands. The 
State of Alaska is responsible for permitting activities on State lands 
and in State waters.
    If we finalize these nonlethal incidental take regulations, persons 
seeking taking authorization for particular projects will apply for an 
LOA to cover nonlethal take associated with exploration, development, 
or 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. A separate 
LOA is mandatory for each activity. We must receive applications for 
LOAs at least 90 days before the activity is to begin.
    Applicants must submit a plan to monitor the effects of authorized 
activities on polar bears and walruses. Applicants must include in 
their LOA request the time frame of proposed activities, the operating 
terms and conditions, a polar bear encounter and interaction plan, and 
a marine mammal monitoring plan.
    Applicants must also include a Plan of Cooperation (POC) describing 
the availability of these species for subsistence use by Alaska Native 
communities and how they may be affected by Industry operations. The 
purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and gas activities will not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species 
or the stock for subsistence uses. The POC must provide the procedures 
on how Industry will work with the affected Native communities, 
including a description of the necessary actions that will be taken to: 
(1) Avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of polar 
bears and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure continued availability of 
the species for subsistence use. The POC is further described in 
``Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses of 
Marine Mammals.''
    If regulations are implemented, we will evaluate each request for 
an LOA based on the specific activity and specific location, and may 
condition the LOA depending on specific circumstances for that activity 
and location. For example, an LOA issued in response to a request to 
conduct activities in areas with known, active bear dens or a history 
of polar bear denning, may be conditioned to require one or more of the 
following: Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights to determine 
the location of active polar bear dens; avoiding all denning activity 
by 1 mile; intensified monitoring in a 1-mile buffer around the den; or 
avoiding the area during the denning period. More information on 
applying for and receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).

Description of Geographic Region

    The geographic area covered by the requested incidental take 
regulations

[[Page 13456]]

(hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea Region) encompasses all 
Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through Point Barrow 
(71[deg]23'29'' N, -156 [deg]28'30'' W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 miles 
north of Point Barrow, including all Alaska State waters and Outer 
Continental Shelf waters, and east of that line to the Canadian border. 
The onshore region is the same north/south line at Barrow, 25 miles 
inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is not included in these regulations. The geographical extent of 
these regulations is similar as in previous regulations (71 FR 43926), 
where the offshore boundary is the Beaufort Sea Planning area, 
approximately 200 miles offshore.

Description of Activities

    Activities covered in these regulations include Industry 
exploration, development, and production operations of oil and gas 
reserves, as well as environmental monitoring associated with these 
activities, on the northern coast of Alaska. Throughout the five years 
that the future regulations will be in place, the petitioners expect 
similar types of oil and gas activities will occur at similar times of 
the year as under the prior regulations. Examples of future Industry 
activities include the completion of the Alpine Satellite Development, 
development of Point Thomson, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and areas in the 
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A). According to the 
petitioners, the locations of these operations are anticipated to be 
approximately equally divided among the onshore and offshore tracts 
presently under lease and to be leased during the period under 
consideration.
    Additionally, for the purpose of assessing possible impacts we 
anticipate, based on information provided by the petitioners, that 
these activities will occur equally spaced over time and area for the 
upcoming ice-covered and open-water seasons. Due to the large number of 
variables affecting Industry activities, prediction of exact dates and 
locations of operation for the open-water and ice-covered seasons is 
not possible at this time. However, operators must provide specific 
dates and locations of proposed activities prior to receiving an LOA.

Industry-Proposed Activities Considered Under Incidental Take 
Regulations

    Alaska's North Slope encompasses an area of 88,280 square miles and 
currently contains 11 oil and gas field units associated with Industry. 
These include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck Island, Badami, Northstar, 
Kuparuk River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq, Nikaitchuq, Milne 
Point, and Point Thomson. These units encompass exploration, 
development, and production activities. In addition, some of these 
fields include associated satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North, Eider, 
North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora, Midnight 
Sun, Borealis, West Beach, Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm, West 
Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine.

Exploration Activities

    As with previous regulations, exploration activities may occur 
onshore or offshore and include: Geological surveys; geotechnical site 
investigations; reflective seismic exploration; vibrator seismic data 
collection; airgun and water gun seismic data collection; explosive 
seismic data collection; vertical seismic profiles; sub-sea sediment 
sampling; construction and use of drilling structures such as caisson-
retained islands, ice islands, bottom-founded structures [steel 
drilling caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads; oil spill prevention, 
response, and cleanup; and site restoration and remediation. 
Exploration activities could also include the development of staging 
facilities. The level of exploration activities is expected to be 
similar to the level during the past regulatory periods, although 
exploration projects may shift to different locations, particularly the 
NPR-A.
    The location of new exploration activities within the geographic 
region of the rule will, in part, be determined by the following State 
and Federal oil and gas lease sales:

State of Alaska Lease Sales

    In 1996, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources 
(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted an ``area wide'' approach to 
leasing. Under area-wide leasing, the State offers all available state 
acreage not currently under lease within each area annually. The area 
of activity in this Petition includes the North Slope and Beaufort Sea 
planning areas. Lease sale data are available on the ADNR Web site at: 
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/index.htm. Industry activities may 
occur on state lease sales during the time period of the requested 
action. North Slope Area-wide lease sales are held annually in October. 
As of August 2008, there are 774 active leases on the North Slope, 
encompassing 971,245 hectares (2.4 million acres), and 224 active 
leases in the state waters of the Beaufort Sea, encompassing 249,000 
hectares (615,296 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 resulted in the 
sale of 60 tracts for a total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres). Eight 
lease sales have been held to date. As of July 2008, there are 38 
active leases in the Beaufort Sea area, encompassing 38,333 hectares 
(94,724 acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 resulted in the sale of 32 
tracts for a total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres).

Northwest and Northeast Planning Areas of NPR-A

    The BLM manages over 9 million hectares (23 million acres) in the 
NPR-A, including the Northwest (3.5 million hectares, 8.8 million 
acres), Northeast (1.8 hectares, 4.6 million acres), and South (3.6 
million hectares, 9 million acres) Planning Areas. The area of activity 
in this Petition includes the Northwest and Northeast areas.
    Oil and gas lease sales were held in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. 
The 2004 lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling 566,560 hectares (1.4 
million acres); the 2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering 380,350 hectares 
(939,867 acres); the 2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering 106,013 hectares 
(261,964 acres). From 2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were drilled 
in the Northeast and Northwest planning areas of the NPR-A. Current 
operator/ownership information is available on the BLM NPR-A Web site 
at http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra.html. 
Exploration activities were conducted on the FEX LP company leases in 
the Northwest Planning Area between 2006-2008. Exploration may continue 
where new areas have been selected. New project elements included 
exploration drilling at nine new ice drill pad locations (in the Uugaq, 
Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of new access 
corridor, and 34 new water sources.
    In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI applied for permits to begin a 
five-year (2006-2011) winter drilling program at 11 sites (Noatak, 
Nugget, Cassin and Spark DD prospects), including 177 km (110 mi) of 
new right-of-way corridors and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is 
planning to continue developing its program in the Northeast Planning 
Area throughout the duration of the requested regulations.

Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales

    The BOEMRE manages the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region 
encompassing 242 million hectares (600 million acres). In February, 
2003, Minerals Management Service (MMS) (now known as the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued 
the

[[Page 13457]]

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for three lease sales 
planned for the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale 186, 195, and 202. 
Sale 186 was held in 2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts 
encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810 acres). Sale 195 was held in 
2005, resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts encompassing 245,760 
hectares (607,285 acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007, resulting in the 
leasing of 90 tracts covering 198,580 hectares (490,700 acres). Leasing 
information from BOEMRE is located at http://www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease Sale 217, is planned for 
2011. BOEMRE has begun preparing the multiple-sale EIS for these areas. 
The Draft EIS was released in November 2008 and is located at http://www.BOEMRE.gov/alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm. 
While the disposition of the leases is highly speculative at this time, 
it is probable that at least some seismic exploration and possibly some 
exploratory drilling will take place during the 5-year period of the 
regulations.
    Exploratory drilling for oil occurs onshore, in inland areas, or in 
the offshore environment. Exploratory drilling and associated support 
activities and features may include: Transportation to site; setup and 
relocation of up to 100-person camps and support camps (lights, 
generators, snow removal, water plants, wastewater plants, dining 
halls, sleeping quarters, mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing 
strips, aircraft support, health and safety facilities, data recording 
facilities and communication equipment); building gravel pads; building 
gravel islands with sandbag and concrete block protection; ice islands; 
ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mine sites; road building; pipelines; 
electrical lines; water lines; road maintenance; buildings and 
facilities; operating heavy equipment; digging trenches; burying and 
covering pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security operations; 
dredging; moving floating drill units; helicopter support; and drill 
ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson (SDC), CANMAR Explorer III, 
and the Kulluk.
    During the regulatory period, exploration activities are 
anticipated to occur in the offshore environment and continue in the 
current oil field units, including those projects identified by 
Industry below.

Point Thomson

    The Point Thomson reservoir is approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of 
the Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR issued a conditional interim 
decision that allows for the drilling of two wells by 2010 and 
commencing production by 2014. Following startup of production from 
Point Thomson in 2014, field development is expected to include 
additional liquids production and sale of gas. Field development will 
require additional wells, field facilities, and pipelines. The timing 
and nature of additional facilities and expansions will depend upon 
initial field performance and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to 
export gas off the North Slope.

Ataruq (Two Bits)

    The Ataruq project is permitted for construction but, not 
completely permitted for operation. This Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas 
Corporation project is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) northwest of the 
Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists of two 
onshore prospects and covers about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It 
includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and a single gravel pad with 
production facilities and up to 20 wells in secondary containment 
modules. The processed fluids will be transported to DS 2M via a pipe-
in-a-pipe buried line within the access road. After drilling, the 
facility will be normally unmanned.

Shell Offshore Exploration Activities

    Shell anticipates conducting an exploration drilling program, 
called the Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska OCS leases located in the 
Beaufort Sea during the arctic drilling seasons of 2011-2016. 
Presently, the arctic drilling seasons are generally considered to be 
from July through October in the Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a 
floating drilling vessel complimented by ice management and oil spill 
response (OSR) barges and/or vessels to accomplish exploration and/or 
delineation drilling during each arctic drilling season. An open water 
program in support of the development of Shell's Beaufort Sea leases 
will involve a site clearance and shallow hazards study as well. A 
detailed description of an offshore drilling activity of this nature 
can be found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under 
``LOA Applications for Public Viewing.''

ION Seismic Activity

    ION is planning an open water seismic program in the late open-
water and into the ice-covered season, which will consist of an 
estimated 3,000 miles of 2D seismic line acquisition and site clearance 
surveys in the eastern Beaufort Sea. The open water seismic program 
will consist of two vessels, one active in seismic acquisition and the 
second providing logistical support and ice breaking capabilities. An 
offshore open water seismic program is proposed to occur between 
September through October 2011.

Development Activities

    Development activities associated with oil and gas Industry 
operations include: Road construction; pipeline construction; waterline 
construction; gravel pad construction; camp construction (personnel, 
dining, lodging, maintenance, water production, wastewater treatment); 
transportation (automobile, airplane, and helicopter); runway 
construction; installation of electronic equipment; well drilling; 
drill rig transport; personnel support; and demobilization, 
restoration, and remediation.

Alpine Satellites Development

    CPAI has proposed to develop oil and gas from five satellites. Two 
proposed satellites known as CD-3 (CD North during exploration) and CD-
4 (CD South) are in the Colville Delta. The CD-3 drill site is located 
north of CD-1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless development accessed 
by a gravel airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD-4 drill site is 
connected to the main production pad via a gravel road. Production 
start-up of CD-3 and CD-4 drill sites occurred in late summer 2006. 
Three other proposed satellites known as CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 (Alpine 
West, Lookout, and Spark, respectively, during exploration) are in the 
NPR-A. These remaining three drill sites are proposed to be connected 
to CD-2 via road and bridge over the Niglilq Channel from CD-5. The 
other two drill sites are planned to be connected to CD-5 via road; 
however, the permitting for these scenarios has not been completed. 
Development of five drill sites is planned by CPAI in the immediate 
future in the Alpine development area and could occur within the 
regulatory period. Production of CD-5, CD-6, and CD-7 could also occur 
during the regulatory period.

Liberty

    BPXA is currently in the process of developing the Liberty field, 
where the use of ultra extended-reach drilling (uERD) technology will 
access an offshore reservoir from existing onshore facilities. The 
Liberty reservoir is located in federal waters in Foggy Island Bay 
about 13 km (8 mi) east of the Endicott Satellite Drilling Island 
(SDI). Liberty prospect is located approximately 5.5 miles offshore in 
20 ft of water. The development of Liberty was first proposed in 1998 
when BPXA submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then

[[Page 13458]]

MMS) for a production facility on an artificial island in Foggy Island 
Bay. In 2002, BPXA put the project on hold to review project design and 
economics after the completion of BPXA's Northstar project. In August 
2005, BPXA moved the project onshore to take advantage of advances in 
extended reach drilling. Liberty wells will extend as much as 8 miles 
offshore. Drilling of the initial Liberty development well and first 
oil production is planned to occur during the 5-year period of the 
proposed action.

North Shore Development

    Brooks Range Petroleum Company (BRPC) is proposing the North Shore 
Development Project to produce oil from several relatively small, 
isolated hydrocarbon accumulations on the North Slope. The fields are 
close to existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, where production will 
concentrate on the Ivishak and Sag River sands prospects. Horizontal 
drilling technology and long-reach wells will be used to maximize 
production while minimizing surface impacts. BRPC expects to recover 
between five and ten million barrels of oil, and future exploration 
success could increase the reserves.

Potential Gas Pipeline

    Two companies are currently proposing to construct a natural gas 
pipeline that would transport natural gas from the North Slope to North 
American markets. The two proposed projects are discussed below, 
although it is expected that only one pipeline would be constructed. 
Only a small portion (40 km [25 mi] inland) of a pipeline would occur 
within the specified area of activity covered under this Petition. 
Initial stages of the gas pipeline development, such as environmental 
studies and route selection, could occur during the 5-year period of 
the requested action.
    One project is proposed by the Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali), a 
company jointly owned by BP Alaska Gas Pipelines LLC and the 
ConocoPhillips Denali Company. The Denali natural gas pipeline project 
is expected to include a gas treatment plant on the North Slope and 
approximately 3,220 km (2,000 mi) of large-diameter natural gas 
transmission pipeline beginning on the North Slope and terminating in 
the vicinity of the British Columbia-Alberta, Canada border. The Alaska 
portion of the project would generally follow the Dalton Highway south 
from the North Slope.
    The second project is proposed by the TransCanada Corporation. The 
Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was passed into law by the State 
of Alaska in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation was selected by the 
State of Alaska in August 2008 as the exclusive recipient of the AGIA 
license. TransCanada Corporation is currently in the planning stages of 
developing the Alaska Pipeline Project, which will move natural gas 
from Alaska to North American markets. The project is planned to 
stretch approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from Prudhoe Bay to the 
British Columbia/Alberta border near Boundary Lake.

Nikaitchuq Unit

    The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near Spy Island, north of Oliktok 
Point and the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest of the Milne Point 
Unit. Former operator Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation drilled three 
exploratory wells on and immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4 miles 
north of Oliktok Point in the ice-covered season of 2004-2005. The 
current operator, Eni, is moving to develop this site as a future 
production area. Future drilling will be from a small gravel island 
shoreward of the barrier islands. Additional operations will include 
approximately 13 miles of underground pipeline connecting the offshore 
sites to a mainland landfall and onshore facilities pad near Oliktok 
Point.

Production Activities

    Existing North Slope production operations extend from the oilfield 
units of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson and Badami in the east. 
Badami and Alpine are developments without permanent access roads; 
access is available to these fields by airstrips, barges, and seasonal 
ice roads. Oil pipelines extend from these fields and connect to the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield developments 
include a series of major fields and their associated satellite fields. 
In some cases a new oilfield discovery has been developed completely 
using existing infrastructure. Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit 
encompasses the Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North 
Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis, Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora, 
and Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk oilfield development 
incorporates the Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, and Meltwater 
oilfields.
    Production activities include: Personnel transportation 
(automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons, cat trains, and 
snowmobiles); and unit operations (building operations, oil production, 
oil transport, restoration, remediation, and improvement of oil field 
operations). Production activities are permanent, year-round 
activities, whereas exploration and development activities are usually 
temporary and seasonal.
    Only production units and facilities operated by BP Exploration 
Alaska, Inc. and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have been covered under 
previous incidental take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay, Endicott, 
Milne Point, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine, 
respectively). Now the Oooguruk field, operated by Pioneer, is 
currently producing as well.

Prudhoe Bay Unit

    The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest oilfield by production in 
North America and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields ever discovered 
worldwide. Over 11 billion barrels have been produced from a field 
originally estimated to have 25 billion barrels of oil in place. The 
Prudhoe Bay field also contains an estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of 
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 wells are currently in 
operation in the greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over 900 of which 
are producing oil (others are for gas or water injection).
    The total development area in the Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately 
2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base Operations Center on the western 
side of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can accommodate 476 people, the nearby 
Main Construction Camp can accommodate up to 680 people, and the 
Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the eastern side of the field houses 
up to 488 people. Additional contract or construction personnel can be 
housed at facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in temporary camps placed 
on existing gravel pads.

Kuparuk River Unit

    The Kuparuk oilfield is the second-largest producing oilfield in 
North America. More than 2.6 billion barrels of oil are expected to be 
produced from this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area includes the 
satellite oilfields of Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and Meltwater. 
These satellite fields have been developed using existing facilities. 
To date, nearly 900 wells have been drilled in the Greater Kuparuk 
Area. The total development area in the Greater Kuparuk Area is 
approximately 603 hectares (1,508 acres), including 167 km (104 mi) of 
gravel roads, 231 km (144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine sites, and 
over 50 gravel pads.
    The Kuparuk Operations Center and Kuparuk Construction Camp are 
able to accommodate up to 1,200 people. The Kuparuk Industrial Center 
is primarily

[[Page 13459]]

used for personnel overflow during the winter in years with a large 
amount of construction.

Greater Point McIntyre

    The Greater Point McIntyre Area encompasses the Point McIntyre 
field and nearby satellite fields of West Beach, North Prudhoe Bay, 
Niakuk, and Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre area is located 11.3 km 
(7 mi) north of Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988 and came online 
in 1993. BPXA produces the Point McIntyre area from two drill site 
gravel pads. The field's production peaked in 1996 at 170,000 barrels 
per day, whereas in 2006 production averaged 21,000 barrels per day 
with just over 100 wells in operation. Cumulative oil production as of 
December 31, 2006, was 738 million barrels of oil equivalent.

Milne Point

    Located approximately 56 km (35 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the 
Milne Point oilfield was discovered in 1969 and began production in 
1985. The field consists of more than 220 wells drilled from 12 gravel 
pads. Milne Point produces from three main fields: Kuparuk, Schrader 
Bluff, and Sag River. Cumulative oil production as of December 31, 
2006, was 248 million barrels of oil equivalent. The total area of 
Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4 hectares (236 acres) of tundra, 
including 31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40 mi) of pipelines, 
and one gravel mine site. The Milne Point Operations Center has 
accommodations for up to 300 people. It is estimated that the Ugnu 
reservoir contains roughly 20 billion barrels of heavy oil in place. 
BPXA's reservoir scientists and engineers conservatively estimate that 
roughly 10 percent of that resource, or 2 billion barrels, could be 
recoverable. Currently, cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) 
technology is being tested at Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a 
multiyear technology testing and research program initiated at Milne 
Point in 2007.

Endicott

    The Endicott oilfield is located approximately 16 km (10 mi) 
northeast of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first continuously producing 
offshore field in the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was developed 
from two man-made gravel islands connected to the mainland by a gravel 
causeway. The operations center and processing facilities are located 
on the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main Production Island. Approximately 80 
wells have been drilled to develop the field. Two satellite fields 
drilled from Endicott's Main Production Island access oil from the 
Ivishak formation: Eider produces about 110 barrels per day, and Sag 
Delta North produces about 117 barrels per day. The total area of 
Endicott development is 156.8 hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km 
(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine site. 
Approximately 100 people are housed at the Endicott Operations Center.

Badami

    Production began from the Badami oilfield in 1998, but has not been 
continuous. The Badami field is located approximately 56 km (35 mi) 
east of Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most easterly oilfield 
development on the North Slope. The Badami development area is 
approximately 34 hectares (85 acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi) 
of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of pipeline, one gravel mine site, and 
two gravel pads with a total of eight wells. There is no permanent road 
connection from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The pipeline connecting the 
Badami oilfield to the common carrier pipeline system at Endicott was 
built from an ice road. The cumulative production is five million 
barrels of oil equivalent. This field is currently in ``warm storage'' 
status, i.e., site personnel are minimized and the facility is 
maintained at a minimal level. Additionally, it currently is not 
producing oil reserves at this time. BPXA recently entered into an 
agreement with Savant LLC; under this agreement Savant will drill an 
exploration well in the winter of 2009 and potentially add an 
additional well in 2010. Depending on the outcome of these drilling 
programs, Badami could resume production.

Alpine

    Discovered in 1996, the Alpine oilfield began production in 
November 2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield on the North Slope, 
located 50 km (31 mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14 km (9 mi) 
northeast of the village of Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir 
covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres), it has been developed from 65.9 
hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and associated roads. Alpine features a 
combined production pad/drill site and three additional drill sites 
with an estimated 172 wells. There is no permanent road connecting 
Alpine with the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are used to provide 
supplies and crew changeovers. Major resupply activities occur in the 
winter, using the ice road that is constructed annually between the two 
fields. The Alpine base camp can house approximately 540 employees.

Northstar

    The Northstar oilfield was discovered in 1983 and developed by BPXA 
in 1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6 km (4 mi) northwest of the 
Point McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet 
of water. The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre) reservoir has now been 
developed from a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island. Production from 
the Northstar reservoir began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5-acre) 
island will eventually contain 19 producing wells, six gas injector 
wells, and one solids injection well. A subsea pipeline connects 
facilities to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to Northstar is via 
helicopter, hovercraft, and boat.

Oooguruk Unit

    The Oooguruk Unit is located adjacent to and immediately northwest 
of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea, near 
Thetis Island. Unit production began in 2008. Facilities include an 
offshore drill site and onshore production facilities pad. In addition, 
a subsea 5.7-mile flowline transports produced fluids from the offshore 
drill site to shore, where it transitions to an aboveground flowline 
supported on vertical support members for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the 
onshore facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares (8.2 acres). The 
offshore drill site (2.4 hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support 48 
wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are 
contained in well bay modules, with capacity for an additional 12 
wells, if needed. Pioneer is additionally proposing production 
facilities west of KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas leases. The 
contemplated facilities consist of two drill sites near the Colville 
River delta mouth, a tie-in pad adjacent to DS-3S, gravel roads, flow 
lines, and power lines. Drilling of the initial appraisal well is 
planned to start in 2013, with first oil production as early as 2015.
    During the time period of the previous ITRs (2006-2011), three 
development projects were described as possibly moving into the 
production phase. Currently, only Oooguruk is producing. The two other 
developments, Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West Development, have not 
begun to produce oil to their fullest capacity. Concurrently, there are 
two additional developments that could be producing oil during the 
regulatory period. They are the Liberty and North Shore developments.
    Proposed production activities will increase the total area of the 
Industrial

[[Page 13460]]

footprint by the addition of new facilities, such as drill pads, 
pipelines, and support facilities, in the geographic region; however, 
oil production volume is expected to continue to decrease during this 
5-year regulatory period, despite new fields initiating production. 
This is due to current producing fields reducing output and new fields 
not maintaining the loss of that output. Current monitoring and 
mitigation measures, described later, will be kept in place.

Evaluation of the Nature and Level of Proposed Activities

    During the period covered by the proposed regulations, we 
anticipate the annual level of activity at existing production 
facilities, as well as levels of new annual exploration and development 
activities, will be similar to that which occurred under the previous 
regulations, although exploration and development may shift to 
different locations and new production facilities will add to the 
overall Industry footprint. Additional onshore and offshore production 
facilities are being considered within the timeframe of these 
regulations, potentially adding to the total permanent activities in 
the area. The progress is similar to prior production schedules, but 
there is a potential increase in the accumulation of the industrial 
footprint, with an increase mainly in onshore facilities.

Biological Information

Pacific Walrus

    The Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), is represented by 
a single population of animals inhabiting the shallow continental shelf 
waters of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The distribution of Pacific 
walruses varies markedly with seasons. During the late winter breeding 
season, walruses are found in areas of the Bering Sea where open leads, 
polynyas, or areas of broken pack ice occur. Significant winter 
concentrations are normally found in the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. 
Lawrence Island Polynya, and in an area south of Nunivak Island. In the 
spring and early summer, most of the population follows the retreating 
pack ice northward into the Chukchi Sea; however, several thousand 
animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering Sea, utilizing 
coastal haulouts during the ice-free season. During the summer months, 
walruses are widely distributed across the shallow continental shelf 
waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer concentrations are 
normally found in the unconsolidated pack ice west of Point Barrow, and 
along the northern coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of Wrangell 
Island. Small herds of walruses occasionally range east of point Barrow 
into the Beaufort Sea in late summer. As the ice edge advances 
southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and re-group on 
the Bering Sea pack ice.

Population Status

    The size of the Pacific walrus population has never been known with 
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th 
centuries, Fay (1957) speculated that the pre-exploitation population 
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time, 
population size is believed to have fluctuated markedly in response to 
varying levels of human exploitation. Large-scale commercial harvests 
are believed to have reduced the population to 50,000-100,000 animals 
in the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1989). The population appears to have 
increased rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s in response to 
harvest regulations and reductions in hunting pressure (Fay et al. 
1989). Between 1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys were carried out by 
the United States and Russia at 5-year intervals, producing population 
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006, U.S. and 
Russian researchers surveyed walrus groups in the pack ice of the 
Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems to detect walruses hauled out 
on sea ice and satellite transmitters to account for walruses in the 
water. The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at 
129,000 with 95 percent confidence limits of 55,000 to 507,000 
individuals. Previous aerial survey results are highly variable and not 
directly comparable among years because of differences in survey 
methods, timing of surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and 
incomplete coverage of areas where walrus may have been present. 
Because of such issues, existing abundance estimates do not provide a 
basis for determining trends in population size.
    Changes in walrus population status have also been investigated by 
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence 
of changes in abundance, distributions, condition indices, and life-
history parameters, Fay et al. (1989) and Fay et al. (1997) concluded 
that the Pacific walrus population increased greatly in size during the 
1960s and 1970s, and postulated that the population was approaching, or 
had exceeded, the carrying capacity of its environment by the early 
1980s. Harvest increased in the 1980s. Changes in the size, 
composition, and productivity of the sampled walrus harvest in the 
Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this timeframe are consistent with 
this hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Harvest levels declined 
sharply in the early 1990s, and increased reproductive rates and 
earlier maturation in females occurred, suggesting that density-
dependent feedback mechanisms had been relaxed and the population had 
likely dropped below carrying capacity (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). 
However, it is unknown whether density-dependent changes in life-
history parameters were mediated by changes in population abundance or 
changes in the carrying capacity of the environment (Garlich-Miller et 
al. 2006).

Habitat

    Walruses rely on floating pack ice as a substrate for resting and 
giving birth. Walruses generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (20 
in) or more to support their weight. Although walruses can break 
through ice up to 20 cm (8 in) thick, they usually occupy areas with 
natural openings and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice 
(Fay 1982). Thus, their concentrations in winter tend to be in areas of 
divergent ice flow or along the margins of persistent polynyas. 
Concentrations in summer tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack 
ice, usually within 100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of the ice pack 
(Gilbert 1999). When suitable pack ice is not available, walruses haul 
out to rest on land. Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, points, 
and headlands, are most frequently occupied. Social factors, learned 
behavior, and proximity to their prey base are also thought to 
influence the location of haulout sites. Traditional walrus haulout 
sites in the eastern Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, Cape Lisburne, 
and Icy Cape. In recent years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site has seen 
regular use in late summer. Numerous haulouts also exist along the 
northern coastline of Chukotka, and on Wrangell and Herald islands, 
which are considered important haul-out areas in September, especially 
in years when the pack ice retreats far to the north.
    Although capable of diving to deeper depths, walruses are generally 
found in shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less, possibly because of 
higher productivity of their benthic foods in shallower water. They 
feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates although Native 
hunters have also reported incidences of walruses preying on seals. 
Prey densities are thought to vary across the continental shelf 
according to sediment

[[Page 13461]]

type and structure. Preferred feeding areas are typically composed of 
sediments of soft, fine sands. The juxtaposition of ice over 
appropriate depths for feeding is especially important for females and 
their dependent young that are not capable of deep diving or long 
exposure in the water. The mobility of the pack ice is thought to help 
prevent walruses from overexploiting their prey resource (Ray et al. 
2006). Foraging trips may last for several days, during which time they 
dive to the bottom nearly continuously. Most foraging dives to the 
bottom last between 5 and 10 minutes, with a relatively short (1-2 
minute) surface interval. The intensive tilling of the sea floor by 
foraging walruses is thought to have significant influence on the 
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas. Foraging activity recycles 
large quantities of nutrients from the sea floor back into the water 
column, provides food for scavenger organisms, and contributes greatly 
to the diversity of the benthic community.

Life History

    Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction. 
Females reach sexual maturity at 4-9 years of age. Males become fertile 
at 5-7 years of age; however, they are usually unable to compete for 
mates until they reach full physical maturity at 15-16 years of age. 
Breeding occurs between January and March in the pack ice of the Bering 
Sea. Calves are usually born in late April or May the following year 
during the northward migration from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea. 
Calving areas in the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering Strait to 
latitude 70[deg]N. (Fay et al. 1984). Calves are capable of entering 
the water shortly after birth, but tend to haulout frequently, until 
their swimming ability and blubber layer are well developed. Newborn 
calves are tended closely. They accompany their mother from birth and 
are usually not weaned for 2 years or more. Cows brood newborns to aid 
in their thermoregulation (Fay and Ray 1968), and carry them on their 
back or under their flipper while in the water (Gehnrich 1984). Females 
with newborns often join together to form large ``nursery herds'' 
(Burns 1970). Summer distribution of females and young walruses is 
closely tied to the movements of the pack ice relative to feeding 
areas. Females give birth to one calf every two or more years. This 
reproductive rate is much lower than other pinniped species; however, 
some walruses live to age 35-40 and remain reproductively active until 
relatively late in life.
    Walruses are extremely social and gregarious animals. They tend to 
travel in groups and haulout onto ice or land in groups. Walruses spend 
approximately one-third of their time hauled out onto land or ice. 
Hauled-out walruses tend to lie in close physical contact with each 
other. Youngsters often lie on top of the adults. The size of the 
hauled out groups can range from a few animals up to several thousand 
individuals.

Mortality

    Polar bears are known to prey on walrus calves, and killer whales 
(Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of walruses 
(Frost et al. 1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005). Predation levels are 
thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout sites where large 
aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few observations exist 
for off-shore environs.
    Pacific walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and 
Chukotka for thousands of years. Exploitation of the Pacific walrus 
population by Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since 
first contact. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is 
restricted to meet the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples. The 
Service, in partnership with the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) and the 
Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka, 
administered subsistence harvest monitoring programs in Alaska and 
Chukotka in 2000-2005. Harvest mortality over this timeframe averaged 
5,458 walruses per year. This mortality estimate includes corrections 
for under-reported harvest and struck and lost animals.
    Intra-specific trauma is also a known source of injury and 
mortality. Disturbance events can cause walruses to stampede into the 
water and have been known to result in injuries and mortalities. The 
risk of stampede-related injuries increases with the number of animals 
hauled out. Calves and young animals at the perimeter of these herds 
are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries.

Distributions and Abundance of Pacific Walruses in the Beaufort Sea

    The distribution of Pacific walruses is thought to be influenced 
primarily by the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In May and June, most 
of the Pacific walrus population migrates through the Bering Strait 
into the Chukchi Sea. Walruses tend to migrate into the Chukchi Sea 
along lead systems that develop along the northwest coast of Alaska. 
Walruses are expected to be closely associated with the southern edge 
of the seasonal pack ice during the open water season. By July, large 
groups of walruses, up to several thousand animals, can be found along 
the edge of the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point Barrow. During 
August, the edge of the pack ice generally retreats northward to about 
71[deg]N, but in light ice years, the ice edge can retreat beyond 
76[deg]N. The sea ice normally reaches its minimum (northern) extent in 
September. In years when the sea ice retreats beyond the relatively 
shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea, some animals 
migrate west towards Chukotka, while others have been observed hauling 
out along the shoreline between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In 
recent years, coastal haulouts in Chukotka Russia have seen regular and 
persistent use in the fall. Russian biologists attribute the increased 
use of these coastal haulouts to diminishing sea ice habitat. A similar 
event was recorded along the Alaskan coastline in August-September 
2007, 2009, and 2010 when several thousand animals were reported along 
the Chukchi Sea coast between Barrow and Cape Lisburne. The pack ice 
usually advances rapidly southward in October, and most walruses are 
thought to have moved into the Bering Sea by mid to late November.
    Although most walruses remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the 
summer months, small numbers of animals occasionally range into the 
Beaufort Sea in late summer. A total of 18 walrus sightings have been 
reported as a result of Industry monitoring efforts over the past 20 
years (Kalxdorff and Bridges 2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two sightings 
occurred in 1996; one involved a single animal observed from a seismic 
vessel near Point Barrow, and a second animal was sighted during an 
aerial survey approximately 5 miles northwest of Howe Island. In 1997, 
another single animal was sighted during an aerial survey approximately 
20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998, a dead walrus was observed on 
Pingok Island being scavenged by polar bears. One walrus was observed 
hauled out near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In 2004, one walrus was 
observed 50 m from the Saltwater Treatment Plant, on West Dock. In 
addition, walrus have been observed on the armor of Northstar Island 
three times since 2001; in 2004, three walrus were observed on the 
armor in two separate instances. Between 2005 and 2009 additional 
walruses were recorded.

Climate Change

    Analyses of long-term environmental data sets indicate that 
substantial

[[Page 13462]]

reductions in both the extent and thickness of the arctic sea-ice cover 
have occurred over the past 40 years. Record minimum sea ice extent was 
recorded in 2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea ice cover in 2003 and 
2004 was also substantially below the 20-year mean. Walruses rely on 
suitable sea ice as a substrate for resting between foraging bouts, 
calving, molting, isolation from predators, and protection from storm 
events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over shallow-shelf habitat 
suitable for benthic feeding is important to walruses. Recent trends in 
the Chukchi Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice retreat off the 
continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting 
significant adaptive challenges to walruses in the region. Reasonably 
foreseeable impacts to walruses as a result of diminishing sea ice 
cover include: Shifts in range and abundance, such as hauling out on 
land and potential movements into the Beaufort Sea; increased 
vulnerability to predation and disturbance; declines in prey species; 
increased mortality rates resulting from storm events; and premature 
separation of females and dependent calves. Secondary effects on animal 
health and condition resulting from reductions in suitable foraging 
habitat may also influence survivorship and productivity. Future 
studies investigating walrus distributions, population status and 
trends, and habitat use patterns are important for responding to walrus 
conservation and management issues associated with environmental and 
habitat changes.

Polar Bear

    The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was listed as threatened, range-
wide, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 15, 2008, due to 
loss of sea ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 28212). The 
Service published a final special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA 
for the polar bear on December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides 
for measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of 
polar bears. This means that this special 4(d) rule: (a) In most 
instances, adopts the conservation regulatory requirements of the MMPA 
and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the polar bear as the appropriate 
regulatory provisions for the polar bear; (b) provides that incidental, 
nonlethal take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the 
bear's current range is not prohibited under the ESA; (c) clarifies 
that the special rule does not alter the Section 7 consultation 
requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies the standard ESA protections 
for threatened species when an activity is not covered by an MMPA or 
CITES authorization or exemption.
    Polar bears occur throughout the arctic. In Alaska, they have been 
observed as far south in the eastern Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island 
and the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). However, they are most commonly 
found within 180 miles of the Alaskan coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort 
Seas, from the Bering Strait to the Canadian border. Two stocks occur 
in Alaska: (1) The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and (2) the Southern 
Beaufort Sea stock (SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks 
are described below. A detailed description of the CS and SBS polar 
bear stocks can be found in the ``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar 
Bear (Ursus maritimus)'' (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm).
    Management and conservation concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear 
populations include: Climate change, which continues to increase both 
the expanse and duration of open water in summer and fall; human 
activities within the near-shore environment, including oil and gas 
activities; atmospheric and oceanic transport of contaminants into the 
Arctic; and over-harvest, should polar bear stocks become nutritionally 
stressed or decline due to some combination of the afore-mentioned 
threats.

Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS)

    The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska. 
Radio-telemetry data, combined with earlier tag returns from harvested 
bears, suggest that the SBS region comprised a single population with a 
western boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an eastern boundary near 
Pearce Point, Northwest Territories, Canada. Early estimates from the 
mid 1980s suggested the size of the SBS population was approximately 
1,800 polar bears, although uneven sampling was known to compromise the 
accuracy of that estimate. A population analysis of the SBS stock was 
completed in June 2006 through joint research coordinated between the 
United States and Canada. That analysis indicated the population of the 
region between Icy Cape and Pearce Point is now approximately 1,500 
polar bears (95 percent confidence intervals approximately 1,000-
2,000). Although the confidence intervals of the current population 
estimate overlap the previous population estimate of 1,800, other 
statistical and ecological evidence (e.g., high recapture rates 
encountered in the field) suggest that the current population is 
actually smaller than has been estimated for this area in the past.
    Recent analyses of radio-telemetry data of spatio-temporal use 
patterns of bears of the SBS stock using new spatial modelling 
techniques suggest realignment of the boundaries of the SBS area. We 
now know that nearly all bears in the central coastal region of the 
Beaufort Sea are from the SBS population, and that proportional 
representation of SBS bears decreases to both the west and east. For 
example, only 50 percent of the bears occurring in Barrow, Alaska, and 
Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, are SBS bears, with the remainder 
being from the CS and Northern Beaufort Sea populations, respectively. 
The recent radio-telemetry data indicate that bears from the SBS 
population seldom reach Pearce Point, which is currently on the eastern 
management boundary for the SBS population. Conversely, SBS bears can 
also be found in the western regions of their range in the Chukchi Sea 
(i.e., Wainwright and Point Lay) in lower proportions than the central 
portion of their range.
    Additional threats evaluated during the listing included impacts 
from activities such as industrial operations, subsistence harvest, 
shipping, and tourism. No other impacts were considered significant in 
causing the decline, but minimizing effects from these activities could 
become increasingly important for conservation as polar bear numbers 
continue to diminish. More information can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/ and http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm.

Chukchi/Bering Seas (CS)

    The CS is defined as those polar bears inhabiting the area as far 
west as the eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian Sea, as far east as 
Point Barrow, and extending into the Bering Sea, with its southern 
boundary determined by the extent of annual ice. Based upon telemetry 
studies, the western boundary of the population has been set near 
Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia. The eastern boundary is at Icy 
Cape, Alaska, which also is the previous western boundary of the SBS. 
This eastern boundary constitutes a large overlap zone with bears in 
the SBS population. The status of the CS population, which was believed 
to have increased after the level of harvest was reduced in 1972, is 
now thought to be uncertain or declining. The most recent population 
estimate for the CS population is 2,000 animals. This was based on 
extrapolation of aerial den surveys from the early 1990s; however,

[[Page 13463]]

this crude estimate is currently considered to be of little value for 
management. Reliable estimates of population size based upon mark and 
recapture are not available for this region and measuring the 
population size remains a research challenge (Evans et al. 2003).
    With the action of the Bilateral Commission under the Bilateral 
Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka 
Polar Bear Population, legal subsistence harvest for polar bears from 
the CS stock occurs in both Russia and in western Alaska, as long as 
this harvest does not affect the sustainability of the polar bear 
population. In Alaska, average annual harvest levels declined by 
approximately 50 percent between the 1980s and the 1990s and have 
remained at low levels in recent years. There are several factors 
potentially affecting the harvest level in western Alaska. The factor 
of greatest direct relevance is the substantial illegal harvest in 
Chukotka. In recent years a reportedly sizable illegal harvest has 
occurred in Russia, despite a ban on hunting that has been in place 
since 1956. In addition, other factors such as climatic change and its 
effects on pack ice distribution, as well as changing demographics and 
hunting effort in native communities, could influence the declining 
take. The unknown rate of illegal take makes the stable designation 
uncertain and tentative.

Habitat

    Polar bears evolved for life in the Arctic and are distributed 
throughout most ice-covered seas of the Northern Hemisphere. They are 
generally limited to areas where the sea is ice-covered for much of the 
year; however, polar bears are not evenly distributed throughout their 
range. They are most abundant near the shore in shallow-water areas, 
and in other areas where currents and ocean upwelling increase marine 
productivity and maintain some open water during the ice-covered 
season. Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea ice 
year-round or spend only short periods on land.
    The Service designated critical habitat for polar bear populations 
in the United States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086; December 
7, 2010). Critical habitat identifies geographic areas that contain 
features that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or 
endangered species and that may require special management or 
protection. The designation of critical habitat under the ESA does not 
affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, 
preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or 
public access to private lands. A critical habitat designation does not 
affect private lands unless Federal funds, permits, or activities are 
involved. Federal agencies that undertake, fund, or permit activities 
that may affect critical habitat are required to consult with the 
Service to ensure that such actions do not adversely modify or destroy 
critical habitat.
    The Service's designation of critical habitat is divided into three 
areas or units: barrier island habitat, sea ice habitat (both described 
in geographic terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a functional 
description). Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands 
and spits along Alaska's coast and is used for denning, refuge from 
human disturbances, access to maternal dens and feeding habitat, and 
travel along the coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the continental 
shelf, and includes water 300 m (984 feet) and less in depth. 
Terrestrial denning habitat includes lands within 32 km (20 miles) of 
the northern coast of Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik 
River and within 8 km (5 miles) of the coastline between the Kavik 
River and Barrow. The total area designated would cover approximately 
484,734 square kilometers (187,157 square miles) and is entirely within 
the lands and waters of the United States. A detailed description of 
the critical habitat can be found online at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.

Denning and Reproduction

    Female bears can be quite sensitive to disturbances during denning. 
Females can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of age. Females without 
dependent cubs breed in the spring. Pregnant females enter maternity 
dens by late November, and the young are usually born in late December 
or early January. Only pregnant females den for an extended period 
during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens to 
escape harsh winter winds. An average of two cubs is born. Reproductive 
potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is low. The average reproductive 
interval for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female polar bear can 
produce about 8 to 10 cubs in her lifetime; in healthy populations, 50 
to 60 percent of the cubs will survive.
    In late March or early April, the female and cubs emerge from the 
den. If the mother moves young cubs from the den before they can walk 
or withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs increases. Therefore, it 
is thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities 
require a relatively undisturbed environment. Radio and satellite 
telemetry studies elsewhere indicate that denning can occur in multi-
year pack ice and on land. Recent studies of the SBS indicate that the 
proportion of dens on pack ice have declined from approximately 60 
percent in 1985-1994 to 40 percent in 1998-2004.
    In northern Alaska, maternal polar bear dens appear to be less 
concentrated than in Canada to the east and in Russia to the west. In 
Alaska, certain areas, such as barrier islands (linear features of low-
elevation land adjacent to the main coastline that are separated from 
the mainland by bodies of water), river bank drainages, much of the 
North slope coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that occur at the 
interface of mainland and marine habitat, receive proportionally 
greater use for denning than other areas. Maternal denning occurs on 
tundra-bearing barrier islands along the Beaufort Sea and also in the 
large river deltas, such as those associated with the Colville and 
Canning rivers.
    A recent study showed that the proportion of polar bears denning in 
the SBS on pack ice, which requires a high level of sea-ice stability 
for successful denning, declined from 62 percent in 1985-1994 to 37 
percent in 1998-2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). The authors concluded 
that the denning distribution changed in response to reductions in 
stable old ice, increases in unconsolidated ice, and lengthening of the 
melt season. If sea-ice extent in the Arctic continues to decrease and 
the amount of unstable ice increases, a greater proportion of polar 
bears may seek to den on land (Durner et al. 2006, Fischbach et al., 
2007).

Prey

    Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the primary prey of polar bears in 
most areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) and walrus calves are 
hunted occasionally. Polar bears also opportunistically scavenge marine 
mammal carcasses, notably bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) carcasses 
at Point Barrow, and Cross and Barter islands, associated with the 
annual subsistence hunt in these communities. There are also anecdotal 
reports of polar bears killing beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) 
trapped in the ice, although the importance of beluga as a food source 
is not known. Polar bears have also been observed consuming non-food 
items including Styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze, and hydraulic and 
lubricating fluids.
    Polar bears use the sea ice as a platform to hunt seals. Polar 
bears often

[[Page 13464]]

hunt seals along leads--cracks in the ice, and other areas of open 
water. Polar bears also hunt seals at breathing holes, or by breaking 
through the roof of seal lairs. Lairs are excavated by seals in snow 
drifts on top of the ice. Bears also stalk seals in the spring when 
they haul out on the ice in warm weather. The relationship between ice 
type and polar bear distribution is as yet unknown, but it is suspected 
to be related to seal availability. Due to changing sea ice conditions, 
the area of open water and proportion of marginal ice has increased and 
extends later in the fall. This may limit seal availability to polar 
bears as the most productive areas for seals appear to be over the 
shallower waters of the continental shelf.

Mortality

    Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years), have no natural 
predators, and do not appear prone to death by diseases or parasites. 
Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and occasionally on adult bears is 
known to occur. The most significant source of premature adult polar 
bear mortality is man. Before the MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears 
were taken by sport hunters and residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the 
mean reported kill was 186 bears per year. Seventy-five percent of 
these were males, as cubs and females with cubs were protected. Since 
1972, only Alaska Natives from coastal Alaskan villages have been 
allowed to hunt polar bears for their subsistence uses, for the 
manufacture of handicraft and clothing items. From 1980 to 2005, the 
total annual harvest for Alaska averaged 101 bears: 64 percent from the 
Chukchi Sea and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea. Other sources of 
mortality related to human activities include bears killed during 
research activities, euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and defense-
of-life kills by non-Natives (Brower et al. 2002).

Distributions and Abundance of Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea

    Polar bears are dependent upon the sea ice as a platform for 
foraging. The most productive areas seem to be near the ice edge, 
leads, or polynyas over the continental shelf (Durner et al. 2004). 
Polar bears can also be observed throughout the year in the onshore and 
nearshore environments, where they will opportunistically scavenge on 
marine mammal carcasses washed up along the shoreline (Kalxdorff and 
Fischbach 1998). Their distribution in the coastal habitat can be 
influenced by the movement of the seasonal pack ice.
    More specifically, during the ice-covered season, pregnant females 
can use terrestrial denning habitat between late-October and mid-April. 
The percentage of pregnant females using terrestrial habitat for 
denning is unknown but, as stated earlier, the proportion of dens on 
terrestrial habitat has increased in recent years. In addition, a small 
proportion of bears of different cohorts may be found along the 
coastline as well during this time period. During the open water season 
(July through September), a small proportion of bears will utilize the 
coastal environments while the majority of the population will be on 
the ice edge of the pack ice.
    During the late summer/fall period (August through October), polar 
bears are most likely to be encountered along the mainland coastline 
and barrier islands, using these features as travel corridors and 
hunting areas. Based on Industry observations, encounter rates are 
higher during the fall period (August to October) than any other time 
period. The duration the bears spend in these coastal habitats depends 
on storm events, ice conditions, and the formation of the annual ice. 
In recent years, polar bears have been observed in larger numbers than 
previously recorded during the fall period. The remains of subsistence-
harvested bowhead whales at Cross and Barter Islands provide a readily 
available food source for the bears in these areas and appear to play a 
role in these numbers (Schliebe et al. 2006). Based on Industry 
observations and coastal survey data acquired by the Service, up to 125 
individuals of the SBS bear population have been observed during the 
fall period between Barrow and the Alaska-Canada border.

Climate Change

    For polar bears, habitat loss due to changes in Arctic sea ice has 
been identified as the primary cause of decline in polar bear 
populations, where the decline of sea ice is expected to continue 
throughout the polar bear's range for the foreseeable future (73 FR 
28212). In support of the listing, Amstrup et al. (2007) projected that 
if current sea ice declines continue, the sea-ice retreat may 
eventually exclude bears from onshore denning habitat in the Polar 
Basin Divergent Region, where they have projected a 42 percent loss of 
optimal summer polar bear habitat by 2050. SBS and CS polar bear 
populations inhabit this ecoregion, and Amstrup et al. (2007) have 
projected that these populations will be extirpated within the next 45-
75 years, if sea ice declines continue at current rates.
    Climate change is likely to have serious consequences for the 
world-wide population of polar bears and their prey (ACIA 2004, 
Derocher et al. 2004, NRC 2003). Climate change is expected to impact 
polar bears in a variety of ways. The timing of ice formation and 
breakup will impact seal distributions and abundance, and, 
consequently, how efficiently polar bears can hunt seals. Reductions in 
sea ice are expected to increase the polar bears' energetic costs of 
traveling, as moving through fragmented sea ice and open water requires 
more energy than walking across consolidated sea ice.
    Decreased sea ice extent may impact the reproductive success of 
denning polar bears. Polar bears require a stable substrate for 
denning. As ice conditions moderate, ice platforms become less stable, 
and coastal dens become vulnerable to erosion from storm surges. In the 
1990s, approximately 50 percent of the maternal dens of the SBS polar 
bear population occurred annually on the pack ice in contrast to 
terrestrial sites (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). Recently, the proportion 
of dens on pack ice declined from 62 percent in 1985-1994 to 37 percent 
in 1998-2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). Terrestrial denning is expected 
to increase in the future, despite the threats of coastal erosion.
    Due to the changing ice conditions, the Service anticipates that 
polar bear use of the Beaufort Sea coast will increase during the open-
water season (June through October). Indeed, polar bear use of coastal 
areas during the fall open-water period has increased in recent years 
in the Beaufort Sea. This change in distribution has been correlated 
with the distance of the pack ice from the coast at that time of year 
(the farther from shore the leading edge of the pack ice is, the more 
bears are observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006). Reductions in sea 
ice will result in increased distances between the ice edge and land 
which, in turn, will lead to increasing numbers of bears coming ashore 
during the open-water period, or possibly drowning in an attempt to 
reach land. An increased number of bears on land may increase human-
bear interactions or conflicts during this time period.

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

    Pacific walruses and polar bears have been traditionally harvested 
by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. The harvest of these 
species plays an important role in the culture and economy of many 
villages throughout coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is often consumed, and 
the ivory is used to

[[Page 13465]]

manufacture traditional arts and crafts. Polar bears are primarily 
hunted for their fur, which is used to make cold weather gear; however, 
their meat is also consumed. Although walruses and polar bears are a 
part of the annual subsistence harvest of most rural communities on the 
North Slope of Alaska, these species are not as significant a food 
resource as bowhead whales, seals, caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and 
fish.
    An exemption under section 101(b) of the MMPA allows Alaska Natives 
who reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean 
or the Arctic Ocean to take polar bears and walruses if such taking is 
for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling 
authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the 
take is not done in a wasteful manner. Sport hunting of both species 
has been prohibited in the United States since enactment of the MMPA in 
1972.

Pacific Walrus--Harvest Information

    Few walruses are harvested in the Beaufort Sea along the northern 
coast of Alaska as the primary range of Pacific walruses is west and 
south of the Beaufort Sea. Walruses constitute a small portion of the 
total marine mammal harvest for the village of Barrow. Hunters from 
Barrow have reported 477 walruses harvested in the past 20 years with 
65 of those since 2005. Reports indicate that up to six animals, 
approximately 10 percent of the recorded harvest, were taken east of 
Point Barrow in the last 5 years within the geographical limits of the 
incidental take regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik do not 
normally hunt walruses unless the opportunity arises. They have 
reported taking only three walruses since the inception of the 
regulations. Two walruses were harvested on Cross Island in 2004, but 
no walruses have been harvested since 2005. To date, two percent of the 
total walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik from 1994 to 
2009 has occurred within the geographic range of the incidental take 
regulations.

Polar Bear--Harvest Information

    Alaska Natives from coastal villages are permitted to harvest polar 
bears. Current harvest levels are believed to be sustainable for the 
SBS population at present (USFWS unpubl. data). Although there are no 
restrictions under the MMPA, a more restrictive Native-to-Native 
agreement between the Inupiat from Alaska and the Inuvialuit in Canada 
was created in 1988. This agreement, referred to as the Inuvialuit-
Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement, established quotas and 
recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family 
groups, and methods of take. Although this Agreement does not have the 
force of law from either the Canadian or the U.S. governments, the 
users have abided by its terms. In Canada, users are subject to 
provincial regulations consistent with the Agreement. Commissioners for 
the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement set the original quota at 76 bears in 
1988, and it was later increased to 80. The quota was based on 
estimates of the population size and age-specific estimates of survival 
and recruitment. One estimate suggests that harvest up to 1.5 percent 
of the adult females was sustainable. Combining this estimate and a 2:1 
sex ratio (male:female) of the harvest ratio, 4.5 percent of the total 
population could be harvested each year. In July 2010, at the most 
recent Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Meeting, the quota was 
reduced from 80 to 70 bears per year.
    The Service has monitored the Alaska polar bear harvest since 1980. 
The Native subsistence harvest from the SBS has remained relatively 
consistent since 1980 and averages 36 bears removed per year. The 
combined harvest from Alaska and Canada from the SBS appears 
sustainable and equitable. During the period 2005-2009, 84 bears were 
harvested by residents of Barrow, 11 for Kaktovik, 6 for Nuiqsut, 13 
for Wainwright, and 3 for Atqasuk for a total of 117 bears harvested. 
This was a decline of 40 harvested bears from the previous timeframe 
analyzed (2000-2004: 157 bears harvested). The Native subsistence 
harvest is the largest source of mortality related to human activities, 
although several bears have been killed during research activities, 
through euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and accidental drowning, 
or in defense of human life by non-Natives.

Plan of Cooperation

    As a condition of incidental take authorization, and to ensure that 
Industry activities do not impact subsistence opportunities for 
communities using the geographic region, any applicant requesting an 
LOA is required to present a record of communication that reflects 
discussions with the Native communities most likely affected by the 
activity. The North Slope native communities that could potentially be 
affected by Industry activities include Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. 
Polar bear and Pacific walruses inhabiting the Beaufort Sea represent a 
small portion, in terms of the number of animals, of the total 
subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife for the villages of Barrow, 
Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. Despite this, harvest of these species is 
important to Alaska Natives. Therefore, an important aspect of the LOA 
process is that, prior to issuance of an LOA, Industry must provide 
evidence to the Service that an adequate Plan of Cooperation (POC) has 
been coordinated with any affected subsistence community (or, as 
appropriate, with the EWC, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC), and the 
North Slope Borough (NSB)) if, after community consultations, Industry 
and the community concludes that increased mitigation and monitoring is 
necessary to minimize impacts to subsistence resources. Where relevant, 
a POC will describe measures to be taken to mitigate potential 
conflicts between the proposed activity and subsistence hunting. If 
requested by Industry or the affected subsistence community, the 
Service will review these plans and provide guidance. The Service will 
reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that 
any taking by Industry will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of polar bears and walruses for taking for subsistence 
uses.
    Included as part of the POC and the overall State and Federal 
permitting process of Industry activities, Industry engages the Native 
communities in numerous informational meetings. During these community 
meetings, Industry must ascertain if community responses indicate that 
impact to subsistence uses will occur as a result of activities in the 
requested LOA. If community concerns suggest that Industry activities 
may have an impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the POC 
must provide the procedures on how Industry will work with the affected 
Native communities and what actions will be taken to avoid interfering 
with the availability of polar bear and walruses for subsistence 
harvest.

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects of Proposed Activities on Subsistence 
Uses

    No unmitigable concerns from the potentially affected communities 
regarding the availability of polar bears or walruses for subsistence 
uses have been identified through Industry consultations in the 
potentially affected communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik in 
the geographic region.
    Based on the proximity of the proposed activities and the location 
of its hunting areas for polar bears and walruses, Nuiqsut continues to 
be the community most likely affected by Industry activities due to its 
close proximity to Industry activities. Nuiqsut is located within 5 
miles of

[[Page 13466]]

ConocoPhillips' Alpine production field to the north and 
ConocoPhillips' Alpine Satellite development field to the west. For 
this rule, we determined that the total taking of polar bears and 
walruses will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of these species for subsistence uses to Nuiqsut residents 
during the duration of the regulation. We base this conclusion on: The 
results of coastal aerial surveys conducted between 2000 and 2009 
within the area; direct observations of polar bears occurring on Cross 
Island during Nuiqsut's annual fall bowhead whaling efforts; and 
anecdotal reports and recent sightings of polar bears by Nuiqsut 
residents. In addition, we have received no evidence or reports that 
bears are being deflected (i.e., altering habitat use patterns by 
avoiding certain areas) or being impacted in other ways by the existing 
level of oil and gas activity near communities or traditional hunting 
areas that would diminish their availability for subsistence use, and 
we do not expect any change in the impact of future activities during 
the regulatory period.
    Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to be affected differently and to 
a lesser degree by oil and gas activities than Nuiqsut, due to their 
distance from known Industry activities during the 5-year period of the 
regulations. As similar to past ITRs, through aerial surveys, direct 
observations, community consultations, and personal communication with 
hunters, it appears that subsistence opportunities for bears and 
walruses have not been impacted by past Industry operations and we do 
not anticipate any new impacts to result from the proposed activities.
    Changes in activity locations may trigger community concerns 
regarding the effect on subsistence uses. Industry will need to remain 
proactive to address potential impacts on the subsistence uses by 
affected communities through consultations, and where warranted, POCs. 
Open communication through venues, such as public meetings, which allow 
communities to express feedback prior to the initiation of operations, 
will be required as part of an LOA application. If community 
subsistence use concerns arise from new activities, appropriate 
mitigation measures are available and will be applied, such as a 
cessation of certain activities at certain locations during specified 
times of the year, i.e., hunting seasons. Hence, we find that any take 
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 
polar bears or walruses for subsistence uses by residents of the 
affected communities.

Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific 
Walruses, Polar Bears and Prey Species

    Individual walruses and polar bears can be affected by Industry 
activities in numerous ways. These include: (1) Noise disturbance; (2) 
physical obstructions; (3) human encounters; and (4) effects on prey.

Pacific Walrus

    The Beaufort Sea is beyond the normal range of the Pacific walrus 
and the likelihood of encountering walruses during Industry operations 
is low. During the time period of the proposed regulations, Industry 
operations may occasionally encounter small groups of walruses swimming 
in open water or hauled out onto ice floes or along the coast. Although 
interactions are expected to be infrequent, proposed activities could 
potentially result in some level of disturbances. The response of 
walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable. Anecdotal 
observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that males tend 
to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and individuals tend 
to be more tolerant than groups. Females with dependent calves are 
considered least tolerant of disturbances. In other parts of their 
range, disturbance events are known to cause walrus groups to abandon 
land or ice haulouts and occasionally result in trampling injuries or 
cow-calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal. Calves and 
young animals at the perimeter of the haulouts appear particularly 
vulnerable to trampling injuries.

1. Noise Disturbance

    Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or 
mobile, has the potential to disturb small numbers of walruses. 
Potential impacts of Industry-generated noise include displacement from 
preferred foraging areas, increased stress and energy expenditure, 
interference with feeding, and masking of communications. Any impact of 
Industry noise on walruses is likely to be limited to a few individuals 
rather than the population due to their geographic range and seasonal 
distribution within the geographic region. For example, Pacific 
walruses generally inhabit the pack ice of the Bering Sea and do not 
normally range into the Beaufort Sea, although individuals and small 
groups are occasionally observed.
    Reactions of marine mammals to noise sources, particularly mobile 
sources such as marine vessels, vary. Reactions depend on the 
individuals' prior exposure to the disturbance source; their need or 
desire to be in the particular habitat or area where they are exposed 
to the noise; and visual presence of the disturbance sources. Walruses 
are typically more sensitive to disturbance when hauled out on land or 
ice than when they are in the water. In addition, females and young are 
generally more sensitive to disturbance than adult males.
    Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or 
mobile, has the potential to disturb small numbers of walrus. The 
response of walrus to sound sources may be either avoidance or 
tolerance.
A. Stationary Sources
    Endicott, BP's Saltwater Treatment Plant (located on the West Dock 
Causeway), Oooguruk, and Northstar are the offshore facilities that 
could produce noise that has the potential to disturb walruses. 
Liberty, as part of the Endicott complex, will also have this potential 
when it commences operations. A few walruses have been observed in the 
vicinity of these facilities. Three walruses have hauled out on 
Northstar Island since its construction in 2000, and a walrus was 
observed swimming near the Saltwater Treatment Plant in 2004. In 2007, 
a female and subadult walrus were observed hauled-out on the Endicott 
Causeway. In instances where walruses have been seen near these 
facilities, they have appeared to be attracted to them, possibly as a 
resting area or haulout.
B. Mobile Sources
    Seismic operations introduce substantial levels of noise into the 
marine environment. There are relatively little data available to 
evaluate the potential response of walruses to seismic operations. 
Although the hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly known, source 
levels associated with marine 3D and 2D seismic surveys are thought to 
be high enough to cause temporary hearing loss in other pinniped 
species. Therefore, it is possible that walruses within the 180-decibel 
(dB re 1 [mu]Pa) safety radius for seismic activities could suffer 
temporary shifts in hearing thresholds.
    Seismic surveys and high-resolution site clearance surveys are 
typically carried out in open water conditions where walrus numbers are 
expected to be low. This will minimize potential interactions with 
large concentrations of walruses which typically favor sea ice 
habitats. Seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea are more likely to 
encounter small herds of walruses swimming in open water. Potential

[[Page 13467]]

adverse effects of seismic noise on swimming walruses can be reduced 
through the implementation of sufficient, practicable monitoring 
coupled with adaptive management responses (where the mitigation 
measures required are dependent on what is discovered during 
monitoring).
    Previous open-water seismic exploration has been conducted in 
nearshore ice-free areas. This is the area where any future open-water 
seismic exploration will occur during the duration of this rule. It is 
highly unlikely that walruses will be present in these areas, and, 
therefore, it is not expected that seismic exploration would disturb 
walruses. Furthermore, with the adoption of the mitigation measures 
described in Section VI, the Service concludes that the only 
anticipated effects of seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea would be 
short-term behavioral alterations of small numbers of walruses.
C. Vessel Traffic
    Although seismic surveys and offshore drilling operations are 
expected to occur in areas of open water away from the pack ice, 
support vessels and/or aircraft servicing seismic and drill operations 
may encounter aggregations of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The 
sight, sound, or smell of humans and machines could potentially 
displace these animals from any ice haulouts. Walruses react variably 
to noise from vessel traffic; however, it appears that low-frequency 
diesel engines cause less of a disturbance than high-frequency outboard 
engines. In addition, walrus densities within their normal distribution 
are highest along the edge of the pack ice, and Industry vessel traffic 
typically avoids these areas. The reaction of walruses to vessel 
traffic is dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous 
exposure to disturbances. Walruses in the water appear to be less 
readily disturbed by vessels than walruses hauled out on land or ice. 
Furthermore, barges and vessels associated with Industry activities 
travel in open-water and avoid large ice floes or land where walruses 
are likely to be found. In addition, walruses can use a vessel as a 
haul-out platform. In 2009, during Industry activities in the Chukchi 
Sea, an adult walrus was found hauled out on the stern of a vessel. It 
eventually left once confronted.
    Drilling operations are expected to involve drill ships attended by 
icebreaking vessels to manage incursions of sea ice. Ice management 
operations are expected to have the greatest potential for disturbances 
since walruses are more likely to be encountered in sea ice habitats 
and ice management operations typically require the vessel to 
accelerate, reverse direction, and turn rapidly thereby maximizing 
propeller cavitations and producing significant noise. Previous 
monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea suggest that icebreaking 
activities can displace some walrus groups up to several kilometers 
away; however, most groups of hauled-out walruses showed little 
reaction beyond 800 m (0.5 mi).
    Monitoring programs associated with exploratory drilling operations 
in the Chukchi Sea in 1990 noted that 25 percent of walrus groups 
encountered in the pack ice during icebreaking responded by diving into 
the water, with most reactions occurring within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the 
ship. The monitoring report noted that: (1) Walrus distributions were 
closely linked with pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active prospects 
for relatively short time periods; and (3) ice passing near active 
prospects contained relatively few animals. The report concluded that 
effects of the drilling operations on walruses were limited in time, 
geographical scale, and the proportion of population affected.
    When walruses are present, underwater noise from vessel traffic in 
the Beaufort Sea may ``mask'' ordinary communication between 
individuals by preventing them from locating one another. It may also 
prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the Beaufort Sea and 
may have the potential to impede movement. Vessel traffic will likely 
increase if offshore Industry expands and may increase if warming 
waters and seasonally reduced sea ice cover alter northern shipping 
lanes.
    Because offshore exploration activities are expected to move 
throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts associated with support vessels 
and aircrafts are likely to be distributed in time and space. 
Therefore, the only effect anticipated would be short-term behavioral 
alterations impacting small numbers of walruses in the vicinity of 
active operations. Adoption of mitigation measures that include an 800-
m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for marine vessels around walrus groups 
observed on ice are expected to reduce the intensity of disturbance 
events and minimize the potential for injuries to animals.
D. Aircraft Traffic
    Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft 
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus 
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses 
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged 
aircraft are less likely to elicit a response than helicopter 
overflights. Walruses are particularly sensitive to changes in engine 
noise and are more likely to stampede when planes turn or fly low 
overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys for walruses in sea ice 
habitats have observed little reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above 
457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data). Although the intensity of the 
reaction to noise is variable, walruses are probably most susceptible 
to disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying aircraft (100 m above 
ground level). In 2002, a walrus hauled out near the SDC on the McCovey 
prospect was disturbed when a helicopter landed on the SDC. However, 
most aircraft traffic is in nearshore areas, where there are typically 
few to no walruses.

2. Physical Obstructions

    Based on known walrus distribution and the very low numbers found 
in the Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, it is unlikely that walrus 
movements would be displaced by offshore stationary facilities, such as 
the Northstar Island or causeway-linked Endicott/Liberty complex, or 
vessel traffic. There is no indication that the few walruses that used 
Northstar Island as a haulout in 2001 were displaced from their 
movements. Vessel traffic could temporarily interrupt the movement of 
walruses, or displace some animals when vessels pass through an area. 
This displacement would probably have minimal or no effect on animals 
and would last no more than a few hours.

3. Human Encounters

    Human encounters with walruses could occur in the course of 
Industry activities, although such encounters would be rare due to the 
limited distribution of walruses in the Beaufort Sea. These encounters 
may occur within certain cohorts of the population, such as calves or 
animals under stress. In 2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled out on 
the armor of Northstar Island numerous times over a 48-hour period, 
causing Industry to cease certain activities and alter work patterns 
before it disappeared in stormy seas. Additionally, a walrus calf was 
observed for 15 minutes during an exploration program 60 feet from the 
dock at Cape Simpson in 2006. It climbed onto an extended barge ramp, 
which was lowered. The walrus then jumped in the water the moment the 
crew member started the ramp engine.

[[Page 13468]]

4. Effect on Prey Species

    Walruses feed primarily on immobile benthic invertebrates. The 
effect of Industry activities on benthic invertebrates most likely 
would be from oil discharged into the environment. Oil has the 
potential to impact walrus prey species in a variety of ways including, 
but not limited to, mortality due to smothering or toxicity, 
perturbations in the composition of the benthic community, as well as 
altered metabolic and growth rates. Relatively few walruses are present 
in the central Beaufort Sea. It is important to note that, although the 
status of walrus prey species within the Beaufort Sea are poorly known, 
it is unclear to what extent, if any, prey abundance plays in limiting 
the use of the Beaufort Sea by walruses. Further study of the Beaufort 
Sea benthic community as it relates to walruses is warranted. The low 
likelihood of an oil spill large enough to affect prey populations (see 
analysis in the section titled Potential Impacts of Waste Product 
Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific 
Walrus subsection) combined with the fact that walruses are not present 
in the region during the ice-covered season and occur only infrequently 
during the open-water season indicates that Industry activities will 
likely have limited indirect effects on walruses through effects on 
prey species.

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Walruses

    As with previous ITRs, Industry noise disturbance and associated 
vessel traffic may have a more pronounced impact than physical 
obstructions or human encounters on walruses in the Beaufort Sea. 
However, due to the limited number of walruses inhabiting the 
geographic region during the open-water season and lack of walruses in 
the region during the ice-covered season, the Service expects minimal 
impact to only small numbers of individual walruses and that any take 
will have a negligible impact on this stock during the 5-year 
regulatory period.

Polar Bear

    Polar bears are present in the region of activity and, therefore, 
oil and gas activities could impact polar bears in various ways during 
both open-water and ice-covered seasons. Impacts from: (1) Noise 
disturbance; (2) physical obstructions; (3) human encounters; and (4) 
effects on prey species are described below.

1. Noise Disturbance

    Noise produced by Industry activities during the open-water and 
ice-covered seasons could potentially result in the take of polar 
bears. The impact of noise disturbances may affect bears differently 
depending upon their reproductive status (e.g., denning versus non-
denning bears). The best available scientific information indicates 
that female polar bears entering dens, or females in dens with cubs, 
are more sensitive than other age and sex groups to noises.
    Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile 
sources. Stationary sources include: Construction, maintenance, repair, 
and remediation activities; operations at production facilities; 
flaring excess gas; and drilling operations from either onshore or 
offshore facilities. Mobile sources include: Vessel and aircraft 
traffic; open-water seismic exploration; winter vibroseis programs; 
geotechnical surveys; ice road construction and associated vehicle 
traffic, including tracked vehicles and snowmobiles; drilling; 
dredging; and ice-breaking vessels.
A. Stationary Sources
    All production facilities on the North Slope in the area to be 
covered by this rulemaking are currently located within the landfast 
ice zone. Typically, most polar bears occur in the active ice zone, far 
offshore, hunting throughout the year; although some bears also spend a 
limited amount of time on land, coming ashore to feed, den, or move to 
other areas. At times, usually during the fall season when fall storms 
and ocean currents may deposit ice-bound bears on land, bears may 
remain along the coast or on barrier islands for several weeks until 
the ice returns.
    Noise produced by stationary Industry activities could elicit 
variable responses from polar bears. The noise may act as a deterrent 
to bears entering the area, or the noise could potentially attract 
bears. Attracting bears to these facilities, especially exploration 
facilities in the coastal or nearshore environment, could result in 
human-bear encounters, unintentional harassment, lethal take, or 
intentional hazing (stipulated under separate authorization) of the 
bear.
    Noise from Industry activities has the ability to disturb bears at 
den sites. However, the timing of potential Industry impacts coupled 
with the time period in the denning cycle when any disturbance occurs 
can have varying effects and impacts on the female bear and the family 
group. Researchers have suggested that disturbances, including noise, 
can negatively impact bears during the early stages of denning, where 
the pregnant female has limited investment at the site, by causing them 
to abandon the site in search of another one. Premature site 
abandonment may also occur after the bears have emerged, but while they 
are still at the den site, when cubs are acclimating to their ``new 
environment'' and the female bear is now vigilant of the environment in 
regards to her offspring. During this time, in-air noises may disturb 
the female to the point of abandoning the den site before the cubs are 
physiologically ready to move from the site.
    An example of a den abandonment in the early stages of denning 
occurred in January 1985, where a female polar bear appears to have 
abandoned her den in response to Rolligon traffic, which was occurring 
within 500 meters of the den site. In 2002, noise associated with a 
polar bear research camp in close proximity to a bear den is thought to 
have caused a female bear and her cub(s) to abandon their den and move 
to the ice prematurely. In 2006, a female and two cubs emerged from a 
den 400 meters from an active river crossing construction site. The den 
site was abandoned within hours of cub emergence after only 3 days. In 
2009, a female and two cubs emerged from a den site within 100 meters 
of an active ice road with heavy traffic and quickly abandoned the 
site. While such events may have occurred, information indicates they 
have been infrequent and isolated. It is important to note that the 
knowledge of these recent examples occurred because of the monitoring 
and reporting program established by the ITRs.
    Conversely, during the ice-covered seasons of 2000-2001 and 2001-
2002, dens known to be active were located within approximately 0.4 km 
and 0.8 km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi), respectively, of remediation 
activities on Flaxman Island in the Beaufort Sea with no observed 
impact to the polar bears. This suggests that polar bears exposed to 
routine industrial noises may habituate to those noises and show less 
vigilance than bears not exposed to such stimuli. This observation came 
from a study that occurred in conjunction with industrial activities 
performed on Flaxman Island in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens in 
2002 and 2003 (N = 8) (Smith et al. 2007). Researchers assessed 
vigilant behavior with two potential measures of disturbance: 
proportion of time scanning their surroundings and the frequency of 
observable vigilant behaviors. The two bears exposed to the industrial 
activity within 1.6 km spent less time scanning their surroundings

[[Page 13469]]

than bears in undisturbed areas and engaged in vigilant behavior 
significantly less often.
    The potential for disturbance increases once the female emerges 
from the den, where she is potentially more vigilant to sights and in-
air sounds as she uses the den site. As noted earlier, in some cases, 
while the female is in the den, Industry activities have progressed 
near the den sites with no perceived disturbance. Indeed, in the 2006 
den incident previously discussed, it was believed that Industry 
activity commenced in the area after the den had been established. 
Ancillary activities occurred within 50 meters of the den site with no 
apparent disturbance while the female was in the den. Ongoing activity 
most likely had been occurring for approximately 3 months in the 
vicinity of the den. Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were located 
along an active ice road. The bear at one den site appeared to 
establish her site prior to ice road activity and was exposed to 
approximately three months of activity 100 meters away and emerged at 
the appropriate time. The other den site was discovered after ice road 
construction commenced. This site was exposed to ice road activity, 100 
meters away, for approximately one month. In all, there have been three 
recorded examples (2006, 2009, and 2010) of pregnant female bears 
establishing dens, prior to Industry activity occurring within 400 
meters of the den site, and remaining in the den through the normal 
denning cycle despite the nearby activity.
    More recent data suggests that, with proper mitigation measures in 
effect, activities can continue in the vicinity of dens until the 
emergence by the female bear. At that time, mitigation, such as 
activity shutdowns near the den and 24-hour monitoring of the den site 
can limit bear/human interactions, thereby allowing the female bear to 
abandon the den naturally and minimize impacts to the animals. For 
example, in the spring of 2010, an active den site was observed 
approximately 60 meters from a heavily used ice road. A 1-mile 
exclusion zone was established around the den, closing a 2-mile portion 
of the road. Monitors were assigned to observe bear activity and 
monitor human activity to minimize any other impacts to the bear group. 
These mitigation efforts minimized disturbance to the bears and allowed 
them to abandon the den site naturally.
B. Mobile Sources
    During the open-water season in the SBS, polar bears spend the 
majority of their lives on the pack ice, which limits the chances of 
impacts on polar bears from Industry activities. Although polar bears 
have been documented in open water, miles from the ice edge or ice 
floes, this has been a relatively rare occurrence. In the open-water 
season, Industry activities are generally limited to vessel-based 
exploration activities, such as ocean-bottom cable (OBC) and shallow 
hazards surveys. These activities avoid ice floes and the multiyear ice 
edge; however, they may contact bears in open water and the effects of 
such encounters will be short-term behavior disturbance. Polar bears 
are more likely to be affected by on-ice seismic surveys rather than 
open-water surveys. Although no on-ice seismic surveys have reported 
polar bear observations during the period of the last ITRs, disturbance 
from on-ice operations would most likely occur by vehicle and 
nonpermanent camp activity associated with the seismic project. These 
effects would be minimal due to the mobility of such projects and 
limited to small-scale alterations to bear movements.
C. Vessel Traffic
    During the open-water season, most polar bears remain offshore 
associated with the multiyear pack ice and are not typically present in 
the ice-free areas where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and vessels 
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid 
large ice floes. If there is any encounter between a vessel and a bear, 
it would most likely result in short-term behavioral disturbance only. 
Indeed, observations from monitoring programs report that in the rare 
occurrence when bears are encountered in open water swimming, they 
retreat from the vessel as it passes the bear.
D. Aircraft Traffic
    Routine aircraft traffic should have little to no effect on polar 
bears; however, extensive or repeated overflights of fixed-wing 
aircraft or helicopters could disturb polar bears. Behavioral reactions 
of non-denning polar bears should be limited to short-term changes in 
behavior, such as evading the plane by retreating from the stimulus. 
They would have no long-term impact on individuals and no discernible 
impacts on the polar bear population. In contrast, denning bears may 
abandon or depart their dens early in response to repeated noise 
produced by extensive aircraft overflights. Mitigation measures, such 
as minimum flight elevations over polar bears or areas of concern and 
flight restrictions around known polar bear dens, will be required, as 
appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by 
aircraft.
E. Offshore Seismic Exploration and Exploratory Drilling
    Although polar bears are typically associated with the pack ice 
during summer and fall, open-water seismic exploration activities can 
encounter polar bears in the central Beaufort Sea in late summer or 
fall. It is unlikely that seismic exploration activities or other 
geophysical surveys during the open-water season would result in more 
than temporary behavioral disturbance to polar bears. Any disturbance 
would be visual and auditory in nature, where bears could be deflected 
from their route. Polar bears could be encountered on ice where they 
would be unaffected by underwater sound from the airguns. Bears could 
also be encountered in the water. Sound levels received by polar bears 
in the water would be attenuated because polar bears generally do not 
dive much below the surface and they normally swim with their heads 
above the surface, where noises produced underwater are weak. This 
occurs because received levels of airgun sounds are reduced near the 
surface because of the pressure release effect at the water's surface 
(Greene and Richardson 1988, Richardson et al. 1995).
    Noise and vibrations produced by oil and gas activities during the 
ice-covered season could potentially result in impacts on polar bears. 
During this time of year, denning female bears as well as mobile, non-
denning bears could be exposed to and affected differently by potential 
impacts from seismic activities. As stated earlier, 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 to denning females, the 
Service evaluates these routes along with information about known polar 
bear dens, historic denning sites, and delineated denning habitat prior 
to authorizing seismic activities.
    Previous regulations have analyzed open water exploration activity, 
such as seismic and drilling, even though this type of open water 
activity has not occurred on an annual basis in the Beaufort Sea. In 
the previous ITRs, open-water seismic programs and exploratory drilling 
programs were analyzed for impacts to polar bears and walruses. Due to 
the limited scope of the planned offshore activities, the Service 
concluded that this level of activity would affect only small numbers 
of polar bears and walrus and

[[Page 13470]]

would have no more than negligible effects on the populations. The 
actual number of offshore seismic projects during the previous 
regulatory period was smaller than the amount analyzed. We issued LOAs 
for five offshore seismic projects, and no offshore drilling projects 
occurred, even though drilling projects were requested twice during the 
previous ITRs (2006-2011).

2. Physical Obstructions

    There is some chance that Industry facilities would act as physical 
barriers to movements of polar bears. Most facilities are located 
onshore and inland where polar bears are only occasionally found. The 
offshore and coastal facilities are most likely to be approached by 
polar bears. The majority of Industry bear observations occur within 1 
mile of the coastline as bears use this area as travel corridors. Bears 
traversing along the coastline can encounter Industry facilities 
located on the coast, such as CPAI and Eni facilities at Oliktok Point 
and the Point Thomson development. As bears contact these facilities, 
the chances for bear/human interactions increase. The Endicott and West 
Dock causeways, as well as the facilities supporting them have the 
potential to act as barriers to movements of polar bears because they 
extend continuously from the coastline to the offshore facility. 
However, polar bears appear to have little or no fear of man-made 
structures and can easily climb and cross gravel roads and causeways, 
and polar bears have frequently been observed crossing existing roads 
and causeways in the Prudhoe Bay oilfields. Offshore production 
facilities, such as Northstar, may be approached by polar bears, but 
due to their layout (i.e., continuous sheet pile walls around the 
perimeter) and monitoring plans the bears may not gain access to the 
facility itself. This situation may present a small-scale, local 
obstruction to the bears' movement, but also minimizes the likelihood 
of bear/human encounters.

3. Human Encounters

    Whenever humans work in polar bear habitat, there is a chance of an 
encounter, even though, historically, such encounters have been 
uncommon in association with Industry. Encounters can be dangerous for 
both polar bears and humans.
    Although bears may be found along the coast during open-water 
periods, most of the SBS bear stock inhabits the multiyear pack ice 
during this time of year. Encounters are more likely to occur during 
fall and winter periods when greater numbers of the bears are found in 
the coastal environment searching for food and possibly den sites later 
in the season. Potentially dangerous encounters are most likely to 
occur at gravel islands or on-ice exploratory sites. These sites are at 
ice level and are easily accessible by polar bears. Industry has 
developed and uses devices to aid in detecting polar bears, including 
bear monitors and motion detection systems. In addition, some companies 
take steps to actively prevent bears from accessing facilities using 
safety gates and fences.
    Offshore production islands, such as the Northstar production 
facility, may attract polar bears. In 2004, Northstar accounted for 41 
percent of all polar bear observations Industry-wide. They reported 37 
sightings in which 54 polar bears were observed. The offshore sites 
continue to account for the majority of the polar bear observations. 
The offshore facilities of Endicott, Liberty, Northstar, and Oooguruk 
accounted for 47 percent of the bear observations between 2005 and 2008 
(182 of 390 sightings). It should be noted that, although most bears 
were observed passing through the area, the sites may also serve as an 
attractant, which could result in increased incidence of harassment of 
bears. Employee training and company policies currently reduce and 
mitigate such encounters.
    Depending upon the circumstances, bears can be either repelled from 
or attracted to sounds, smells, or sights associated with Industry 
activities. In the past, such interactions have been mitigated through 
conditions on the LOA, which require the applicant to develop a polar 
bear interaction plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps 
the applicant will take, such as garbage disposal procedures, to 
minimize impacts to polar bears by reducing the attraction of Industry 
activities to 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.
    Employee training programs are designed to educate field personnel 
about the dangers of bear encounters and to implement safety procedures 
in the event of a bear sighting. The result of these polar bear 
interaction plans and training allows on-site personnel to detect bears 
and respond safely and appropriately. Often, personnel are instructed 
to leave an area where bears are seen. Many times polar bears are 
monitored until they move out of the area. Sometimes, this response 
involves deterring the bear from the site. If bears are reluctant to 
leave on their own, in most cases bears can be displaced by using 
pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker shells) or other forms of deterrents (e.g., 
vehicle, vehicle horn, vehicle siren, vehicle lights, spot lights). The 
purpose of these plans and training is to eliminate the potential for 
injury to personnel or lethal take of bears in defense of human life. 
Since the regulations went into effect in 1993, there has been no known 
instance of a bear being killed or Industry personnel being injured by 
a bear as a result of Industry activities. The mitigation measures 
associated with these regulations have been proven to minimize bear/
human interactions and will continue to be requirements of future LOAs, 
as appropriate.
    There is the potential for humans to come into contact with polar 
bear dens as well. Known polar bear dens around the oilfield, 
discovered opportunistically, or as a result of planned surveys, such 
as tracking marked bears or den detection surveys, are monitored by the 
Service. However, these sites are only a small percentage of the total 
active polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any given year. Industry 
routinely coordinates with the Service to determine the location of 
Industry's activities relative to known dens and denning habitat. 
General LOA provisions require Industry operations to avoid known polar 
bear dens by 1 mile.
    There is the possibility that an unknown den may be encountered 
during Industry activities as well. Between 2002 and 2010, six 
previously unknown maternal polar bears dens were encountered by 
Industry during the course of project activities. Once a previously 
unknown den is identified by Industry, the Service requires that the 
den be reported, triggering mitigation measures per response plans. 
Communication between Industry and the Service and the implementation 
of mitigation measures, such as the 1-mile exclusion area around the 
now known den and 24-hour monitoring of the site, ensures that 
disturbance is minimized.

4. Effect on Prey Species

    Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears in the Beaufort 
Sea and inhabit the nearshore waters where offshore Industry activities 
occur. Industry will mainly have an effect on seals through the 
potential for contamination (oil spills) or industrial noise 
disturbance. Effects of contamination from oil discharges for seals are 
described in the following section, ``Potential Impacts of Waste 
Product Discharge and Oil Spills on

[[Page 13471]]

Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,'' under the ``Pacific Walrus'' 
subsection.
    Studies have shown that seals can be displaced from certain areas 
such as pupping lairs or haulouts and abandon breathing holes near 
Industry activity. However, these disturbances appear to have minor 
effects and are short term.

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Polar Bears

    The Service anticipates that potential impacts of Industry noise, 
physical obstructions, and human encounters on polar bears would be 
limited to short-term changes in behavior and should have no long-term 
impact on individuals and no impacts on the polar bear population.
    Potential impacts will be mitigated through various requirements 
stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures required for all projects 
will include a polar bear and/or walrus interaction plan, and a record 
of communication with affected villages that may serve as the precursor 
to a POC with the village to mitigate effects of the project on 
subsistence activities. Mitigation measures that may be used on a case-
by-case basis include the use of trained marine mammal monitors 
associated with marine activities, the use of den habitat maps 
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the use of FLIR or 
polar bear scent-trained dogs to determine the presence or absence of 
dens, timing of the activity to limit disturbance around dens, the 1-
mile buffer surrounding known dens, and suggested work actions around 
known dens. The Service implements certain mitigation measures based on 
need and effectiveness for specific activities based largely on timing 
and location. For example, the Service will implement different 
mitigation measures for a 2-month-long exploration project 20 miles 
inland from the coast, than for an annual nearshore development project 
in shallow waters. For example, based on past monitoring information, 
bears are more prevalent in the coastal areas than 20 miles inland and, 
therefore, there may be differences in monitoring and mitigation 
measures required by the Service to limit the disturbance to bears and 
to limit human/bear interactions.
    The Service manages Industry activities occurring in polar bear 
denning habitat by applying proactive and reactive mitigation measures 
to limit Industry impact to denning bears. Proactive mitigation 
measures are actions taken to limit den site exposure to Industry 
activities in denning habitat before den locations are known. They 
include the requirement of a polar bear interaction plan, possible den 
detection surveys, and polar bear awareness and safety training. 
Reactive mitigation measures are actions taken to minimize Industry 
impact to polar bear dens once the locations have been identified. They 
can include applying the 1-mile buffer around the den site and 24-hour 
monitoring of the den site.
    An example of the application of this process would be in the case 
of Industry activities occurring around a known bear den, where a 
standard condition of LOAs requires Industry projects to have developed 
a polar bear interaction plan and to maintain a 1-mile buffer between 
Industry activities and any known denning sites. In addition, we may 
require Industry to avoid working in known denning habitat until bears 
have left their dens. To further reduce the potential for disturbance 
to denning females, we have conducted research, in cooperation with 
Industry, to enable us to accurately detect active polar bear dens 
through the use of remote sensing techniques, such as maps of denning 
habitat along the Beaufort Sea coast and FLIR imagery.
    FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is used in cooperation with 
coastal polar bear denning habitat maps. Industry activity areas, such 
as coastal ice roads, are compared to polar bear denning habitat, and 
transects are then created to survey the specific habitat within the 
Industry area. FLIR heat signatures within a standardized den location 
protocol are noted, and further mitigation measures are placed around 
these locations. FLIR surveys are more effective at detecting polar 
bear dens than visual observations. The effectiveness increases when 
FLIR surveys are combined with site-specific, scent-trained dog 
surveys. These techniques will continue to be required as conditions of 
LOAs when appropriate.
    In addition, Industry has sponsored cooperative research evaluating 
polar bear hearing, the development of polar bear audiograms, the 
transmission of noise and vibration through the ground, snow, ice, and 
air; and the received levels of noise and vibration in polar bear dens. 
This information has been useful to refine site-specific mitigation 
measures. Using current mitigation measures, Industry activities have 
had no known polar bear population-level effects during the period of 
previous regulations. We anticipate that, with continued mitigation 
measures, the impacts to denning and non-denning polar bears will be at 
the same low level as in previous regulations.
    Monitoring data suggests that the number of polar bear encounters 
in the oil fields fluctuates from year to year. Polar bear observations 
by Industry increased between 2004 and 2009 (89 bear observations in 
2004 and 420 bear observations in 2009). These observations range from 
bears observed from a distance and passively moving through the area to 
bears that pose a threat to personnel and are hazed for their safety 
and the safety of Industry personnel. This increase in observations is 
believed to be due to an increased numbers of bears using terrestrial 
habitat, an effort by Industry and the Service to increase polar bear 
awareness and safety to Industry personnel, and an increase in the 
number of people monitoring bear activities around the facilities. 
Although bear observations appear to have increased, bear/human 
encounters remain uncommon events. We anticipate that bear/human 
encounters during the 5-year period of these regulations will remain 
uncommon.

Potential Impacts of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific 
Walruses and Polar Bears

    Individual walruses and polar bears can potentially be affected by 
Industry activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. 
These potential impacts are described below.
    Polar bear and walrus ranges overlap with many active and planned 
oil and gas operations. Polar bears may be susceptible to oil spills 
from platforms/production facilities and pipelines in both offshore and 
onshore habitat, while walruses will be susceptible from offshore 
facilities. To date, no major offshore oil spills have occurred in the 
Alaska Beaufort Sea. Some on-shore spills have occurred on the North 
Slope at production facilities or pipelines connecting wells to the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System with no known impacts to polar bears.
    Oil spills are unintentional releases of oil or petroleum products. 
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Permit Program, all North Slope oil companies must submit an oil spill 
contingency plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the environment, 
and a reporting system requires operators to report spills. Between 
1977 and 1999, an average of 70 oil and 234 waste product spills 
occurred annually on the North Slope oil fields. Although most spills 
have been small (less than 50 barrels) by Industry standards, larger 
spills (more than 500 barrels) accounted for much of the annual volume. 
Seven large spills have occurred between 1985 and 2009 on the North 
Slope. The largest spill occurred in the spring of 2006 when 
approximately 260,000 gallons leaked

[[Page 13472]]

from flow lines near a gathering center. In November 2009, a 46,000 
gallon spill occurred as well. These spills originated in the 
terrestrial environment in heavily industrialized areas not used by 
polar bears or walrus and posed minimal harm to walruses and polar 
bears. To date, no major offshore spills have occurred on the North 
Slope.
    Spills of crude oil and petroleum products associated with onshore 
production facilities during ice-covered and open-water seasons have 
been minor spills. Larger spills are generally production-related and 
could occur at any production facility or pipeline connecting wells to 
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. In addition to onshore sites, this 
could include offshore facilities, such as causeway-linked Endicott or 
the sub-sea pipeline-linked Northstar Island. The trajectories of large 
offshore spills from Northstar and the proposed Liberty facilities have 
been modeled and analyzed in past ITRs to examine potential impacts to 
polar bears.
    Oil spills in the marine environment that can accumulate at the ice 
edge, in ice leads, and similar areas of importance to polar bears and 
walruses are of particular concern. As additional offshore oil 
exploration and production projects come on line the potential for 
large spills in the marine environment increases.
    During the open water season, polar bears could encounter oil if it 
is released during exploratory operations, from existing offshore 
platforms, or from a marine vessel spill. Furthermore, the shipping of 
crude oil or oil products could also increase the likelihood of an oil 
spill due to predicted reductions in Arctic sea ice extent and improved 
access to shipping lanes, where a projected extended shipping season is 
expected to occur around the margins of the Arctic Basin.
    Spilled oil present in fall or spring during formation or breakup 
of ice presents a greater risk because of both the difficulties 
associated with cleaning oil in mixed, broken ice, and the presence of 
bears and other wildlife in prime feeding areas over the Continental 
Shelf during this period. Oil spills occurring in areas where polar 
bears are concentrated, such as along off-shore leads or polynyas, and 
along terrestrial habitat where marine mammal carcasses occur, such as 
at Cross and Barter islands during fall whaling, would affect more 
bears than spills in other areas.
    Oiling of food sources, such as ringed seals, may result in 
indirect effects on polar bears, such as a local reduction in ringed 
seal numbers, or a change to the local distribution of seals and bears. 
More direct effects on polar bears could occur from: (1) Ingestion of 
oiled prey, potentially resulting in reduced survival of individual 
bears; (2) oiling of fur and subsequent ingestion of oil from grooming; 
and (3) disturbance, injury, or death from interactions with humans 
during oil spill response activities. Polar bears may be particularly 
vulnerable to disturbance when nutritionally stressed and during 
denning. Cleanup operations that disturb a den could result in death of 
cubs through abandonment, and perhaps death of the sow as well. In 
spring, females with cubs of the year that denned near or on land and 
migrate to offshore areas may encounter oil (Stirling in Geraci and St. 
Aubin 1990).
    In the event of an oil spill, Service-approved response strategies 
are in place to reduce the impact of a spill on wildlife populations. 
Response efforts will be conducted under a three-tier approach 
characterized as: (1) Primary response--involving containment, 
dispersion, burning, or clean-up of oil; (2) secondary response--
involving hazing, herding, preventative capture/relocation, or 
additional methods to remove or deter wildlife from affected or 
potentially-affected areas; and (3) tertiary response--involving 
capture, cleaning, treatment, and release of wildlife. If the decision 
is made to conduct response activities, primary and secondary response 
options will be vigorously applied since little evidence exists that 
tertiary methods will be effective for cleaning oiled polar bears.
    OCS operators are advised to review the Service's Oil Spill 
Response Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska at (http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm) when developing 
spill-response tactics. Several factors will be considered when 
responding to an oil spill. They include the location of the spill, the 
magnitude of the spill, oil viscosity and thickness, accessibility to 
spill site, spill trajectory, time of year, weather conditions (i.e., 
wind, temperature, precipitation), environmental conditions (i.e., 
presence and thickness of ice), number, age, and sex of polar bears 
that are (or are likely to be) affected, degree of contact, importance 
of affected habitat, cleanup proposal, and likelihood of bear/human 
interactions.
    The BOEMRE has acknowledged that there are difficulties in 
effective oil-spill response in broken ice conditions, and The National 
Academy of Sciences has determined that ``no current cleanup methods 
remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, 
especially in the presence of broken ice.'' The BOEMRE advocates the 
use of nonmechanical methods of spill response, such as in-situ 
burning, during periods when broken ice would hamper an effective 
mechanical response (MMS 2008b). An in situ burn has the potential to 
rapidly remove large quantities of oil and can be employed when broken-
ice conditions may preclude mechanical response. However, oil spill 
cleanup in the broken ice and open water conditions that characterize 
Arctic waters is problematic.

Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills

Pacific Walrus

    As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is not within the primary range 
for the Pacific walrus; therefore, the probability of walruses 
encountering oil or waste products as a result of a spill from Industry 
activities is low. Onshore oil spills would not impact walruses unless 
oil moved into the offshore environment. In the event of a spill that 
occurs during the open-water season, oil in the water column could 
drift offshore and possibly encounter a small number of walruses. Oil 
spills from offshore platforms could also contact walruses under 
certain conditions. Spilled oil during the ice-covered season not 
cleaned up could become part of the ice substrate and be eventually 
released back into the environment during the following open-water 
season. During spring melt, oil would be collected by spill response 
activities, but it could eventually contact a limited number of 
walruses.
    Little is known about the effects of oil specifically on walruses; 
no studies have been conducted. Hypothetically, walruses may react to 
oil much like other pinnipeds. Adult walruses may not be severely 
affected by the oil spill through direct contact, but they will be 
extremely sensitive to any habitat disturbance by human noise and 
response activities. In addition, due to the gregarious nature of 
walruses, an oil spill would most likely affect multiple individuals in 
the area. Walruses may also expose themselves more often to the oil 
that has accumulated at the edge of a contaminated shore or ice lead if 
they repeatedly enter and exit the water.
    Walrus calves are most likely to suffer the effects of oil 
contamination. Female walruses with calves are very attentive, and the 
calf will stay close to its mother at all times, including when the 
female is foraging for food. Walrus calves can swim almost immediately 
after birth and will often join their mother in the water. It is 
possible that an oiled calf will be unrecognizable to its mother either 
by sight or by smell, and be

[[Page 13473]]

abandoned. However, the greater threat may come from an oiled calf that 
is unable to swim away from the contamination and a devoted mother that 
would not leave without the calf, resulting in the potential mortality 
of both animals.
    Walruses have thick skin and blubber layers for insulation and very 
little hair. Thus, they exhibit no grooming behavior, which lessens 
their chance of ingesting oil. Heat loss is regulated by control of 
peripheral blood flow through the animal's skin and blubber. The 
peripheral blood flow is decreased in cold water and increased at 
warmer temperatures. Direct exposure of walruses to oil is not believed 
to have any effect on the insulating capacity of their skin and 
blubber, although it is unknown if oil could affect their peripheral 
blood flow.
    Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil 
because some of the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation 
and death of some tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, leaving behind 
an ulcer. While these skin lesions have only rarely been found on oiled 
seals, the effects on walruses may be greater because of a lack of hair 
to protect the skin. Direct exposure to oil can also result in 
conjunctivitis. Like other pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to oil 
contamination in their eyes. Continuous exposure to oil will quickly 
cause permanent eye damage.
    Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes presents another threat to marine 
mammals. In studies conducted on pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage, 
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to 
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. If the 
walruses were also under stress from molting, pregnancy, etc., the 
increased heart rate associated with the stress would circulate the 
hydrocarbons more quickly, lowering the tolerance threshold for 
ingestion or inhalation.
    Walruses are benthic feeders, and much of the benthic prey 
contaminated by an oil spill would be killed immediately. Others that 
survived would become contaminated from oil in bottom sediments, 
possibly resulting in slower growth and a decrease in reproduction. 
Bivalve mollusks, a favorite prey species of the walrus, are not 
effective at processing hydrocarbon compounds, resulting in highly 
concentrated accumulations and long-term retention of the contamination 
within the organism. In addition, because walruses feed primarily on 
mollusks, they may be more vulnerable to a loss of this prey species 
than other pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety of prey. 
Furthermore, complete recovery of a bivalve mollusk population may take 
10 years or more, forcing walruses to find other food resources or move 
to nontraditional areas.
    The small number of walruses in the Beaufort Sea and the low 
potential for a large oil spill, which is discussed in the following 
Risk Assessment Analysis, limit potential impacts to walruses to only 
certain events (a large oil spill) and then only to a limited number of 
individuals. In the unlikely event there is an oil spill and walruses 
in the same area, mitigation measures, especially those to deflect and 
deter animals from spilled areas, would minimize any effect. Fueling 
crews have personnel that are trained to handle operational spills and 
contain them. If a small offshore spill occurs, spill response vessels 
are stationed in close proximity and respond immediately. A detailed 
discussion of oil spill prevention and response for walruses can be 
found at the following Web site: (http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/fwscontingencyappendices/L-WildlifePlans/WalrusWRP.doc).

Polar Bear

    The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry 
activities and the subsequent impacts on polar bears are a major 
concern. Polar bears could encounter oil spills during the open-water 
and ice-covered seasons in offshore or onshore habitats. Although the 
majority of the SBS polar bear population spends much of their time 
offshore on the pack ice, some bears are likely to encounter oil 
regardless of the season or location in which a spill occurs.
    Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year could 
potentially impact small numbers of bears. The effects of fouling fur 
or ingesting oil or wastes, depending on the amount of oil or wastes 
involved, could be short term or result in death. For example, in April 
1988, a dead polar bear was found on Leavitt Island, approximately 9.3 
km (5 nautical miles) northeast of Oliktok Point. The cause of death 
was determined to be poisoning by a mixture that included ethylene 
glycol and Rhodamine B dye. While the bear's death was human-caused, 
the source of the mixture was unknown.
    During the ice-covered season, mobile, non-denning bears would have 
a higher probability of encountering oil or other production wastes 
than nonmobile, denning females. Current management practices by 
Industry, such as requiring the proper use, storage, and disposal of 
hazardous materials, minimize the potential occurrence of such 
incidents. In the event of an oil spill, it is also likely that polar 
bears would be intentionally hazed to keep them away from the area, 
further reducing the likelihood of impacting the population.
    In 1980, Canadian scientists performed experiments that studied the 
effects to polar bears of exposure to oil. Effects on experimentally 
oiled polar bears (where bears were forced to remain in oil for 
prolonged periods of time) included acute inflammation of the nasal 
passages, marked epidermal responses, anemia, anorexia, and biochemical 
changes indicative of stress, renal impairment, and death. Many effects 
did not become evident until several weeks after the experiment 
(Oritsland et al. 1981).
    Oiling of the pelt causes significant thermoregulatory problems by 
reducing the insulation value. Irritation or damage to the skin by oil 
may further contribute to impaired thermoregulation. Experiments on 
live polar bears and pelts showed that the thermal value of the fur 
decreased significantly after oiling, and oiled bears showed increased 
metabolic rates and elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears are also 
likely to ingest oil as they groom to restore the insulation value of 
the oiled fur.
    Oil ingestion by polar bears through consumption of contaminated 
prey, and by grooming or nursing, could have pathological effects, 
depending on the amount of oil ingested and the individual's 
physiological state. Death could occur if a large amount of oil were 
ingested or if volatile components of oil were aspirated into the 
lungs. Indeed, two of three bears died in the Canadian experiment, and 
it was suspected that the ingestion of oil was a contributing factor to 
the deaths. Experimentally oiled bears ingested much oil through 
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by vomiting and in the feces; some 
was absorbed and later found in body fluids and tissues.
    Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil can have various 
physiological effects on a polar bear, depending on whether the animal 
is able to excrete or detoxify the hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons 
irritate or destroy epithelial cells lining the stomach and intestine, 
thereby affecting motility, digestion, and absorption.
    Polar bears swimming in, or walking adjacent to, an oil spill could 
inhale petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by polar bears could result 
in damage to various systems, such as the respiratory and the central 
nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure.

[[Page 13474]]

    Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. Seals that die as 
a result of an oil spill could be scavenged by polar bears. This would 
increase exposure of the bears to hydrocarbons and could result in 
lethal impact or reduced survival to individual bears. A local 
reduction in ringed seal numbers as a result of direct or indirect 
effects of oil could temporarily affect the local distribution of polar 
bears. A reduction in density of seals as a direct result of mortality 
from contact with spilled oil could result in polar bears not using a 
particular area for hunting. Possible impacts from the loss of a food 
source could reduce recruitment and/or survival.
    Spilled oil also can concentrate and accumulate in leads and 
openings that occur during spring breakup and autumn freeze-up periods. 
Such a concentration of spilled oil would increase the chance that 
polar bears and their principal prey would be oiled. To access ringed 
and bearded seals, polar bears in the SBS concentrate in shallow waters 
less that 300 m deep over the continental shelf and in areas with 
greater than 50 percent ice cover (Durner et al. 2004).
    Due to their seasonal use of nearshore habitat, the times of 
greatest impact from an oil spill to polar bears are likely the open-
water and broken-ice periods (summer and fall). This is important 
because distributions of polar bears are not uniform through time. 
Nearshore and offshore polar bear densities are greatest in fall, and 
polar bear use of coastal areas during the fall open-water period has 
increased in recent years in the Beaufort Sea. This change in 
distribution has been correlated with the distance to the pack ice at 
that time of year (i.e., the farther from shore the leading edge of the 
pack ice is, the more bears are observed onshore). An analysis of data 
collected 2001-2005 during the fall open-water period concluded: (1) On 
average approximately 4 percent of the estimated 1,526 polar bears in 
the Southern Beaufort population were observed onshore in the fall; (2) 
80 percent of bears onshore occurred within 15 km of subsistence-
harvested bowhead whale carcasses, where large congregations of polar 
bears have been observed feeding; and (3) sea ice conditions affected 
the number of bears on land and the duration of time they spent there 
(Schliebe et al. 2006). Hence, bears concentrated in areas where beach-
cast marine mammal carcasses occur during the fall would likely be more 
susceptible to oiling.
    The persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even 
at sublethal levels, can have long-term effects on wildlife (Peterson 
et al. 2003). Although it may be true that small numbers of bears may 
be affected by an oil spill initially, the long-term impact could be 
much greater. Long-term oil effects could be substantial through 
interactions between natural environmental stressors and compromised 
health of exposed animals, and through chronic, toxic exposure as a 
result of bioaccumulation. Polar bears are biological sinks for 
pollutants because they are the apical predator of the Arctic ecosystem 
and are also opportunistic scavengers of other marine mammals. 
Additionally, their diet is composed mostly of high-fat sealskin and 
blubber, (Norstrom et al. 1988). The highest concentrations of 
persistent organic pollutants in Arctic marine mammals have been found 
in polar bears and seal-eating walruses near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 
1988, Andersen et al. 2001, Muir et al. 1999). As such, polar bears 
would be susceptible to the effects of bioaccumulation of contaminants 
associated with spilled oil, which could affect the bears' 
reproduction, survival, and immune systems. Sublethal, chronic effects 
of any oil spill may further suppress the recovery of polar bear 
populations due to reduced fitness of surviving animals.
    In addition, subadult polar bears are more vulnerable than adults 
to environmental effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult polar bears 
would be most prone to the lethal and sublethal effects of an oil spill 
due to their proclivity for scavenging (thus increasing their exposure 
to oiled marine mammals) and their inexperience in hunting. Because of 
the greater maternal investment a weaned subadult represents, reduced 
survival rates of subadult polar bears have a greater impact on 
population growth rate and sustainable harvest than reduced litter 
production rates (Taylor et al. 1987).
    To date, large oil spills from Industry activities in the Beaufort 
Sea and coastal regions that would impact polar bears have not 
occurred, although the interest in, and the development of, offshore 
hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased the potential for large offshore 
oil spills. With limited background information available regarding oil 
spills in the Arctic environment, the outcome of such a spill is 
uncertain. For example, in the event of a large spill (e.g., 5,900 
barrels (equal to a rupture in the Northstar pipeline and a complete 
drain of the subsea portion of the pipeline), oil would be influenced 
by seasonal weather and sea conditions including temperature, winds, 
wave action, and currents. Weather and sea conditions also affect the 
type of equipment needed for spill response and the effectiveness of 
spill cleanup. Based on the experiences of cleanup efforts following 
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where logistical support was readily 
available, spill response may be largely unsuccessful in open-water 
conditions. Indeed, spill response drills have been unsuccessful in the 
cleanup of oil in broken-ice conditions.
    The major concern regarding large oil spills is the impact a spill 
would have on the survival and recruitment of the SBS polar bear 
population. Currently, this bear population is approximately 1,500 
bears. In addition, the maximum sustainable subsistence harvest is now 
70 bears for this population (divided between Canada and Alaska). The 
population may be able to sustain the additional mortality caused by a 
large oil spill if a small number of bears are killed; however, the 
additive effect of numerous bear deaths due to the direct or indirect 
effects from a large oil spill are more likely to reduce population 
recruitment and survival. Indirect effects may occur through a local 
reduction in seal productivity or scavenging of oiled seal carcasses 
and other potential impacts, both natural and human-induced. The 
removal of a large number of bears from the population would exceed 
sustainable levels, potentially causing a decline in the bear 
population and affecting bear productivity and subsistence use.
    Evaluation of the potential impacts of Industry waste products and 
oil spills suggest that individual bears could be impacted by the 
disturbances (Oritsland et al. 1981). Depending on the amount of oil or 
wastes involved and the timing and location of a spill, impacts could 
be short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order for bear population 
reproduction or survival to be impacted, a large-volume oil spill would 
have to take place. The following section analyzes the likelihood and 
potential effects of such a large-volume oil spill.

Oil Spill Risk Assessment of Potential Impacts to Polar Bears From a 
Large Oil Spill in the Beaufort Sea

    Potential adverse impacts to polar bears and Pacific walruses from 
oil and waste-product spills as a result of industrial activities in 
the Beaufort Sea are a major concern. As part of the incidental take 
regulatory process, the Service evaluates potential impacts of oil 
spills within the proposed regulation area, even though the action of 
an oil spill and the possible lethal outcome to an animal are not 
authorized. Through experience and current data, the Service

[[Page 13475]]

has determined that the offshore environment is the area where its 
trust species will be most vulnerable to oil spill impacts. In this 
section, we assess the risk that polar bears may be oiled using various 
sources of information. This information includes: the description of 
offshore facilities; BOEMRE oil spill risk assessment for the Beaufort 
Sea; the overview of the Risk Assessment from the previous ITRs; and 
information from Service-supported polar bear aerial coastal surveys.
    There is increasing interest in developing offshore oil reserves in 
the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where the estimate of recoverable oil is 
up to approximately 19 billion barrels (BOEMRE 2010a). Development of 
offshore production facilities and pipelines increases the potential 
for large offshore spills. Oil spilled from an offshore facility or 
subsea pipeline is a scenario that has been considered in previous 
regulations (71 FR 43926). With the limited background information 
available regarding the effects of large oil spills in the offshore 
Arctic environment, the impact of a large oil spill is uncertain. As 
far as is known, polar bears have not been affected by oil spilled as a 
result of North Slope industrial activities to date.
    As previously noted, walruses are rare in the Beaufort Sea. 
Therefore, they are unlikely to encounter oil spills there, and were 
not considered in this analysis. Several factors must be considered 
when developing an oil spill risk assessment for polar bears. They 
include:
    1. The location of spill;
    2. Magnitude of spill;
    3. Oil viscosity and thickness;
    4. Accessibility to spill site;
    5. Spill trajectory;
    6. Time of year;
    7. Weather conditions (i.e., wind, temperature, precipitation);
    8. Environmental conditions (i.e., presence and thickness of ice);
    9. Number, age, and sex of polar bears that are (or are likely to 
be) affected;
    10. Degree of contact;
    11. Importance of affected habitat; and
    12. Mitigation to limit bears from spilled oil.

Description of Offshore Facilities

    Currently, there are three offshore Industry facilities producing 
oil in the Beaufort Sea: Endicott, Northstar, and Oooguruk. Two more, 
Liberty and Nikaitchuq, are expected to commence production during the 
5-year period analyzed for these regulations. The Endicott oilfield is 
located approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast of Prudhoe Bay. Endicott, 
which is connected by a causeway to the mainland, began production in 
1986. The Liberty field is currently under development; the current 
project concept is to use ultra-extended-reach drilling technology to 
access the Liberty reservoir from existing facilities at the Endicott 
Satellite Drilling Island. The Northstar oilfield, which is located 10 
km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay, began producing oil in 2001. Northstar oil 
is transported from a gravel island in the Beaufort Sea to shore via a 
10-km (6-mi) subsea pipeline buried in a trench in the sea floor. 
Endicott and Liberty oils are medium-weight viscous crudes with 
American Petroleum Institute (API) gravities of 24 and 27 degrees, 
respectively. Northstar crude is a very light, low-viscosity oil with 
an API gravity of 42.
    The Oooguruk Unit is located adjacent to the Kuparuk River Unit in 
shallow waters of Harrison Bay. Pioneer and its partner, Eni, 
constructed an offshore drill site there in 2006 on State of Alaska 
leases. A subsea flow line was also constructed to transfer produced 
fluids 9.2 km (5.7 mi) from the offshore drill site to shore. Oooguruk 
began production in 2008. The Oooguruk development has targeted two 
separate reservoirs from a single offshore drill site. The principal 
reservoir is the Nuiqsut, an Upper Jurassic, inner shelf sandstone that 
contains heavy to medium oil with 19-25[deg] American Petroleum 
Institute (API) gravity. The secondary reservoir is the Kuparuk C 
sandstone, which consists of medium viscosity oil ranging from 24-
26[deg] API gravity. Peak oil production is anticipated to be 
approximately 18,000 to 20,000 barrels of oil per day. As described 
earlier, both Nikaitchuq and Oooguruk are located in shallow water 
(less than 10 feet). The offshore portion of Nikaitchuq is located 
south of the barrier islands, while Oooguruk is located southeast of 
Thetis Island in the Colville River outflow. Facilities for the 
Nikaitchuq Unit are located at Oliktok Point and at an offshore pad 
near Spy Island, 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Oliktok Point. The offshore pad 
is located in shallow water 3 meters (10 feet). Oil from the Nikaitchuq 
prospect is a heavy crude from the Schrader Bluff formation, sometimes 
with sand in it, found in a shallow reservoir (less than 4,000 feet). 
It requires an electrical submersible pump to produce oil. According to 
the operators, the flow can be stopped by turning off the pump. Oil 
production at Nikaitchuq is anticipated to begin in 2011.

Oil Spill Analysis

    The oil-spill scenario for this analysis considers the potential 
impacts from large oil spills resulting from oil production at the four 
developments described above (Endicott and Liberty are considered to be 
a complex for analysis purposes). Estimating large oil-spill occurrence 
and behavior is a probability exercise. Uncertainty exists regarding 
the location and size of a large oil spill and the wind, ice, and 
current conditions at the time of a spill. Although some of the 
uncertainty reflects incomplete or imperfect data, a considerable 
amount of uncertainty exists simply because it is difficult to predict 
events over the next 5 years.
    In order to address oil spill impacts to polar bears from the 
offshore sites, we analyzed quantitative and anecdotal information. The 
quantitative assessment of oil spill risk for the current request for 
incidental take regulations considered conditional oil spill 
probabilities from four offshore sites: Northstar, Oooguruk, 
Nikaitchuq, and the Endicott/Liberty prospect; oil spill trajectory 
models; and a polar bear distribution model. The analysis included 
information from the Bureau of Ocean and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Oil spill 
Risk analysis in regard to polar bears, reviewed previous risk 
assessment information of polar bears in prior ITRs, and analyzed polar 
bear distribution using the Service's coastal survey data for 2000 to 
present.

BOEMRE Oil Spill Risk Assessment

    Because it provides the most current and rigorous treatment of 
potential oil spills in the Beaufort Sea, our analysis of potential oil 
spill impacts draws upon the BOEMRE's most recent Oil Spill Risk 
Analysis (OSRA) (MMS 2008a) to help elucidate potential impacts of an 
oil spill to polar bears. The OSRA is a computer model that analyzes 
how and where large offshore spills will likely move (Smith et al. 
1982). To estimate the likely trajectory potential oil spills may 
follow, the OSRA model uses information about the physical environment, 
including data on wind, sea ice, and currents. Although the OSRA 
estimates that the statistical mean number of large spills is less than 
one over the life of most developments in the Beaufort Sea, for 
purposes of this analysis we assume one large spill occurs and then 
analyze its effects.

Large Spill Size and Source Assumptions

    As stated in Appendix A of the Arctic Multi-sale DEIS (MMS 2008b), 
large spills are those spills of 1,000 barrels

[[Page 13476]]

(bbl) or more and would persist on the water long enough to follow in a 
trajectory analysis. Spills smaller than 1,000 bbl would not be 
expected to persist on the water long enough to warrant a trajectory 
analysis. Because no large spills have occurred on the Alaska OCS to 
date from oil and gas activities, the large spill-size assumptions used 
by BOEMRE are based on the reported spills from oil production in the 
Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS regions. BOEMRE uses the median spill 
size in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS from 1985 through 1999 as 
the likely large spill size for analysis purposes. The median size of a 
crude oil spill greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl from a pipeline from 
1985 through 1999 on the U.S. OCS was 4,600 bbl, and the average was 
6,700 bbl (Anderson and LaBelle 2000). The median spill size for a 
platform on the OCS over the entire record 1964-1999, based on 
analysis, is 1,500 bbl, and the average is 3,300 bbl (Anderson and 
LaBelle 2000). For purposes of analysis, we use the median spill size 
estimates from BOEMRE as the likely large spill size from platforms and 
pipelines.
    Our analysis is predicated on the BOEMRE assumption that large 
spills would occur only during development and production in the Arctic 
(MMS 2008a). BOEMRE still considers assumptions from the DEIS of the 
Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas to be valid despite the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill event in the summer of 2010. Currently, 
BOEMRE is working on a new large spill projection for the Arctic OCS in 
regard to new information gleaned from the Deepwater Horizon event. 
However, considering the low number of exploratory wells that have 
occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS (31 wells since 1982 [BOEMRE 2010b]) 
and the low rate of exploratory drilling blowouts per well drilled, it 
is reasonable to conclude that the risk of a large spill occurring 
during exploration of the Arctic OCS is very small. In addition, it is 
important to note that Industry does not plan to conduct drilling 
operations at more than three exploration sites in the Beaufort Sea OCS 
for the duration of the 5-year regulatory period.
    Between 1971 and 2007, OCS operators have produced almost 15 
billion barrels (Bbbl) of oil in the United States. During this period, 
there were 2,645 spills that totaled approximately 164,100 barrels 
spilled (equal to 0.001 percent of barrels produced), or about 1 bbl 
spilled for every 91,400 bbl produced. Between 1993 and 2007, the most 
recent 15-year period analyzed, almost 7.5 Bbbl of oil were produced. 
During this period, there were 651 spills that totaled approximately 
47,800 bbl spilled (equal to 0.0006 percent of barrels produced), or 
approximately 1 bbl spilled for every 156,900 bbl produced.
    Within the duration of the previous ITRs, two large onshore 
terrestrial oil spills occurred as a result of failures in the oil 
production transport system. In the spring of 2006, an oil spill of 
approximately 260,000 gallons occurred near an oil gathering center 
facility from a corroded pipeline operated by BP Exploration (Alaska). 
The spill impacted approximately 2 acres (8 square meters). In November 
2009, a 48,000-gallon spill from a ``common line'' carrying oil, water, 
and natural gas operated by BP occurred as well, impacting 
approximately 8,400 square feet (780 square meters). Neither spill 
appeared to impact polar bears, in part due to the locations: Both 
sites were within or near industrial facilities not frequented by 
bears; and timing: Polar bears are not typically observed in the 
affected areas during the time of the spills and subsequent cleanup.

Trajectory Estimates of a Large Offshore Oil Spill

    Although it is reasonable to assume that the chance of one or more 
large spills occurring during the period of these regulations on the 
Alaskan OCS from production activities is low, for analysis purposes, 
we assume that a large spill does occur in order to evaluate potential 
impacts to polar bears. The BOEMRE OSRA model analyzes the likely paths 
of over two million simulated oil spills in relation to biological, 
physical, and sociocultural resource areas specific to the Beaufort 
Sea, which are generically called environmental resource areas (ERAs). 
The chance that a large oil spill will contact a specific ERA of 
concern within a given time of travel from a certain location (launch 
area or pipeline segment) is termed a conditional probability. We used 
the BOEMRE OSRA analysis from the Arctic Multi-sale DEIS to estimate 
the conditional probabilities of a large spill contacting sensitive 
ERAs pertinent to polar bears.

Oil-Spill Persistence

    How long an oil spill persists on water or on the shoreline can 
vary, depending upon the size of the oil spill, the environmental 
conditions at the time of the spill, and the substrate of the 
shoreline. In its oil spill analysis, BOEMRE conservatively assumes 
1,500- and 4,600-bbl spills could last up to 30 days on the water as a 
coherent slick. To be even more conservative, we considered BOEMRE 
conditional probabilities out to 60 days for an open water (July-
September) spill. We assume that a spill could last longer as a 
coherent slick if it became entrained in the ice and melts out in the 
spring. Therefore, we assume that winter spills (October-June) could 
last up to 180 days as a coherent slick.
    We used the BOEMRE maps of launch areas (LAs) and pipeline segments 
(PLs) from Appendix A of the Arctic Multi-sale DEIS (Map A.1-4) to 
represent the location of oil spills originating from the four OCS 
developments described previously. Specifically, we assigned LA 08 and 
PL 10 to Oooguruk, LA 10 and PL 10 to Nikaitchuq, LA 12 and PL 11 to 
Northstar, and LA 12 and PL 12 to Endicott/Liberty. Conditional 
probabilities for contact from spills from LAs and PLs should be 
considered slightly higher for Oooguruk and Nikaitchuq because the 
hypothetical pipelines used by BOEMRE in their OSRA model are much 
longer than actual existing offshore pipelines in the Beaufort Sea 
(i.e., the model pipelines extend beyond the barrier islands).

Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model Assumptions

    For purposes of this oil spill trajectory simulation, BOEMRE made 
the following assumptions:
     All spills occur instantaneously;
     Large oil spills occur in the hypothetical launch areas or 
along the hypothetical pipeline segments noted above;
     Large spills do not weather for purposes of OSRA analysis;
     The model does not simulate cleanup scenarios. The oil 
spill trajectories move as though no oil spill response action is 
taken; and
     Large oil spills stop when they contact the mainland 
coastline.

Analysis of the Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model

    As noted above, the chance that a large oil spill will contact a 
specific ERA of concern within a given time of travel from a certain 
location (LA or PL) is termed a conditional probability. From the DEIS, 
Appendix A, we chose ERAs and Land Segments (LSs) to represent areas of 
concern pertinent to polar bears (MMS 2008a). Those ERAs and LSs, and 
the conditional probabilities that an oil spill originating from one of 
the four existing OCS developments would contact them, are presented in 
Table 1. From Table 1 we were able to estimate the highest probability 
and the range of probabilities that could occur should a

[[Page 13477]]

spill contact the selected land segments from launch areas or pipeline 
segments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR11.000

BILLING CODE 3410-55-C

[[Page 13478]]

    Polar bears are most vulnerable to an oil spill during the open 
water period when bears aggregate on shore. In the Beaufort Sea these 
aggregations often form in the fall near subsistence-harvested bowhead 
whale carcasses. Specific aggregation areas include Point Barrow, Cross 
Island, and Kaktovik. In recent years, more than 60 polar bears have 
been observed feeding on whale carcasses just outside of Kaktovik, and 
in the autumn of 2002, NSB and Service biologists documented more than 
100 polar bears in and around Barrow. In order for significant impacts 
on polar bears to occur, an oil spill would have to contact an 
aggregation of polar bears. We believe the probability of this 
occurring is low. For example, in the unlikely event of an oil spill, 
the probability of it contacting a polar bear aggregation in resource 
areas or land segments (ERA 55, 93, 95, 96, 100; LS 85, 107) is 13 
percent or less (Table 1). The greatest probability would be oil 
spilled from Northstar or Endicott/Liberty Launch Areas contacting ERA 
96 (Midway, Cross, and Bartlett islands). Some polar bears will 
aggregate at these sites during a 3-month portion of the year (August-
October). If an oil spill occurred and contacted those aggregation 
sites outside of that timeframe of use by polar bears, potential 
impacts to polar bears would be minimized.
    Coastal areas provide important denning habitat for polar bears, 
such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and nearshore 
barrier islands exhibiting relief (containing tundra habitat) (Amstrup 
1993, Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2006, USFWS unpubl. 
data). Considering that 65 percent of confirmed terrestrial dens found 
in Alaska from 1981 through 2005 were on coastal or island bluffs 
(Durner et al. 2006), oiling of such habitats could have a negative 
impact on polar bears, although specific nature and ramifications of 
such effects are unknown.
    If an oil spill does occur, tundra relief barrier islands (ERA 92, 
93, and 94, LS 97 and 102) would have up to a 12 percent conditional 
probability of spill contact (range: Less than 1 percent to 12 percent) 
from either Northstar or the Endicott/Liberty complex (Table 1). The 
highest conditional probability of a spill contacting the coastline of 
the ANWR (LS 138) would be 11 percent. The Kaktovik area (ERA 95 and 
100, LS 107) has up to a 5 percent chance of spill contact, assuming 
spills occur during the summer season and contact the coastline within 
60 days. The chance of a spill contacting the coast near Barrow (ERA 
55, LS 85) would be as high as 5 percent (Table 1).
    All barrier islands are important resting and travel corridors for 
polar bears, larger barrier islands that contain tundra relief are also 
important denning habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier islands within the 
geographic region and near oil field development are the Jones Island 
group of Pingok, Bertoncini, Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, Foggy, Tigvariak, 
and Flaxman islands. In addition, Cross Island has gravel relief and 
polar bears have previously denned on it. The Jones Island group is 
located in ERA 92 and LS 97. If a spill were to originate from Oooguruk 
during the summer months, the probability that this spill would contact 
these land segments could be as great as 8 percent from a pipeline 
segment. The probability that a spill from Nikaitchuq would contact the 
Jones Island group would range from 1 percent to as high as 11 percent. 
Likewise, for Northstar and the Endicott/Liberty complex, the range 
would be from 4 percent to as high as 12 percent and from 3 percent to 
as high as 12 percent, respectively.

Risk Assessment From Prior Incidental Take Regulations (ITRs)

    In previous ITRs, we used a risk assessment method that considered 
oil spill probability estimates for two sites (Northstar and Liberty), 
oil spill trajectory models, and a polar bear distribution model based 
on location of satellite-collared females during September and October. 
To support the analysis for this proposed action, we reviewed the 
previous analysis and used the data to compare the potential effects of 
an oil spill in a nearshore production facility (less than 5 miles), 
such as Liberty, and a facility located further offshore, such as 
Northstar (greater than 5 miles). Although Liberty was originally 
designed as an offshore production island, it is currently being 
developed as an onshore production facility (connected to the mainland 
by a causeway) using ultra-extended reach technology to drill 
directionally into the oil prospect. Even though the risk assessment of 
2006 did not specifically model spills from the Oooguruk or Nikaitchuq 
sites, we believed it was reasonable to assume that the analysis for 
Liberty, and indirectly Northstar, adequately reflected the potential 
impacts likely to occur from an oil spill at either of these additional 
locations due to the similarity in the nearshore locations.

Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment

    The first step in the risk assessment analysis was to examine oil 
spill probabilities at offshore production sites for the summer (July-
October) and winter (November-June) seasons based on information 
presented in the original Northstar and Liberty EIS. We assumed that 
one spill occurred during the 5-year period covered by the regulations. 
A detailed description of the methodology can be found at 71 FR 43926 
(August 2, 2006). The second step in the risk assessment was to 
estimate the number of polar bears that could be impacted by a spill. 
If a bear contacted oil, it was assumed to be a lethal contact. This 
involved estimating the distribution of bears that could be in the area 
and overlapping polar bear distributions and seasonal aggregations with 
oil spill trajectories. The trajectories previously calculated for 
Northstar and Liberty sites were used, as well as BOEMRE estimates of 
where oil spills from other production facilities were likely to go. 
The trajectories for Northstar and Liberty were provided by the BOEMRE 
and reported in Amstrup et al. (2006). BOEMRE estimated probable sizes 
of oil spills from the transportation pipeline and production 
platforms. These spill sizes ranged from a minimum of 125 to a 
catastrophic release event of 5,912 barrels. Hence, researchers set the 
size of the modeled spill at the worst-case scenario of 5,912 barrels, 
simulating rupture and drainage of a pipeline.
    The second component incorporated polar bear densities overlapped 
with the oil spill trajectories. To accomplish this, in 2004, USGS 
completed analysis investigating the potential effects of hypothetical 
oil spills on polar bears. Movement and distribution information was 
derived from radio and satellite relocations of collared adult females. 
Density estimates were used to determine the distribution of polar 
bears in the Beaufort Sea. Researchers then created a grid system 
centered over the Northstar production island and the Liberty site to 
estimate the number of bears expected to occur within each 1 km\2\ grid 
cell. Each of the simulated oil spills were overlaid with the polar 
bear distribution grid. Finally, the likelihood of occurrence of bears 
oiled during the duration of the 5-year incidental take regulations was 
estimated. This was calculated by multiplying the number of polar bears 
oiled by the spill by the percentage of time bears were at risk for 
each period of the year, and summing these probabilities.
    In summary, the maximum numbers of bears potentially oiled by a 
5,912-barrel spill during September open water seasons from Northstar 
was 27, and the maximum from Liberty was 23. Potentially oiled bears 
ranged up to 74 polar bears and up to 55 polar bears in

[[Page 13479]]

October mixed-ice conditions for Northstar and Liberty, respectively. 
Median number of bears oiled by the 5,912-barrel spill in September and 
October were 3 and 11 bears from Northstar simulation site, 
respectively. Median numbers of bears oiled for September and October 
for the Liberty simulation site were 1 and 3 bears, respectively. 
Variation occurred among oil spill scenarios and was the result of 
differences in oil spill trajectories among those scenarios and not the 
result of variation in the estimated bear densities. For example, in 
October, 75 percent of trajectories from the 5,912-barrel spilled oil 
affected 20 or fewer polar bears from spills originating at the 
Northstar simulation site and 9 or fewer bears from spills originating 
at the Liberty simulation site.
    When calculating the probability that a spill would oil 5 or more 
bears during the annual fall period, we found that oil spills and 
trajectories were more likely to affect small numbers of bears (less 
than 5 bears) than larger numbers of bears. Thus, for Northstar, the 
probability of spilled oil that affected (resulting in mortality) 5 or 
more bears is 1.0-3.4 percent; for 10 or more bears is 0.7-2.3 percent; 
and for 20 or more bears is 0.2-0.8 percent. For Liberty, the 
probability of a spill that will cause a mortality of 5 or more bears 
was 0.3-7.4 percent; for 10 or more bears, 0.1-0.4 percent; and for 20 
or more bears, 0.1-0.2 percent.

Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment

    Location of Industry sites within the marine environment is 
important when analyzing the potential for polar bears to contact an 
oil spill. Simulations from the prior risk assessment suggested that 
bears have a higher probability of being oiled from facilities located 
further offshore, such as Northstar. Northstar Island is nearer the 
active ice flaw zone and in deeper water than Endicott/Liberty, 
Oooguruk, and Nikaitchuq. Furthermore, it is not sheltered from deep 
water by barrier islands. These characteristics associated with 
Industry developments located further offshore would potentially 
attract more polar bears into close proximity with the island and would 
also allow oil to spread more effectively and more consistently into 
surrounding areas. By comparison through the model, the land-fast ice 
inside the shelter of the islands appeared to dramatically restrict the 
extent of most oil spills in comparison to Northstar, which lies 
outside the barrier islands and in deeper water. From the standpoint of 
polar bears and based on the simulations, a nearshore island production 
site (less than 5 miles) would potentially involve less risk to being 
oiled than a facility located further offshore, such as Northstar 
Island. Shell may develop an offshore site (Suvulliq) in the active 
flaw zone during the period of the proposed action. If developed, 
future scenarios for this prospect will be similar to Northstar and 
would influence polar bears in a similar manner.

Discussion of Polar Bear Aerial Coastal Surveys for Current Analysis

    The Service has an ongoing project to monitor polar bear 
distribution and numbers along the Beaufort Sea coastline during the 
fall season. These aerial surveys were conducted between 2000 to 2009. 
From 2000 to 2005, the Service investigated the relationship between 
sea ice conditions, food availability, and the fall distribution of 
polar bears in terrestrial habitats of the SBS via weekly aerial 
surveys. Aerial surveys were conducted weekly during September and 
October along the SBS coastline and barrier islands between Barrow and 
the Canadian border to determine polar bear density during the peak use 
of terrestrial habitat by bears. The Service observed that the number 
of bears on land increased when sea-ice retreated farthest from the 
shore. The distribution of bears also appeared to be related to the 
availability of subsistence-harvested bowhead whale carcasses and the 
density of ringed seals in offshore waters.
    Between 2000 and 2005, the maximum density estimate of bears 
observed during any single survey was 8.6 bears/100 km or 122 bears 
total. Across all years (2000 to 2005) and survey dates between mid-
September and the end of October, an average of 4 bears/100 km (57 
bears total) were observed. The Service estimated that a maximum of 8.0 
percent and an average of 3.7 percent of the estimated 1,526 bears in 
the SBS population were observed on land during the late open-water and 
broken-ice period. This period coincides with increased aggregations of 
bears in the nearshore at feeding sites and the peak observation period 
(August through October) of bears observed from Industry as reported 
through their bear monitoring programs. This would be the period posing 
the greatest risk to the largest number of bears from an oil spill.
    The number of bears observed per kilometer of survey flown was 
higher between Cape Halkett and Jago Spit (4 bears/100 km) than the 
area surveyed between Barrow and the Canadian border (3 bears/100 km) 
during the 2003-2005 surveys. The Service reported that this difference 
was largely driven by a major concentration of bears (69 percent of 
total bears onshore) at Barter Island (17.0 polar bears/100 km). In 
addition, annual surveys were also conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 
The number of bears observed during weekly surveys ranged between 2 to 
51, 2 to 78, and 7 to 75, respectively. The highest concentrations 
continued to be in the area of Barter Island and the community of 
Kaktovik. Using the above information, if a spill occurred during the 
fall open-water or broken-ice period, up to 8 percent of the SBS 
population could potentially contact oil.

Conclusion of Risk Assessment

    In summary, documented oil spill-related impacts in the marine 
environment to polar bears to date in the Beaufort Sea by the oil and 
gas Industry are minimal. To date, no large spills in the marine 
environment have occurred in Arctic Alaska. Nevertheless, the 
possibility of oil spills from Industry activities and the subsequent 
impacts on polar bears that contact oil remain a major concern.
    With the limited background information available regarding oil 
spills in the Arctic environment, it is unknown what the outcome of 
such a spill would be if one were to occur. Polar bears could encounter 
oil spills during the open-water and ice-covered seasons in offshore or 
onshore habitat. Although the majority of the SBS polar bear population 
spends a large amount of their time offshore on the pack ice, it is 
likely that some bears would encounter oil from a spill regardless of 
the season and location.
    Although the extent of oil spill impacts would depend on the size, 
location, and timing of spills relative to polar bear distributions and 
on the effectiveness of spill response and cleanup efforts, under some 
scenarios, population-level impacts could be expected. A large spill 
could have significant impacts on polar bears if an oil spill contacted 
an aggregation of polar bears, which generally occur in discrete areas 
in the terrestrial environment. A spill occurring during the broken-ice 
period could significantly impact the SBS polar bear population, in 
part because effective techniques for containing, recovering, and 
cleaning up oil spills in Arctic marine environments, particularly 
during poor weather and broken-ice conditions has not been proven; 
however, deterrence of polar bears away from areas affected by an oil 
spill could help minimize the impact of a spill to the SBS population. 
In the event that an offshore oil spill contacted numerous

[[Page 13480]]

bears, a potentially significant impact to the SBS population could 
result, initially to the percentage of the population directly 
contacted by oil. This effect would be magnified in and around areas of 
polar bear aggregations. Bears would also be affected indirectly either 
by food contamination or by chronic lasting effects caused by exposure 
to oil. During the 5 year period of these regulations, however, the 
chance of a large spill occurring is extremely low.
    While there is uncertainty in the analysis, certain vectors have to 
align for polar bears to be impacted by an oil spill in the marine 
environment. First, a spill has to occur. Second, the spill has to 
contact areas where bears may be located. BOEMRE's most recent Oil 
Spill Risk Analysis suggests that if a large oil spill does occur, 
there is as much as a 13 percent conditional probability that oil from 
the five analyzed sites would contact Cross Island (ERA 96) (from 
simulated spills originating either at Northstar or the Endicott/
Liberty complex), and as much as an 11 percent conditional probability 
that it would contact Barter Island and/or the coast of the ANWR (ERA 
95 and 100, LS 107 and 138) (from simulated spills originating at the 
Endicott/Liberty complex). Similarly, there is as much as a 5 percent 
chance that an oil spill would contact the coast near Barrow (ERA 55, 
LS 85) (from simulated spills originating at Oooguruk). Third, polar 
bears will have to be seasonally distributed within the affected region 
to be impacted by oil. Data from the polar bear coastal surveys 
suggested that, while polar bears are not uniformly distributed, an 
average of 3.7 percent with maximum of 8 percent (sample size of 122 
bears) of the estimated 1,526 bears in the SBS population were 
distributed along the Beaufort Sea coastline between the Alaska/Canada 
border and Barrow.
    As a result of the information considered here, the Service 
concludes that the probability of an offshore spill from Oooguruk, 
Nikaitchuq, Northstar, or Endicott/Liberty is low. Moreover, in the 
unlikely event of a spill, the probability that spills would contact 
areas, or habitat important to bears appears low. Third, while 
individual bears could be affected by a spill, the potential for a 
population-level effect would be minimal unless the spill contacted an 
aggregation of bears. Known aggregations tend to be seasonal during the 
late open-water and broken-ice season, further minimizing the potential 
of a spill to impact bears. Therefore, we conclude that only small 
numbers of polar bears are likely to be affected by a large oil spill 
in the Arctic waters with only a negligible impact to the SBS 
population.

Documented Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and 
Polar Bears

    In order to document potential impacts to polar bears and walruses, 
we analyzed potential effects that could have more than a negligible 
impact to both species. The effects analyzed included the loss or 
preclusion of habitat, lethal take, harassment, and oil spills.

Pacific Walrus

    During the history of the incidental take regulations, the actual 
impacts from Industry activities on Pacific walruses, documented 
through monitoring, were minimal. From 1994 to 2004, Industry recorded 
nine sightings, involving a total of ten Pacific walruses, during the 
open-water season. From 2005 to 2009, an additional eight individual 
walruses were observed during Industry operations in the Beaufort Sea. 
In most cases, walruses appeared undisturbed by human interactions; 
however, three sightings during the early 2000s involved potential 
disturbance to the walruses. Two of three sightings involved walruses 
hauling out on the armor of Northstar Island and one sighting occurred 
at the SDC on the McCovey prospect, where the walruses reacted to 
helicopter noise. With the additional sightings in the Beaufort Sea, 
walruses were observed during exploration (eight sightings; five during 
recent aerial surveys; 2009), development (three sightings), and 
production (six sightings) activities. There is no evidence that there 
were any physical effects or impacts to these individual walruses based 
on the interaction with Industry. We know of no other interactions that 
occurred between walrus and Industry during the duration of the 
incidental take program. Furthermore, there have been no other 
documented impacts to walruses from Industry.

Cumulative Impacts

    Pacific walruses do not normally range into the Beaufort Sea, and 
documented interactions between oil and gas activities and walruses 
have been minimal. The proposed Industry activities identified by the 
petitioners are likely to result in some incremental cumulative effects 
to the small number of walruses exposed to these activities through the 
potential exclusion or avoidance of walruses from resting areas and 
disruption of associated biological behaviors. However, based on the 
habitat use patterns of walruses and their close association with 
seasonal pack ice, relatively small numbers of walruses are likely to 
be encountered during the open-water season when proposed marine 
activities are expected to occur. Required monitoring and mitigation 
measures designed to minimize interactions between authorized projects 
and concentrations of resting or feeding walruses are also expected to 
limit the severity of any behavioral responses. As a population, 
hunting pressure, climate change, and the expansion of commercial 
activities into walrus habitat all have potential to impact walruses. 
Combined, these factors are expected to present significant challenges 
to future walrus conservation and management efforts. Therefore, we 
conclude that the proposed exploration activities, especially as 
mitigated through the regulatory process, are not at this time expected 
to add significantly to the cumulative impacts on the Pacific walrus 
population from past, present, and future activities that are 
reasonably likely to occur within the 5-year period covered by the 
regulations, if adopted.

Polar Bear

    Documented impacts on polar bears by the oil and gas Industry 
during the past 40 years appear to be minimal. Historically, polar 
bears spend a limited amount of time on land, coming ashore to feed, 
den, or move to other areas. With the changing of their distribution 
based on the changing ice environment, the Service anticipates that 
bears will remain on land longer. At times, fall storms deposit bears 
along the coastline where the bears remain until the ice returns. For 
this reason, polar bears have mainly been encountered at or near most 
coastal and offshore production facilities, or along the roads and 
causeways that link these facilities to the mainland. During those 
periods, the likelihood of interactions between polar bears and 
Industry activities increases. We have found that the polar bear 
interaction planning and training requirements set forth in these 
regulations and required through the LOA process have increased polar 
bear awareness and minimized the number of these encounters. LOA 
requirements have also increased our knowledge of polar bear activity 
in the developed areas.
    No known lethal take associated with Industry has occurred during 
the period covered by incidental take regulations. Prior to issuance of 
regulations, lethal takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, there have 
been two documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated

[[Page 13481]]

with oil and gas activities. In both instances, the lethal take was 
reported to be in defense of human life. In winter 1968-1969, an 
Industry employee shot and killed a polar bear. In 1990, a female polar 
bear was killed at a drill site on the west side of Camden Bay. In 
contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in the Canadian Northwest 
Territories from 1976 to 1986 due to encounters with Industry. Since 
the beginning of the incidental take program, which includes measures 
that minimize impacts to the species, no polar bears have been killed 
due to encounters associated with current Industry activities on the 
North Slope. For this reason, Industry has requested that these 
regulations cover only nonlethal, incidental take.
    To date, most impacts to polar bears from industry operations have 
been the result of direct bear-human encounters, some of which have led 
to deterrence events. Monitoring efforts by Industry required under 
previous regulations for the incidental take of polar bears documented 
various types of interactions between polar bears and Industry. Between 
2006 to 2009, a total of 73 LOAs have been issued to Industry, with an 
average of 18 LOAs annually. Not all Industry activities observe or 
interact with polar bears. Polar bear observations were recorded for 56 
percent of the LOAs (41 of 73 LOAs).
    From 2006 through 2009, an average of 306 polar bears was observed 
and reported per year. (range: 170 to 420 bears annually). During 2007, 
7 companies observed 321 polar bears from 177 sightings. In 2008, 10 
companies observed 313 polar bears from 186 sightings. In 2009, 420 
polar bears were observed during 245 sightings. In all 3 years, the 
highest number of bears observed was recorded in the fall season in 
August and September. In 2007, the highest number of bears was recorded 
in August, where 90 sightings totaling 148 bears were observed; in 
2008, 87 sightings totaling 162 bears were recorded in August; while in 
2009, 77 bear sightings were reported. Sightings of polar bears have 
increased from previous regulatory time periods due to a combination of 
variables. The high number of bear sightings for these years was most 
likely the result of an increased number of bears using the terrestrial 
habitat as a result of changes in sea ice habitat, multiple marine-
based projects occurring near barrier islands (where multiple sightings 
were reported), as well as increased compliance and monitoring of 
Industry projects, especially during August and September, where some 
repeat sightings of individual bears and family groups occurred. This 
trend in observations is consistent with the hypothesis of increasing 
use of coastal habitats by polar bears during the summer months.
    Industry activities that occur on or near the Beaufort Sea coast 
continue to have the greatest potential for encountering polar bears 
rather than Industry activities occurring inland. According to AOGA 
figures, the offshore facilities of Endicott, Liberty, Northstar, and 
Oooguruk accounted for 47 percent of all bear observations between 2005 
and 2008 (182 of 390 sightings).
    Intentional take of polar bears (through separate Service 
authorizations under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and 112(c) of the 
MMPA) occurs on the North Slope as well. It is used as a mitigation 
measure to allow citizens conducting activities in polar bear habitat 
to take polar bears by harassment (nonlethal deterrence activities) for 
the protection of both human life and polar bears. The Service provides 
guidance and training as to the appropriate harassment response 
necessary for polar bears. The largest operator on the North Slope, 
BPXA, has documented an increase in the total number of bear 
observations for their oil units since 2006 (39, 62, 96, and 205 bears 
for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively). However, the 
percentage of Level B deterrence events reported by BPXA has decreased 
from 64 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2009 of total observations. 
BPXA attributes this decrease to an increase in polar bear awareness 
and deterrence training of personnel. A similar trend appears in the 
slope-wide data presented by AOGA, which encapsulates multiple 
operators. The percentage of Level B deterrence events appeared to have 
decreased from 39 percent of all reported polar bear sightings in 2005 
to 23 percent in 2008. We currently have no indication that these 
encounters, which alter the behavior and movement of individual bears, 
have an effect on survival and recruitment in the SBS polar bear 
population.

Cumulative Impacts

    Cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities are assessed, in part, 
through the information we gain in monitoring reports, which are 
required for each operator under the authorizations. Incidental take 
regulations have been in place in the Arctic oil and gas fields for the 
past 17 years.
    Information from these reports provides a history of past effects 
on polar bears from interactions with oil and gas activities, including 
intentional take. Information on previous levels of impact are used to 
evaluate future impacts from existing and proposed Industry activities 
and facilities. In addition, information used in our cumulative effects 
assessment includes: polar bear research leading to publications and 
data, such as polar bear population assessments by USGS; information 
from legislative actions, including the listing of the polar bear as a 
threatened species under the ESA in 2008; traditional knowledge of 
polar bear habitat use; anecdotal observations; and professional 
judgment.
    While the number of LOAs being requested does not represent the 
potential for direct impact to polar bears, they do offer an index as 
to the effort and type of Industry work that is currently being 
conducted. LOA trend data also helps the Service track progress on 
various projects as they move through the stages of oil field 
development. An increase in slope-wide projects has the ability to 
expose more people to the Arctic and increase bear-human interactions.
    The Polar Bear Status Review describes cumulative effects of oil 
and gas development on polar bears in Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of 
the status review). This document can be found at http://www.regulations.gov; search for Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098. In 
addition, in 2003 the National Research Council published a description 
of the cumulative effects that oil and gas development would have on 
polar bears and seals in Alaska. They concluded the following:
    (1) ``Industrial activity in the marine waters of the Beaufort Sea 
has been limited and sporadic and likely has not caused serious 
cumulative effects to ringed seals or polar bears.''
    (2) ``Careful mitigation can help to reduce the effects of oil and 
gas development and their accumulation, especially if there is no major 
oil spill. However, the effects of full-scale industrial development 
off the North Slope would accumulate through the displacement of polar 
bears and ringed seals from their habitats, increased mortality, and 
decreased reproductive success.''
    (3) ``A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on 
polar bears and ringed seals.''
    (4) ``Climatic warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi sea regions is likely to have serious consequences for ringed 
seals and polar bears, and those effects will accumulate with the 
effects of oil and gas activities in the region.''
    (5) ``Unless studies to address the potential accumulation of 
effects on North Slope polar bears or ringed seals

[[Page 13482]]

are designed, funded, and conducted over long periods of time, it will 
be impossible to verify whether such effects occur, to measure them, or 
to explain their causes.''
    A detailed description of climate change and its potential effects 
on polar bears, prepared by the Service, can be found in the ``Polar 
Bear Status Review'' (pages 72 to 108) at: http://www.regulations.gov; 
search for Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098. Additional detailed 
information by the USGS regarding the status of the SBS stock in 
relation to climate change, projections of habitat and populations, and 
forecasts of rangewide status can be found at: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/. Climate change could alter polar bear 
habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration of open 
water, may preclude sea ice habitat and restrict some bears to coastal 
areas. Biological effects on the worldwide population of polar bears 
are expected to include increased movements, changes in bear 
distributions, changes to the access and allocation of denning areas, 
and increased energy expenditure from open water swimming, and possible 
decreased fitness. Demographic effects that may occur due to climate 
change include changes in prey availability to polar bears, a potential 
reduction in the access to prey, and changes in seal productivity.
    The Service anticipates negligible effects on polar bears due to 
Industry activity, even though there may be an increased use of 
terrestrial habitat in the fall period by polar bears on the coast of 
Alaska and an increased use of terrestrial habitat by denning bears in 
the same area. Polar bears are not residents of the oil fields, but use 
the habitat in a transitory nature, which limits potential impacts from 
Industry. Furthermore, no known Level A harassment or lethal takes on 
polar bears have occurred throughout the duration of the incidental 
take program, which was initiated in 1994. The last known Industry-
caused death of a bear by Industry occurred in 1990. This documented 
information suggests that Industry will have no more than a negligible 
effect on polar bears for the 5-year regulatory period even though 
there may be more bears onshore. The Service also believes that current 
and proposed mitigation measures will be effective in minimizing any 
additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in distributions of 
the increased use by bears of terrestrial habitats and denning polar 
bears during the 5-year timeframe of the regulations as has occurred in 
the past. It is likely that, due to potential seasonal changes in 
abundance and distribution of polar bears during the fall, more 
frequent encounters may occur and that Industry may have to implement 
mitigation measures more often, for example, increasing polar bear 
deterrence events. In addition, if additional polar bear den locations 
are detected within industrial activity areas, spatial and temporal 
mitigation measures, including cessation of activities, may be 
instituted more frequently during the 5-year period of the rule.
    The proposed activities identified by Industry are likely to result 
in incremental cumulative effects to polar bears during the 5-year 
regulatory period. Based on Industry monitoring information, for 
example, deflection from travel routes along the coast appears to be a 
common occurrence, where bears move around coastal facilities rather 
than traveling through them. Incremental cumulative effects could also 
occur through the potential exclusion or temporary avoidance of polar 
bears from feeding, resting, or denning areas and disruption of 
associated biological behaviors. However, based on monitoring results 
acquired from past ITRs, the level of cumulative effects, including 
those of climate change, during the 5-year regulatory period would 
result in negligible effects on the bear population.
    Monitoring results from Industry, analyzed by the Service, indicate 
that little to no short-term impacts on polar bears have resulted from 
oil and gas activities. We evaluated both subtle and acute impacts 
likely to occur from industrial activity and we determined that all 
direct and indirect effects, including cumulative effects, of 
industrial activities have not adversely affected the species through 
effects on rates of recruitment or survival. Based on past monitoring 
reports, the level of interaction between Industry and polar bears has 
been minimal. Additional information, such as subsistence harvest 
levels and incidental observations of polar bears near shore, provide 
evidence that these populations have not been adversely affected. For 
the next 5 years, we anticipate the level of oil and gas Industry 
interactions with polar bears will likely increase in response to more 
bears on shore and more activity along the coast, however we do not 
anticipate significant impacts on bears to occur.

Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

Small Numbers Determination

    As discussed in the ``Biological Information'' section, the dynamic 
nature of sea ice habitat influences the seasonal and annual 
distribution and abundance of polar bears and walruses in the specified 
geographical region. The following analysis concludes that only small 
numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears are likely to be taken 
incidental to the described Industry activities relative to the number 
of walruses and polar bears that are expected to be unaffected by those 
activities. This conclusion is based upon known distribution patterns 
and habitat use of Pacific walruses and polar bears.
    1. The number of polar bears and walruses utilizing the described 
geographic region during Industry operations is expected to be small 
relative to the number of animals in the respective populations 
utilizing pack ice habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for polar 
bears or the Chukchi and Bering seas habitats for the Pacific walrus. 
As stated before, the Pacific walrus is extralimital in the Beaufort 
Sea, since the majority of the walrus population is found exclusively 
in the Chukchi and Bering seas. There is no expectation that even 
discrete movements, such as foraging, by some individual walruses into 
the Beaufort Sea as a result of climate change will increase the number 
of walruses observed by Industry during the regulatory period.
    Polar bears are expected to remain closely associated with either 
the sea ice or coastal zones throughout the year on the North Slope of 
Alaska. As a result of coastal surveys, the Service estimates a maximum 
of 8.0 percent and an average of 3.7 percent of the estimated 1,526 
bears in the SBS population have been observed on land during the late 
open-water and broken-ice period. This period coincides with the peak 
period (August through October) of bears observed from Industry as 
reported through their bear monitoring programs. If not all bears were 
counted, this suggests that at the peak of terrestrial habitat use in 
early fall prior to freeze-up, up to 10 percent of the SBS polar bear 
population can be found near the coastal environments, while 90 percent 
of the bears continue to be associated with the existing pack ice.
    2. Within the specified geographical region, the footprint of 
authorized projects is expected to be small relative to the range of 
polar bear and walrus in the region. Again, the fact that the

[[Page 13483]]

Pacific walrus is extralimital to the Beaufort Sea suggests that any 
marine operations working in the geographic area will have minimal 
walrus interactions within the geographic region. Indeed, only 9 
walruses have been sighted by Industry operations since 1994.
    Polar bears range well beyond the boundaries of the geographic 
region of these proposed regulations (approximately 68.9 million acres) 
and are transient through the regions of Industry infrastructure. As 
reported by AOGA, the total infrastructure area on the North Slope as 
of 2007 was 18,129 acres, which is a small proportion of the requested 
geographic region.
    3. Monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures are 
expected to significantly limit the number of incidental takes of 
animals. Holders of an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring 
requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce potential 
impacts of their operations on walruses and polar bears. Monitoring 
programs are required to inform operators of the presence of polar 
bears or walrus. Adaptive management responses based on real-time 
monitoring information (described in these regulations) will be used to 
avoid or minimize interactions with walruses and polar bears. For 
Industry activities in terrestrial environments, where denning polar 
bears may be a factor, mitigation measures will require that den 
detection surveys be conducted and Industry will maintain at least a 1-
mile distance from any known polar bear den. A full description of the 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements associated with an 
LOA, which will be requirements for Industry, can be found in 50 CFR 
18.128.
    We expect that only a small proportion of the Pacific walrus 
population or the CS and SBS polar bear populations will likely to be 
impacted by any individual project because: (1) Only small numbers of 
walruses or polar bears will occur in the marine or terrestrial 
environments where Industry activities will occur; (2) only small 
numbers will be impacted because walrus are extralimital in the 
Beaufort Sea and polar bears are widely distributed throughout their 
expansive ranges, which encompasses area outside of the geographic 
region of the regulations; and (3) the monitoring requirements and 
mitigation measures described below that will be imposed on Industry 
will further reduce impacts.

Negligible Effects Determination

    Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the 
proposed oil and gas activities and mitigation measures, and in 
consideration of the best available scientific information, we have 
determined that the proposed activities will have a negligible impact 
on Pacific walrus and on polar bears. Factors considered in our 
negligible effects determination include:
    1. The behavior and distribution of walruses and polar bears 
utilizing areas that overlap with Industry is expected to limit the 
amount of interactions between walruses, polar bears, and Industry. The 
distribution and habitat use patterns of walruses and polar bears in 
conjunction with the likely area of Industrial activity results in 
relatively few animals in the area of operations and, therefore, likely 
to be affected. As discussed in the section ``Biological Information'' 
(see Pacific Walrus section), only small numbers of walruses are likely 
to be found in Beaufort Sea open water habitats where offshore Industry 
activities will occur.
    Throughout the year, polar bears are closely associated with pack 
ice and are unlikely to interact with open-water industrial activities 
for the same reasons discussed in the Small Numbers Determination. 
Likewise, polar bears from the SBS and CS populations are widely 
distributed and range outside of the geographic region of these 
regulations. In addition, through fall coastal surveys we estimated 
that a small proportion of the SBS population, approximately 8-10 
percent, is distributed along the coastal areas during the late-summer-
early-fall season.
    2. The predicted effects of proposed activities on walruses and 
polar bears will be nonlethal, temporary passive takes of animals. The 
documented impacts of previous Industry activities on walruses and 
polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, provides 
direct information that the types of activities analyzed for this rule 
will have minimal effects and will be short-term, temporary behavioral 
changes.
    3. The footprint of authorized projects is expected to be small 
relative to the range of polar bear and walrus populations. As with the 
small numbers determination, this factor will also help minimize 
negligible effects of Industry on Pacific walrus and polar bears. A 
limited area of activity will reduce the potential to exposure of 
animals to Industry activities and limit potential interactions of 
those animals using the area, such as walrus feeding in the area or 
polar bears or walruses moving through the area.
    4. Mitigation measures will limit potential effects of industry 
activities. As described in the Small Numbers Determination, holders of 
an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation 
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on 
walruses and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, monitoring programs 
required to inform operators of the presence of marine mammals and 
environmental conditions, den detection surveys for polar bears, and 
adaptive management responses based on real-time monitoring information 
(described in these regulations) will be used to avoid or minimize 
interactions with polar bears and walruses and, therefore, limit 
Industry effects on these animals.
    5. The potential impacts of climate change for the duration of the 
regulations (2011-2016) has the potential to displace polar bears and 
walruses from the geographic region and during the season of Industry 
activity. Climate change is likely to result in significant impacts to 
polar bear and walrus populations in the future. Recent models indicate 
that the persistence of Alaska's polar bear stocks are in doubt and 
will possibly disappear within 50 to 100 years due to the changing 
Arctic ice conditions as a result of climate change. Recent trends in 
the Arctic have resulted in seasonal sea-ice retreat off the 
continental shelf and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting 
significant adaptive challenges to walruses. Reasonably foreseeable 
impacts to the Pacific walrus population as a result of diminishing sea 
ice cover include: Shifts in range and abundance, possibly into the 
Beaufort Sea; increased reliance on coastal haulouts in the Chukchi 
Sea; and increased mortality associated with predation and disturbance 
events at coastal haulouts.
    Although climate change is a pressing conservation issue for ice-
dependent species, such as polar bears and walruses, we have concluded 
that the activities proposed by Industry and addressed in this 5-year 
rule will not adversely impact the survival of these species. One 
likely response to near-term climate-driven change (retreat of sea ice) 
will result in each species utilizing areas, such as coastal haulouts 
by walrus and the ice shelf by a continued majority of the polar bear 
population, outside of the geographic region and proposed areas of 
Industrial activity. While the Service suspects that a certain portion 
of the bear population using coastal habitats (currently 8-10 percent 
of the SBS population) will increase and associate with terrestrial 
habitats longer, the types of effects as a

[[Page 13484]]

result of Industry interaction will be short-term behavioral changes.
    We, therefore, conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely 
to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of carrying out any of 
the activities authorized under these regulations will have no more 
than a negligible effect on polar bears and Pacific walruses using the 
Beaufort Sea region, and we do not expect any resulting disturbances to 
negatively impact the rates of recruitment or survival for the polar 
bears and Pacific walrus populations. These regulations do not 
authorize lethal take, and we do not anticipate that any lethal take 
will occur.

Findings

    We propose the following findings regarding this action:

Small Numbers

Pacific Walrus
    Pacific walruses are extralimital in the SBS and, hence, there is a 
very low probability that Industry activities, including offshore 
drilling operations, seismic, and coastal activities, will adversely 
affect the Pacific walrus population. Given the low numbers in the 
region, we anticipate no more than a small number of walruses are 
likely to be taken during the length of this rule. We do not anticipate 
the potential for any lethal take from normal Industry activities. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate any detrimental effects on recruitment 
or survival.
    We estimate that the projected number of takes of Pacific walruses 
by Industry will be no more than 10 takes by harassment per year. Takes 
will be Level B harassment, manifested as short-term behavioral 
changes. This take estimate is based on historic Industry monitoring 
observations. In addition, based on the projected level of exploration 
activity, it is unlikely that the number of takes will increase 
significantly in the next 5 years.
Polar Bear
    Standard operating conditions for Industry exploration, 
development, and production activities have the potential to 
incidentally take polar bears. Recent reporting data from the current 
ITRs indicates that an annual average of 306 polar bears have been 
observed during Industry activities. Some of these observations are 
likely sightings of the same bears due to the inability to distinguish 
between animals in some observations. While the majority of 
observations are sightings where no interaction between bears and 
Industry occurs (81 percent of all bear observations from 2006 to 2009: 
USFWS unpubl. data), takes by harassment do occur. Takes by harassment 
can be described as either: (1) Deterrence events (15 percent of all 
bear observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS unpubl. data); and (2) those 
occasions when there is clear evidence that the bear's behavior has 
been altered through events other than deterrence (4 percent of all 
bear observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS unpubl. data).
    Small takes of this nature are allowed through LOAs. According to 
industry monitoring data, the number of Level B takes (deterrence 
events and behavioral change events), averaged 66 occurrences per year 
from 2006 to 2009 (67 takes in 2006, 64 takes in 2007, 33 takes in 
2008, and 101 takes in 2009).
    Using this data, we anticipate that the total number of takes of 
polar bears by all Level B harassment events will not exceed 150 per 
year. All anticipated takes will be nonlethal Level B harassment, 
involving only temporary changes in bear behavior. The required 
mitigation and monitoring measures described in the regulations are 
expected to prevent injurious Level A takes. The number of lethal takes 
is projected to be zero. We do not expect the total of these 
disturbances to affect rates of recruitment or survival in the SBS 
polar bear population.

Negligible Impact

    Based on the best scientific information available, the results of 
monitoring data from our previous regulations (16 years of monitoring 
and reporting data), the review of the information generated by the 
listing of the polar bear as a threatened species and the designation 
of polar bear critical habitat, the ongoing analysis of the petition to 
list the Pacific walrus as a threatened species under the ESA, the 
results of our modeling assessments, and the status of the population, 
we find that any incidental take reasonably likely to result from the 
effects of oil and gas related exploration, development, and production 
activities during the period of the rule, in the Beaufort Sea and 
adjacent northern coast of Alaska, will have no more than a negligible 
impact on polar bears and Pacific walruses. In making this finding, we 
considered the following:
    (1) The distribution of the species (through 10 years of aerial 
surveys and studies of feeding ecology, and a regression analysis of 
pack ice position and polar bear distribution);
    (2) The biological characteristics of the species (through bio-
monitoring for toxic chemicals, studies of den site behavior, radio-
telemetry data);
    (3) The nature of oil and gas Industry activities;
    (4) The potential effects of Industry activities and potential oil 
spills on the species;
    (5) The probability of oil spills occurring;
    (6) The documented impacts of Industry activities on the species 
taking into consideration cumulative effects (through FLIR surveys, the 
use of trained dogs to detect occupied dens, a bear-human conflicts 
workshop, a study assessing sound levels and of industrial noise and 
potential noise and vibration exposure for dens, and data mapping den 
habitat);
    (7) The potential impacts of climate change, where both walruses 
and polar bears can potentially be displaced from preferred habitat;
    (8) The existing and proposed mitigation measures designed to 
minimize Industry impacts through adaptive management; and
    (9) Other data provided by Industry monitoring programs in the 
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
    We also considered the specific 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 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S 
16305 (October 15, 1986)].

    Pacific walruses are only occasionally found during the open-water 
season in the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea polar bear population is 
widely distributed throughout its range. A small percentage (less than 
10 percent) of the SBS polar bear population typically occurs in 
coastal and nearshore areas where most Industry activities happen.
    We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas Industry activities on 
polar bears and Pacific walruses, including impacts from noise, 
physical obstructions, human encounters, and oil spills. Based on our 
review of these potential impacts, past LOA monitoring reports, and the 
biology and natural history of Pacific walrus and polar bear, we

[[Page 13485]]

conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to or reasonably 
expected to occur as a result of projected activities will have a 
negligible impact on polar bear and Pacific walrus populations. 
Furthermore, we do not expect these disturbances to affect the rates of 
recruitment or survival for the Pacific walrus and polar bear 
populations. These regulations do not authorize lethal take, and we do 
not anticipate any lethal take will occur.
    The probability of an oil spill that will cause significant impacts 
to Pacific walruses and polar bears appears extremely low. We have 
included potential spill information from Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, 
Northstar, and Endicott/Liberty offshore projects in our oil spill 
analysis to analyze multiple offshore sites. We have analyzed the 
likelihood of an oil spill in the marine environment of the magnitude 
necessary to kill a significant number of polar bears for offshore 
projects and, through a risk assessment analysis, found that it is 
unlikely that there will be any lethal take. In the unlikely event of a 
catastrophic spill, we will take immediate action to minimize the 
impacts to these species and reconsider the appropriateness of 
authorizations for incidental taking through section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA.
    After considering the cumulative effects of existing and proposed 
development, production, and exploration activities, and the likelihood 
of any impacts, both onshore and offshore, we find that the total 
expected takings resulting from oil and gas Industry activities will 
affect no more than small numbers and will have no more than a 
negligible impact on the SBS polar bear and Pacific walrus populations 
inhabiting the Beaufort Sea area on the North Slope coast of Alaska.
    Our finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to incidental take 
associated with proposed oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production activities as mitigated through the regulatory process. The 
regulations establish monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate 
the potential impacts of authorized activities, as well as mitigation 
measures designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to walruses 
and polar bears. We will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the 
specific activity and the specific geographic location where the 
proposed activities are projected to occur to ensure that the level of 
activity and potential take is consistent with our finding of 
negligible impact. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may 
grant the authorization, add further operating restrictions, or deny 
the authorization.
    Conditions are attached to each LOA. These conditions minimize 
interference with normal breeding, feeding, and possible migration 
patterns to ensure that the effects to the species remain negligible. 
Conditions include: (1) These regulations do not authorize intentional 
taking of polar bear or Pacific walruses or lethal incidental take; (2) 
for the protection of pregnant polar bears during denning activities 
(den selection, birthing, and maturation of cubs) in known denning 
areas, Industry activities may be restricted in specific locations 
during specified times of the year; and (3) each activity covered by an 
LOA requires a site-specific plan of operation and a site-specific 
polar bear interaction plan. We may add additional measures depending 
upon site-specific and species-specific concerns. Restrictions in 
denning areas will be applied on a case-by-case basis after assessing 
each LOA request and may require pre-activity surveys (e.g., aerial 
surveys, FLIR surveys, or polar bear scent-trained dogs) to determine 
the presence or absence of denning activity and, in known denning 
areas, may require enhanced monitoring or flight restrictions, such as 
minimum flight elevations, if necessary. We will analyze the required 
plan of operation and interaction plans to ensure that the level of 
activity and possible take are consistent with our finding that total 
incidental takes will have a negligible impact on polar bear and 
Pacific walruses and, where relevant, will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of these species for subsistence 
uses.
    We have evaluated climate change in regard to polar bears and 
walruses. Although climate change is a worldwide phenomenon, it was 
analyzed as a contributing effect that could alter polar bear and 
walrus habitat and behavior. Climate change could alter polar bear 
habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration of open 
water, may preclude sea-ice habitat use and restrict some bears to 
coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by climate 
change, may also affect the timing of polar bear seasonal movements 
between the coastal regions and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues 
to recede as predicted, it is hypothesized that polar bears may spend 
more time on land rather than on sea ice similar to what has been 
recorded in the Hudson Bay. Climate change could also alter terrestrial 
denning habitat through coastal erosion brought about by accelerated 
wave action. The challenge in the Beaufort Sea will be predicting 
changes in ice habitat, barrier islands, and coastal habitats in 
relation to changes in polar bear distribution and use of habitat.
    Within the described geographic region of this rule, Industry 
effects on Pacific walruses and polar bears are expected to occur at a 
level similar to what has taken place under previous regulations. We 
anticipate that there will be an increased use of terrestrial habitat 
in the fall period by polar bears. We also anticipate a slight 
increased use of terrestrial habitat by denning bears. Nevertheless, we 
expect no significant impact to these species as a result of these 
anticipated changes. The mitigation measures will be effective in 
minimizing any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in 
distribution or denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of the 
regulations. It is likely that, due to potential seasonal changes in 
abundance and distribution of polar bears during the fall, more 
frequent encounters may occur and that Industry may have to implement 
mitigation measures more often, for example, increasing polar bear 
deterrence events. In addition, if additional polar bear den locations 
are detected within industrial activity areas, spatial and temporal 
mitigation measures, including cessation of activities, may be 
instituted more frequently during the 5-year period of the rule.
    Climate change over time continues to be a major concern to the 
Service, and we are currently involved in the collection of baseline 
data to help us understand how the effects of climate change will be 
manifested in the SBS polar bear population. As we gain a better 
understanding of climate change effects on the SBS population, we will 
incorporate the information in future actions. Ongoing studies include 
those led by the Service and the USGS Alaska Science Center to examine 
polar bear habitat use, reproduction, and survival relative to a 
changing sea ice environment. Specific objectives of the project 
include: an enhanced understanding of polar bear habitat availability 
and quality influenced by ongoing climate changes and the response by 
polar bears; the effects of polar bear responses to climate-induced 
changes to the sea ice environment on body condition of adults, numbers 
and sizes of offspring, and survival of offspring to weaning 
(recruitment); and population age structure.
    Although Pacific walruses are relatively rare in the Beaufort Sea, 
the Service and USGS are conducting multiyear studies on the population 
to investigate movements and habitat use

[[Page 13486]]

patterns. It is possible that as sea ice diminishes in the Chukchi Sea 
beyond the 5-year period of this rule, more walruses will migrate east 
into the Beaufort Sea.
Impact on Subsistence Take
    Based on community consultations, locations of hunting areas, the 
potential overlap of hunting areas and Industry projects, the best 
scientific information available, and the results of monitoring data, 
we find that take caused by oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production activities 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 walruses for taking for 
subsistence uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding, 
we considered the following: (1) Records on subsistence harvest from 
the Service's Marking, Tagging and Reporting Program; (2) community 
consultations; (3) effectiveness of the POCs between Industry and 
affected Native communities; and (4) anticipated 5-year effects of 
Industry activities on subsistence hunting. In addition, our findings 
also incorporated the results of coastal aerial surveys conducted 
within the area during the past 7 years, upon direct observations of 
polar bears occurring near bowhead whale carcasses on Barter Island and 
on Cross Island during the villages of Kaktovik and Nuiqsut's annual 
fall bowhead whaling efforts, respectively, and upon anecdotal reports 
of North Slope residents.
    Polar bear and Pacific walruses 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 community consultations have occurred or that an adequate POC 
has been presented to the subsistence communities. Industry will be 
required to contact subsistence communities that may be affected by its 
activities to discuss potential conflicts caused by location, timing, 
and methods of proposed operations. Industry must make reasonable 
efforts to ensure that activities do not interfere with subsistence 
hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of polar bear or 
Pacific walruses are minimized. Although multiple meetings for multiple 
projects from numerous operators have already taken place, no official 
concerns have been voiced by the Native communities with regard to 
Industry activities limiting availability of polar bears or walruses 
for subsistence uses. However, should such a concern be voiced as 
Industry continues to reach out to the Native communities, development 
of Plans of Cooperation, which must identify measures to minimize any 
adverse effects, will be required. The POC will ensure that oil and gas 
activities will continue not to have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. This POC 
must provide the procedures addressing 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 walruses, as 
warranted.
    The Service has not received any reports and is aware of no 
information that indicates that bears or walruses are being or will be 
deflected from hunting areas or impacted in any way that diminishes 
their availability for subsistence use by the expected level of oil and 
gas activity. If there is evidence during the 5-year period of the 
regulations that oil and gas activities are affecting the availability 
of polar bear or walruses 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
    The purpose of monitoring requirements is to assess the effects of 
industrial activities on polar bears and walruses to ensure that take 
is consistent with that anticipated in the negligible impact and 
subsistence use analyses, and to detect any unanticipated effects on 
the species. Monitoring plans document when and how bears and walruses 
are encountered, the number of bears and walruses, and their behavior 
during the encounter. This information allows the Service to measure 
encounter rates and trends of bear and walrus activity in the 
industrial areas (such as numbers and gender, activity, seasonal use) 
and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected by Industry. 
Monitoring plans are site-specific, dependent on the proximity of the 
activity to important habitat areas, such as den sites, travel 
corridors, and food sources; however, all activities are required to 
report all sightings of polar bears and walruses. To the extent 
possible, monitors will record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration 
of interaction, and closest approach to Industry. Activities within the 
coast of the geographic region may incorporate daily watch logs as 
well, which record 24-hour animal observations throughout the duration 
of the project. Polar bear monitors will be incorporated into the 
monitoring plan if bears are known to frequent the area or known polar 
bear dens are present in the area. At offshore Industry sites, 
systematic monitoring protocols will be implemented to statistically 
monitor observation trends of walruses or polar bears in the nearshore 
areas where they usually occur.
    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 
activity, and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us 
no later than 90 days after the 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 walruses prior to issuance of 
an LOA. Since 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 
require that the operator submit development and production activity 
monitoring results of the previous year's activity. We require approval 
of the monitoring results for continued operation under the LOA.
Treaty Obligations
    The ITRs are consistent with the Bilateral Agreement for the 
Conservation and Management of the Polar Bear between the United States 
and Russia. Article II of the Polar Bear Agreement lists three 
obligations of the Parties in protecting polar bear habitat:
    (1) ``Take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which 
polar bears are a part;''
    (2) ``Give special attention to habitat components such as denning 
and feeding sites and migration patterns;'' and
    (3) ``Manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound 
conservation practices based on the best available scientific data.''
    This rule is also consistent with the Service's treaty obligations 
because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the protection 
of polar bear habitat. LOAs for industrial activities are conditioned 
to include area or seasonal timing limitations or prohibitions, such as 
placing 1-mile

[[Page 13487]]

avoidance buffers around known or observed dens (which halts or limits 
activity until the bear naturally leaves the den), building roads 
perpendicular to the coast to allow for polar bear movements along the 
coast, and monitoring the effects of the activities on polar bears. 
Available denning habitat maps are provided by the USGS.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods, as listed above 
in ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as 
an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and 
encryption. Please include ``Attn: Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098'' 
and your name and return address in your e-mail message. Please note 
that this e-mail address will be closed out at the termination of the 
public comment period. Before including your address, phone number, e-
mail address, or other personal identifying information in your 
comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

Clarity of the Rule

    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) 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 subpart effective?)
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed rule?
    (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able 
to do so.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations

    We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
conjunction with this rulemaking. Subsequent to closure of the comment 
period for this proposed rule, we will decide whether this rulemaking 
is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA 
of 1969. For a copy of the draft EA, go to http://www.regulations.gov 
and search for Docket No. FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098 or contact the 
individual identified above in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Endangered Species Act

    On May 15, 2008, the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened 
species under the ESA (73 FR 28212) and on December 7, 2010 (75 FR 
76086), the Service designated critical habitat for polar bear 
populations in the United States, effective January 6, 2011. Section 
7(a)(1) and (2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)) direct the 
Service to review its programs and to utilize such programs in the 
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA and to ensure that a proposed 
action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Consistent with these statutory requirements, the 
Service's Marine Mammal Management Office has initiated Intra-Service 
section 7 consultation over these regulations with the Service's 
Fairbanks' Ecological Services Field Office.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the 
following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    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 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also determined that this 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. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 
not required. In addition, these potential applicants have not been 
identified as small businesses and, therefore, a Small Entity 
Compliance Guide is not required. The analysis for this rule is 
available from the individual identified above in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Takings Implications

    This rule does not have takings implications under Executive Order 
12630 because it authorizes the nonlethal, incidental, but not 
intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas Industry 
companies and thereby exempts these companies from civil and criminal 
liability as long as they operate in compliance with the

[[Page 13488]]

terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is 
not required.

Federalism Effects

    This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications 
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under 
Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the authority and 
responsibility to protect walruses and polar bears.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 
Reform 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.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, Secretarial Order 
3225, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we 
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with 
federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. We 
have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Alaska Native 
tribes. Through the LOA process identified in the regulations, Industry 
presents a POC with the Native communities most likely to be affected 
and engages these communities in numerous informational meetings.
    To facilitate co-management activities, cooperative agreements have 
been completed by the Service, the Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC) and 
the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC). The cooperative agreements fund a 
wide variety of management issues, including: commission co-management 
operations; biological sampling programs; harvest monitoring; 
collection of Native knowledge in management; international 
coordination on management issues; cooperative enforcement of the MMPA; 
and development of local conservation plans. To help realize mutual 
management goals, the Service, ANC, and EWC regularly hold meetings to 
discuss future expectations and outline a shared vision of co-
management.
    The Service also has ongoing cooperative relationships with the 
North Slope Borough and the Inupiat-Inuvialuit Game Commission where we 
work cooperatively to ensure that data collected from harvest and 
research are used to ensure that polar bears are available for harvest 
in the future; provide information to co-management partners that 
allows them to evaluate harvest relative to their management agreements 
and objectives; and provide information that allows evaluation of the 
status, trends, and health of polar bear populations.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that these 
regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet the 
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 
Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements. We may not 
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Information 
collection requirements included in this rule are approved by the OMB 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 
OMB control number assigned to these information collection 
requirements is 1018-0070, which expires on January 31, 2014. This 
control number covers the information collection, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J, which are associated 
with the development and issuance of specific regulations and LOAs.

Energy Effects

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule provides 
exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for entities 
engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and 
adjacent coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding compliance 
with the MMPA, this rule will have a positive effect on Industry and 
its activities. Although the rule requires Industry to take a number of 
actions, these actions have been undertaken by Industry for many years 
as part of similar past regulations. Therefore, this rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use 
and does not constitute a significant energy action. No Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

References

    For a list of the references cited in this rule, see Docket No. 
FWS-R7-FHC-2010-0098, available at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, 
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    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:

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

    2. Amend part 18 by revising subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--Nonlethal 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 subpart cover?
18.122 In what specified geographic region does this subpart apply?
18.123 When is this subpart effective?
18.124 How do I 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 mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements?
18.129 What are the information collection requirements?

Subpart J--Nonlethal 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 subpart cover?

    Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but 
not intentional, take of small numbers of

[[Page 13489]]

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.


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

    This subpart applies to the specified geographic region defined by 
all Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through Point Barrow 
(71[deg]23'29'' N., -156 [deg]28'30'' W., BGN 1944), and up to 200 
miles north of Point Barrow, including all Alaska coastal areas, State 
waters, and Outer Continental Shelf waters east of that line to the 
Canadian border. The onshore region is the same north/south line at 
Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the Canning River. The Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is not included in the area covered by this 
subpart. Figure 1 shows the area where this subpart applies.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR11.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C


Sec.  18.123  When is this subpart effective?

    Regulations in this subpart are effective from [Insert effective 
date of the final rule] through [Insert date 5 years from the effective 
date of the final rule] for year-round oil and gas exploration, 
development, and production activities.


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

    (a) You must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec.  18.27(c).
    (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 cause the taking of polar bears or Pacific 
walruses in execution of those activities and you want nonlethal 
incidental take authorization under this rule, you must apply for a 
Letter of Authorization for each exploration activity or a Letter of 
Authorization for activities in each development or 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

[[Page 13490]]

specific location, and the estimated area affected by that activity, 
i.e., a plan of operation.
    (2) A site-specific plan to monitor the effects of the activity on 
the behavior of polar bears and Pacific walruses that may be present 
during the ongoing activities (i.e., marine mammal monitoring and 
mitigation plan). Your monitoring program must document the effects to 
these marine mammals and estimate the actual level and type of take. 
The monitoring requirements provided by the Service will vary depending 
on the activity, the location, and the time of year.
    (3) A site-specific polar bear and/or walrus awareness and 
interaction plan. A polar bear interaction plan for each operation will 
outline the steps the applicant will take to limit human-bear 
interactions, increase site safety, and minimize impacts to bear.
    (4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to mitigate potential conflicts 
between the proposed activity and subsistence hunting, where relevant. 
Applicants must consult with potentially affected subsistence 
communities along the Beaufort Sea coast (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and 
Barrow) and appropriate subsistence user organizations (the Eskimo 
Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nanuuq (polar bear) Commission) to 
discuss the location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and 
support activities and identify any potential conflicts with 
subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting activities in the 
communities. Applications for Letters of Authorization must include 
documentation of all consultations with potentially affected user 
groups. Documentation must include a summary of any concerns identified 
by community members and hunter organizations, and the applicant's 
responses to identified concerns. Some of these measures may include, 
but are not limited to, mitigation measures described in Sec.  18.128.


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

    (a) 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 analyzed by us in considering the number of animals likely 
to be taken and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on 
the species or an adverse impact on the availability of the species 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 grant the 
authorization, add further conditions, or deny the authorization.
    (b) In accordance with Sec.  18.27(f)(5), 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 paragraph (b) 
of this section will not apply should we determine that an emergency 
exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species 
or stocks of polar bears or Pacific walruses.


Sec.  18.126  What does a Letter of Authorization allow?

    (a) Your Letter of Authorization may allow the nonlethal 
incidental, but not intentional, take of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses 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;
    (5) Conducting environmental monitoring activities associated with 
exploration, development, and production activities to determine 
specific impacts of each activity;
    (6) Conducting restoration, remediation, demobilization programs, 
and associated activities.
    (b) Each Letter of Authorization will identify conditions or 
methods that are specific to the activity and location.


Sec.  18.127  What activities are prohibited?

    (a) Intentional take and lethal incidental take of polar bears or 
Pacific walruses; and
    (b) Any take that fails to comply with this part or with the terms 
and conditions of your Letter of Authorization.


Sec.  18.128  What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements?

    (a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of Authorization must use 
methods and conduct activities in a manner that minimizes to the 
greatest extent practicable adverse impacts on walruses and polar 
bears, their habitat, and on the availability of these marine mammals 
for subsistence uses. Dynamic management approaches, such as temporal 
or spatial limitations in response to the presence of marine mammals in 
a particular place or time or the occurrence of marine mammals engaged 
in a particularly sensitive activity (such as feeding), must be used to 
avoid or minimize interactions with polar bears, walruses, and 
subsistence users of these resources.
    (1) All applicants. (i) 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 bears and Pacific 
walruses.
    (ii) 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 bears and Pacific walruses.
    (iii) Holders of Letters of Authorization must have an approved 
polar bear and/or walrus interaction plan on file with the Service and 
onsite, and polar bear awareness training will also be required of 
certain personnel. Interaction plans must include:
    (A) The type of activity and, where and when the activity will 
occur, i.e., a plan of operation;
    (B) A food and waste management plan;
    (C) Personnel training materials and procedures;
    (D) Site at-risk locations and situations;
    (E) Walrus and bear observation and reporting procedures; and
    (F) Bear and walrus avoidance and encounter procedures.
    (iv) All applicants for a Letter of Authorization must contact 
affected subsistence communities to discuss potential conflicts caused 
by location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and submit to 
us a record of communication that documents these discussions. If 
appropriate, the applicant for a Letter of Authorization must also 
submit to us a POC that ensures that activities will not interfere with 
subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability of 
polar bear or Pacific walruses are minimized (see Sec.  18.124(c)(4)).
    (v) If deemed appropriate by the Service, holders of a Letter of 
Authorization will be required to hire and train polar bear monitors to 
alert crew of the presence of polar bears and initiate adaptive 
mitigation responses.
    (2) Onshore activities. Efforts to minimize disturbance around 
known polar bear dens.--Holders of a Letter of Authorization must take 
efforts to limit

[[Page 13491]]

disturbance around known polar bear dens.
    (i) Efforts to locate polar bear dens.--Holders of a Letter of 
Authorization seeking to carry out onshore exploration activities in 
known or suspected polar bear denning habitat during the denning season 
(November-April) must make efforts to locate occupied polar bear dens 
within and near proposed areas of operation, utilizing appropriate 
tools, such as, forward looking infrared (FLIR) imagery and/or polar 
bear scent-trained dogs. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must 
be reported to the Service prior to the initiation of activities.
    (ii) Exclusion zone around known polar bear dens.--Operators must 
observe a 1-mile operational exclusion zone around all known polar bear 
dens during the denning season (November-April, or until the female and 
cubs leave the areas). Should previously unknown occupied dens be 
discovered within 1 mile of activities, work in the immediate area must 
cease and the Service contacted for guidance. The Service will evaluate 
these instances on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate 
action. Potential actions may range from cessation or modification of 
work to conducting additional monitoring, and the holder of the 
authorization must comply with any additional measures specified.
    (iii) The use of den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of 
potential coastal polar bear denning habitat can be found at: http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/pubs.html. This measure 
ensures that the location of potential polar bear dens is considered 
when conducting activities in the coastal areas of the Beaufort Sea.
    (iv) Restricting the timing of the activity to limit disturbance 
around dens.
    (3) Operating conditions for operational and support vessels. (i) 
Operational and support vessels must be staffed with dedicated marine 
mammal observers to alert crew of the presence of walruses and polar 
bears and initiate adaptive mitigation responses.
    (ii) At all times, vessels must maintain the maximum distance 
possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears. Under no 
circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel approach 
within a 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on 
land or ice.
    (iii) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid 
harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses when a vessel is 
operating near these animals. Vessels should reduce speed and maintain 
a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational exclusion zone around feeding 
walrus groups. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate 
members of a group of walruses from other members of the group. When 
weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels 
should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to 
walruses.
    (iv) The transit of operational and support vessels through the 
specified geographic region is not authorized prior to July 1. This 
operating condition is intended to allow walruses the opportunity to 
disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and minimize 
interactions with subsistence walrus hunters. Exemption waivers to this 
operating condition may be issued by the Service on a case-by-case 
basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice conditions and available 
information on walrus and polar bear distributions in the area of 
interest.
    (v) All vessels shall avoid areas of active or anticipated walrus 
or polar bear hunting activity as determined through community 
consultations.
    (vi) The use of trained marine mammal monitors associated with 
marine activities. We may require a monitor on the site of the activity 
or on board drill ships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other 
support vessels or vehicles to monitor the impacts of Industry's 
activity on polar bear and Pacific walruses.
    (4) Operating conditions for aircraft. (i) Operators of support 
aircraft should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum 
distance possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears.
    (ii) Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should 
aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 305 m (1,000 ft) within 805 
m (0.5 mi) of walruses or polar bears observed on ice or land. 
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m 
(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather conditions do not allow a 305-m 
(1,000-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when cloud 
cover is low, aircraft may be operated below the 305-m (1,000-ft) 
altitude stipulated above. However, when aircraft are operated at 
altitudes below 305 m (1,000 ft) because of weather conditions, the 
operator must avoid areas of known walrus and polar bear concentrations 
and should take precautions to avoid flying directly over or within 805 
m (0.5 mile) of these areas.
    (iii) Plan all aircraft routes to minimize any potential conflict 
with active or anticipated walrus or polar bear hunting activity as 
determined through community consultations.
    (5) Additional mitigation measures for offshore seismic surveys. 
Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the production of 
pulsed underwater sounds with sound source levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
will be required to establish and monitor acoustic exclusion and 
disturbance zones and implement adaptive mitigation measures as 
follows:
    (i) Monitor zones. Establish and monitor with trained marine mammal 
observers an acoustically verified exclusion zone for walruses 
surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level would be >= 
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; an acoustically verified exclusion zone for polar 
bear surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received level would 
be >= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa; and an acoustically verified walrus 
disturbance zone ahead of and perpendicular to the seismic vessel track 
where the received level would be >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
    (ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all seismic surveys, including airgun 
testing, use the following ramp-up procedures to allow marine mammals 
to depart the exclusion zone before seismic surveying begins:
    (A) Visually monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters for the 
absence of polar bears and walruses for at least 30 minutes before 
initiating ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or walruses are 
detected, you may initiate ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate ramp-up 
procedures at night or when you cannot visually monitor the exclusion 
zone for marine mammals.
    (B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by firing a single airgun. The 
preferred airgun to begin with should be the smallest airgun, in terms 
of energy output (dB) and volume (in\3\).
    (C) Continue ramp-up by gradually activating additional airguns 
over a period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes, 
until the desired operating level of the airgun array is obtained.
    (iii) Power down/Shut down. Immediately power down or shut down the 
seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources whenever any 
walruses are sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated 
by the 180-dB re 1 [mu]Pa walrus exclusion zone, or polar bears are 
sighted approaching close to or within the area delineated by the 190-
dB re 1 [mu]Pa polar bear exclusion zone. If the power down operation 
cannot reduce the received sound pressure level to 180-dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
(walrus) or 190-dB re 1 [mu]Pa (polar bears), the operator must 
immediately

[[Page 13492]]

shut down the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic sources.
    (iv) Emergency shut down. If observations are made or credible 
reports are received that one or more walruses and/or polar bears are 
within the area of the seismic survey and are in an injured or mortal 
state, or are indicating acute distress due to seismic noise, the 
seismic airgun array will be immediately shut down and the Service 
contacted. The airgun array will not be restarted until review and 
approval has been given by the Service. The ramp-up procedures provided 
in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when 
restarting.
    (v) Adaptive response for walrus aggregations. Whenever an 
aggregation of 12 or more walruses are detected within an acoustically 
verified 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or perpendicular 
to the seismic vessel track, the holder of this Authorization must:
    (A) Immediately power down or shutdown the seismic airgun array 
and/or other acoustic sources to ensure sound pressure levels at the 
shortest distance to the aggregation do not exceed 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa; 
and
    (B) Not proceed with powering up the seismic airgun array until it 
can be established that there are no walrus aggregations within the 
160-dB zone based upon ship course, direction, and distance from last 
sighting. If shutdown was required, the ramp-up procedures provided in 
paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed when restarting.
    (6) Mitigation measures for the subsistence use of walruses and 
polar bears. Holders of Letters of Authorization must conduct their 
activities in a manner that, to the greatest extent practicable, 
minimizes adverse impacts on the availability of Pacific walruses and 
polar bears for subsistence uses.
    (i) Community Consultation. Prior to receipt of a Letter of 
Authorization, applicants must consult with potentially affected 
communities and appropriate subsistence user organizations to discuss 
potential conflicts with subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting 
caused by the location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and 
support activities (see 18.114(c)(4) for details). If community 
concerns suggest that the proposed activities may have an adverse 
impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the applicant must 
address conflict avoidance issues through a POC as described below.
    (ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC). Where prescribed, holders of 
Letters of Authorization will be required to develop and implement a 
Service-approved POC. The POC must include:
    (A) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the 
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected 
subsistence hunters; and
    (B) A description of specific measures that have been or will be 
taken to avoid or minimize interference with subsistence hunting of 
walruses and polar bears and to ensure continued availability of the 
species for subsistence use.
    (C) The Service will review the POC to ensure that any potential 
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The 
Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of 
walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
    (b) Monitoring. Depending on the location, timing, and nature of 
proposed activities, holders of Letters of Authorization will be 
required to:
    (1) Maintain trained, Service-approved, on-site observers to carry 
out monitoring programs for polar bears and walruses necessary for 
initiating adaptive mitigation responses.
    (i) For offshore activities, Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be 
required on board all operational and support vessels to alert crew of 
the presence of walruses and polar bears and initiate adaptive 
mitigation responses identified in paragraph (a) of this section, and 
to carry out specified monitoring activities identified in the marine 
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (see paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section) necessary to evaluate the impact of authorized activities on 
walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use of these subsistence 
resources. The MMOs must have completed a marine mammal observer 
training course approved by the Service.
    (ii) Polar bear monitors--Polar bear monitors will be required 
under the monitoring plan if polar bears are known to frequent the area 
or known polar bear dens are present in the area. Monitors will act as 
an early detection system in regards to proximate bear activity to 
Industry facilities.
    (2) Develop and implement a site-specific, Service approved, marine 
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate the 
effects of authorized activities on polar bears, walruses, and the 
subsistence use of these resources. The marine mammal monitoring and 
mitigation plan must enumerate the number of walruses and polar bears 
encountered during specified activities, estimate the number of 
incidental takes that occurred during specified exploration activities, 
and evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures.
    (3) Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State, 
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas activities in 
the Beaufort Sea on walruses or polar bears. Where insufficient 
information exists to evaluate the potential effects of proposed 
activities on walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use of these 
resources, holders of Letters of Authorization may be required to 
participate in joint monitoring and/or research efforts to address 
these information needs and insure the least practicable impact to 
these resources. Information needs in the Beaufort Sea include, but are 
not limited to:
    (i) Distribution, abundance, and habitat use patterns of polar 
bears, and to a lesser extent walruses in offshore environments; and
    (ii) Cumulative effects of multiple simultaneous operations on 
polar bears and to a lesser extent walruses.
    (c) Reporting requirements. Holders of Letters of Authorization 
must report the results of specified monitoring activities to the 
Service's Alaska Regional director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address).
    (1) For exploratory and development activities, holders of a Letter 
of Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional Director 
(Attn: Marine Mammals Management Office) within 90 days after 
completion of activities. For production activities, holders of a 
Letter of Authorization must submit a report to our Alaska Regional 
Director (Attn: Marine Mammals Management Office) by January 15 for the 
preceding year's activities. Reports must include, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (i) Dates and times of activity;
    (ii) Dates and locations of polar bear or Pacific walrus activity 
as related to the monitoring activity; and
    (iii) Results of the monitoring activities required under 
subsection (iv) of this section, including an estimated level of take.
    (iv) Monitoring requirements include, but are not limited to:
    (A) For all activities, all sightings of polar bears must be 
recorded. Information within the sighting report will include, but is 
not limited to:
    (1) Date, time, and location of observation;
    (2) Number of bears: sex and age;
    (3) Observer name and contact information;
    (4) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of 
observation;

[[Page 13493]]

    (5) Estimated closest point of approach for bears from personnel 
and facilities;
    (6) Industry activity at time of sighting, possible attractants 
present;
    (7) Bear behavior;
    (8) Description of the encounter;
    (9) Duration of the encounter; and
    (10) Actions taken.
    (v) Activities within the coast of the geographic region may 
incorporate daily polar bear watch logs.
    (2) In-season monitoring reports for offshore exploration 
activities--(i) Activity progress reports. Operators must keep the 
Service informed on the progress of authorized activities by:
    (A) Notifying the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of 
activities;
    (B) Providing weekly progress reports of authorized activities 
noting any significant changes in operating state and or location; and
    (C) Notifying the Service within 48 hrs of ending activity.
    (ii) Walrus observation reports. The operator must report, on a 
weekly basis, all observations of walruses during any Industry 
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but 
is not limited to:
    (A) Date, time, and location of each walrus sighting;
    (B) Number of walruses: sex and age;
    (C) Observer name and contact information;
    (D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of 
observation;
    (E) Estimated range at closest approach;
    (F) Industry activity at time of sighting;
    (G) Behavior of animals sighted;
    (H) Description of the encounter;
    (I) Duration of the encounter; and
    (J) Actions taken.
    (iii) Polar bear observation reports. The operator must report, 
within 24 hours, all observations of polar bears during any Industry 
operation. Information within the observation report will include, but 
is not limited to:
    (A) Date, time, and location of observation;
    (B) Number of bears: sex and age;
    (C) Observer name and contact information;
    (D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of 
observation;
    (E) Estimated closest point of approach for bears from personnel 
and facilities;
    (F) Industry activity at time of sighting, possible attractants 
present;
    (G) Bear behavior;
    (H) Description of the encounter;
    (I) Duration of the encounter; and
    (J) Actions taken.
    (iv) Notification of incident report. Reports should include all 
information specified under the species observation report, as well as 
a full written description of the encounter and actions taken by the 
operator. The operator must report:
    (A) Any incidental lethal take or injury of a polar bear or walrus 
immediately; and
    (B) Observations of walruses or polar bears within prescribed 
mitigation-monitoring zones to the Service within 24 hours.
    (3) After-action monitoring reports. The results of monitoring 
efforts identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan 
must be submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of 
completing the year's activities. Results must include, but are not 
limited to the following information:
    (i) A summary of monitoring effort including: total hours, total 
distances, and distribution through study period;
    (ii) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability 
of polar bears and walruses by specified monitoring;
    (iii) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of 
polar bear and walrus sightings in relation to date, location, ice 
conditions and operational state; and
    (iv) Estimates of take based on density estimates derived from 
monitoring and survey efforts.


Sec.  18.129  What are the information collection requirements?

    (a) We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. The Office of Management and Budget has 
approved the collection of information contained in this subpart and 
assigned control number 1018-0070. You must respond to this information 
collection request to obtain a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We will use the information to:
    (1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue 
specific Letters of Authorization; and
    (2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of 
Authorization.
    (b) 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.

    Date: February 2, 2011.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-5035 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P