[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1942-1989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31347]



[[Page 1941]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 6

January 9, 2013

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. 78 , No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1942]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043; FF07CAMM00-FXFR133707PB000]
RIN 1018-AY67


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment; 
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 
as amended (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service or we), propose regulations that 
authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small 
numbers of Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and polar 
bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil and gas industry (Industry) 
exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent western coast of 
Alaska. If adopted as proposed, this rule would be effective for 5 
years from the date of issuance of the final rule.
    We propose a finding that the total expected takings of Pacific 
walruses (walruses) and polar bears during Industry exploration 
activities will impact small numbers of animals, 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. The proposed regulations include: Permissible methods 
of nonlethal taking; measures to ensure that Industry activities will 
have the least practicable adverse impact on the species and their 
habitat, and on the availability of these species for subsistence uses; 
and requirements for monitoring and reporting of any incidental takings 
which may occur, to the Service. If this rule is made final, the 
Service will issue Letters of Authorization (LOAs), upon request, for 
activities proposed to be conducted in accordance with the regulations.

DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before February 8, 
2013.

ADDRESSES:
    Document Availability: You can view this proposed rule and the 
associated draft environmental assessment (EA) on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.
    Written Comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule and 
associated draft EA by one of the following methods:
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-
ES-2012-0043.
    Please indicate to which document, the proposed rule or the draft 
EA, your comments apply. 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 section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Perham, Marine Mammals 
Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, 1011 East 
Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone 907-786-3800. Persons who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why We Need To Publish a Proposed Rule

    Incidental take regulations (ITRs), under section 101(a)(5)(A) of 
the MMPA, allow for incidental, but not intentional, take of small 
numbers of marine mammals that may occur during the conduct of 
otherwise lawful activities within a specific geographical region. 
Prior to issuing ITRs, if requested to do so by the public, the Service 
must first determine that the total of such taking during each 5-year 
(or less) period concerned will have a negligible impact on marine 
mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of marine mammals for taking for subsistence uses by 
Alaska Natives. The Service has considered a request from the oil and 
gas industry to issue ITRs in the Chukchi Sea for a 5-year period to 
allow for the nonlethal, incidental taking of polar bears or walruses 
during their open water oil and gas exploration activities. The Service 
is proposing issuance of ITRs based on our considerations of potential 
impacts to polar bears and Pacific walrus as well as potential impacts 
to subsistence use of polar bears and Pacific walruses.

What is the effect of this proposed rule?

    The ITRs provide a mechanism for the Service to work with Industry 
to minimize the effects of Industry activity on marine mammals through 
appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures, which provide important 
information on marine mammal distribution, behavior, movements, and 
interactions with Industry.

The Basis for Our Action

    Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the 
proposed oil and gas exploration activities and mitigation measures, 
and in consideration of the best available scientific information, it 
is our determination that the proposed activities will have a 
negligible impact on walruses and on polar bears and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
taking for subsistence uses by Alaska Natives.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by email or fax, or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16

[[Page 1943]]

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 
through the Director of the Service, 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, the 
Service shall allow this incidental taking if (1) we make a finding 
that the total of such taking for the 5-year timeframe of the 
regulations 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 (i) permissible methods of taking, 
(ii) 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 (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting. 
If we issue regulations allowing such incidental taking, we can issue 
Letters of Authorization (LOAs) 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, for activities other 
than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by 
or on behalf of the Federal Government, 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] (16 U.S.C. 1362).
    The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact'' 
are defined at 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of 
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows. 
``Negligible impact'' is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' ``Unmitigable adverse 
impact'' means ``an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the 
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting 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.'' 
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in the regulations, but we 
do not rely on that definition here as it conflates the ``small 
numbers'' and ``negligible impact'' requirements, which we recognize as 
two separate and distinct requirements for promulgating ITRs under the 
MMPA. Instead, in our small numbers determination, we evaluate whether 
small numbers of marine mammals are relative to the overall population.
    Industry conducts activities, such as oil and gas exploration, in 
marine mammal habitat that could result in the incidental taking of 
marine mammals. Although Industry is under no legal requirement under 
the MMPA to obtain incidental take authorization, since 1991, Industry 
has requested, and we have issued regulations for, incidental take 
authorization for conducting activities in areas of walrus and polar 
bear habitat. We issued incidental take regulations for walruses and 
polar bears in the Chukchi Sea for the period 1991 to 1996 (56 FR 
27443; June 14, 1991) and 2008 to 2013 (73 FR 33212; June 11, 2008). 
These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart I (Sec. Sec.  18.111 
to 18.119). In the Beaufort Sea, incidental take regulations have been 
issued from 1993 to present: 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); August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43926), and August 3, 2011 (76 FR 47010). 
These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J (Sec. Sec.  18.121 
to 18.129).

Summary of Current Request

    On January 31, 2012, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), on 
behalf of its members, and ConocoPhillips, Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), a 
participating party, requested that the Service promulgate regulations 
to allow the nonlethal, incidental take of small numbers of walruses 
and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and the adjacent western coast of 
Alaska. AOGA requested that the regulations would be applicable to all 
persons conducting activities associated with oil and gas exploration 
as described in its Petition for a period of 5 years. AOGA is a 
private, nonprofit trade association representing companies active in 
the Alaskan oil and gas industry. AOGA's members include: Alyeska 
Pipeline Service Company, Apache Corporation, BP Exploration (Alaska) 
Inc., Chevron, Eni Petroleum, ExxonMobil Production Company, Flint 
Hills Resources, Inc., Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, Marathon Oil Company, Petro 
Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, Inc., Repsol, Shell Gulf 
of Mexico, Inc., Statoil, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.
    The request is for regulations to allow the incidental, nonlethal 
take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in association with 
oil and gas activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent coastline for 
the period from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. The information 
provided by the petitioners indicates that projected oil and gas 
activities over this timeframe will be limited to exploration 
activities. Development and production activities were not considered 
in the request. Within that time, oil and gas exploration activities 
could occur during any month of the year, depending on the type of 
activity. Most offshore activities, such as exploration drilling, 
seismic surveys, and shallow hazards surveys, are expected to occur 
only during the open water season (July-November). Onshore activities 
may occur during winter (e.g., geotechnical studies), spring (e.g., 
hydrological studies), or summer-fall (e.g., various fish and wildlife 
surveys). The petitioners have also specifically requested that these 
regulations be issued for nonlethal take. The petitioners have 
indicated that, through the implementation of appropriate mitigation 
measures, they are confident that no lethal take would occur.
    Prior to issuing regulations in response to this request, we must 
evaluate the level of industrial activities, their associated potential 
impacts to walruses and polar bears, and their effects on the 
availability of these species for subsistence use. The Service is 
tasked with analyzing the impact that lawful oil and gas industry 
activities would have on polar bears and walruses during normal 
operating procedures.
    All projected exploration activities described by CPAI and AOGA (on 
behalf of its members) in their petition, as well as projections of 
reasonably likely activities for the period 2013 to 2018, were 
considered in our analysis. The activities and geographic region 
specified in the request, and considered in these regulations, are 
described in the ensuing sections titled ``Description of

[[Page 1944]]

Geographic Region'' and ``Description of Activities.''

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. These 
regulations would not authorize, or ``permit,'' the actual activities 
associated with oil and gas exploration, e.g., seismic testing, 
drilling, or sea floor mapping. Rather, they would authorize the 
nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of polar 
bears and walruses associated with those activities based on standards 
set forth in the MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 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 regulations, persons seeking taking 
authorization for particular projects would be able to apply for an LOA 
to the Service for the incidental, nonlethal take associated with 
exploration activities pursuant to the regulations. Each group or 
individual conducting an oil and gas industry-related activity within 
the area covered by these regulations would be able to request an LOA. 
Applicants for LOAs would have to submit an Operations Plan for the 
activity, a marine mammal (Pacific walrus and polar bear) interaction 
plan, and a site specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan 
to monitor any effects of authorized activities on walruses and polar 
bears. An after-action report on exploration activities and marine 
mammal monitoring activities would have to be submitted to the Service 
within 90 days after completion of the activity. Details of monitoring 
and reporting requirements are further described in ``Potential Effects 
of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses and Polar 
Bears.''
    Applicants would also have to include a Plan of Cooperation (POC) 
describing the availability of these species for subsistence use by 
Alaska Native Communities and how that availability may be affected by 
Industry operations. The purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil and 
gas activities would 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 
Alaska 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 walruses; and (2) ensure 
continued availability of the species for subsistence use. The POC is 
further described in ``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry 
Activities on Subsistence Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.''
    If these proposed regulations are implemented, we would 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. More information on applying for and 
receiving an LOA can be found at 50 CFR 18.27(f).

Description of Geographic Region

    These regulations would allow Industry operators to incidentally 
take small numbers of walruses and polar bears within the same area, 
hereafter referred to as the Chukchi Sea Region (Figure 1; see Proposed 
Regulation Promulgation section). The geographic area covered by the 
request is the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Arctic Ocean 
adjacent to western Alaska. This area includes the waters (State of 
Alaska and OCS waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses 
all waters north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -
166[deg]50'40'' W, BGN 1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 
1867, west 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. The region includes that area defined as the BOEM/BSEE OCS oil 
and gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. The Region 
also includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the 
western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) 
near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'' -148[deg]12'00'') and the north-south 
line from Point Barrow. The specified geographic region encompasses an 
area of approximately 240,000 square kilometers (km) (approximately 
92,644 square miles). This terrestrial region encompasses a portion 
(i.e., approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\)) of the Northwest and 
South Planning Areas of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). 
It is noteworthy that the north-south line at Point Barrow is the 
western border of the geographic region in the Beaufort Sea incidental 
take regulations (August 3, 2011; 76 FR 47010).

Description of Activities

    These proposed ITRs examine exploratory drilling, seismic surveys, 
geotechnical surveys, and shallow hazards surveys to be conducted in 
the Chukchi Sea from June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018. This time period 
includes the entire open water seasons of 2013 through 2017, when 
activities such as exploration drilling, seismic surveys, geotechnical 
surveys, and shallow hazards surveys are likely to occur, but 
terminates before the start of the 2018 open water season.
    This section reviews the types and scale of oil and gas activities 
projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea Region over the specified time 
period (2013 to 2018). Activities covered in these regulations include 
Industry exploration operations of oil and gas reserves, as well as 
environmental monitoring associated with these activities, on the 
western coast of Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf of the Chukchi 
Sea. This information is based upon activity descriptions provided by 
the petitioners (sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the AOGA Petition for 
Incidental Take Regulations for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi 
Sea and Adjacent Lands in 2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012). If LOAs are 
requested for activities that exceed the scope of activities analyzed 
under these proposed regulations, the LOAs would not be issued, and the 
Service would reevaluate its findings before further LOAs are issued.
    The ITRs requested are for the period from June 11, 2013, to June 
11, 2018. Within that time, oil and gas exploration activities could 
occur during any month of the year, depending on the type of activity. 
Most offshore activities, such as exploration drilling, seismic 
surveys, and shallow hazards surveys, are expected to occur only during 
the open-water season (July-November). Onshore activities may occur 
during winter (e.g., geotechnical studies), spring (e.g., hydrological 
studies), or summer-fall (e.g., various fish and wildlife surveys).
    The Service does not know the specific locations where oil and gas 
exploration would occur over the proposed timeframe of the regulations. 
The location and scope of specific activities would be determined based 
on a variety of factors, including the outcome of future Federal and 
State oil and gas lease sales and information gathered through 
subsequent rounds of exploration discovery. The information provided by 
the petitioners indicates that offshore exploration activities

[[Page 1945]]

would be carried out during the open water season to avoid seasonal 
pack ice. Onshore activities would be limited and are not expected to 
occur in the vicinity of known polar bear denning areas or coastal 
walrus haulouts.
    These ITRs would not authorize the execution, placement, or 
location of Industry activities; they could only authorize incidental, 
nonlethal take of walruses and polar bears. Authorizing the activity at 
particular locations is part of the permitting process that is 
authorized by the lead permitting agency, such as BOEM/BSEE, the COE, 
or BLM. The specific dates and durations of the individual operations 
and their geographic locations would be provided to the Service in 
detail when requests for LOAs are submitted.
    Oil and gas activities anticipated and considered in our analysis 
of the proposed incidental take regulations include: (1) Offshore 
exploration drilling; (2) offshore 3D and 2D seismic surveys; (3) 
shallow hazards surveys; (4) other geophysical surveys, such as ice 
gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys; 
(6) onshore and offshore environmental studies; and (7) associated 
support activities for the afore-mentioned activities. Of these, 
offshore drilling and seismic surveys are expected to have the greatest 
effects on Pacific walruses, polar bears, and subsistence. A summary 
description of the anticipated activities follows, while detailed 
descriptions provided by the petitioners are available on the Service's 
Marine Mammals Management Web page at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/itr.htm.

Offshore Exploration Drilling

    Offshore exploration drilling would be conducted from either a 
floating drilling unit, such as a drillship or conical drilling unit, 
or a jack-up drilling platform. Exploration drilling with these types 
of drilling units would occur during the open water season, generally 
July through November, when the presence of ice is at a minimum. 
Petitioners indicate that bottom-founded platforms would not be used 
during exploration activities due to water depths greater than 30 
meters (m) (100 feet [ft]) and possible pack ice incursions. Drilling 
operations are expected to range between 30 and 90 days at individual 
well sites, depending on the depth to the target formation, and 
difficulties during drilling. The drilling units and any support 
vessels would enter the Chukchi Sea at the beginning of the season and 
exit the sea at the end of the season. Drillships are generally self-
propelled, whereas jack-up rigs must be towed to the drill site. These 
drilling units are largely self-contained with accommodations for the 
crew, including quarters, galleys, and sanitation facilities. The 
operating season is expected to be limited to the open water season 
from July 1 to November 30.
    Drilling operations would include multiple support vessels in 
addition to the drillship or platform, including ice management 
vessels, survey vessels, and on and offshore support facilities. For 
example, each drillship is likely to be supported by one to two ice 
breakers, a barge and tug, one to two helicopter flights per day, and 
one to two supply ships per week. Ice management is expected to be 
required for only a small portion of the drilling season, if at all, 
given the lack of sea ice observed over most current lease holdings in 
the Chukchi Sea Region in recent years. Most ice management would 
consist of actively pushing the ice off its trajectory with the bow of 
the ice management vessel, but some icebreaking could be required. One 
or more ice management vessels (ice breakers) generally support 
drillships to ensure ice does not encroach on operations. Geophysical 
surveys referred to as vertical seismic profiles (VSPs) will likely be 
conducted at many of the Chukchi Sea Region drill sites where and when 
an exploration well is being drilled. The purpose of the survey is to 
ground truth existing seismic data with geological information from the 
wellbore. A small airgun array is deployed at a location near or 
adjacent to the drilling unit, and receivers are placed (temporarily 
anchored) in the wellbore. Exploration drilling programs may entail 
both onshore support facilities for air support where aircraft serving 
crew changes, search and rescue, and/or re-supply functions where 
support facilities would be housed and marine support where vessels may 
access the shoreline. For offshore support purposes, a barge and tug 
typically accompany the vessels to provide a standby safety vessel, oil 
spill response capabilities, and refueling support. Most supplies 
(including fuel) necessary to complete drilling activities are stored 
on the drillship and support vessels. Helicopter servicing of 
drillships can occur as frequently as one to two times per day.
    Since 1989, five exploration wells have been drilled in the Chukchi 
Sea. Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate 
that up to three operators would drill a total of three to eight wells 
per year in the Chukchi Sea Region during the 5-year timeframe of these 
proposed regulations (June 2013 to June 2018).

Offshore 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys

    Seismic survey equipment includes sound energy sources (airguns) 
and receivers (hydrophones/geophones). The airguns store compressed air 
that upon release forms a bubble that expands and contracts in a 
predictable pattern, emitting sound waves. The sound energy from the 
source penetrates the seafloor and is reflected back to the surface 
where it is recorded and analyzed to produce graphic images of the 
subsurface features. Differences in the properties of the various rock 
layers found at different depths reflect the sound energy at different 
positions and times. This reflected energy is received by the 
hydrophones housed in submerged streamers towed behind the survey 
vessel.
    The two general types of offshore seismic surveys, 2D and 3D 
surveys, use similar technology but differ in survey transect patterns, 
number of transects, number of sound sources and receptors, and data 
analysis. For both types, a group of air guns is usually deployed in an 
array to produce a downward focused sound signal. Air gun array volumes 
for both 2D and 3D seismic surveys are expected to range from 49,161 to 
65,548 cm\3\ (3,000 to 4,000 in\3\) operated at about 2,000 pounds per 
square inch (psi) (13,789.5 kilopascal [kPa]). The air guns are fired 
at short, regular intervals, so the arrays emit pulsed rather than 
continuous sound. While most of the energy is focused downward and the 
short duration of each pulse limits the total energy into the water 
column, the sound can propagate horizontally for several kilometers.
    Marine streamer 2D surveys use similar geophysical survey 
techniques as 3D surveys, but both the mode of operation and general 
vessel type used are different. The primary difference between the two 
survey types is that a 3D survey has a denser grid for the transect 
pattern. The 2D surveys provide a less detailed subsurface image 
because the survey lines are spaced farther apart, but they are 
generally designed to cover wider areas to image geologic structure on 
more of a regional basis. Large prospects are easily identified on 2D 
seismic data, but detailed images of the prospective areas within a 
large prospect can only be seen using 3D data. The 2D seismic survey 
vessels generally are smaller than 3D survey vessels, although larger 
3D survey vessels are also capable of conducting 2D surveys. The 2D 
source array typically consists of three or more sub-arrays of six to 
eight air gun sources each. The sound source level (zero-to-peak) 
associated with 2D

[[Page 1946]]

marine seismic surveys are the same as 3D marine seismic surveys (233 
to 240 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m). Typically, a single hydrophone streamer 
cable approximately 8 to 12 km (~5 to 7.5 mi) long is towed behind the 
survey vessel. The 2D surveys acquire data along single track lines 
that are spread more widely apart (usually several km) than are track 
lines for 3D surveys (usually several hundred meters).
    A 3D source array typically consists of two to three sub-arrays of 
six to nine air guns each, and is about 12.5 to 18 m (41 to 59 ft) long 
and 16 to 36 m (52.5 to 118 ft) wide. The size of the source array can 
vary during the seismic survey to optimize the resolution of the 
geophysical data collected at any particular site. Most 3D operations 
use a single source vessel; however, in a few instances, more than one 
source vessel may be used. The sound source level (zero-to-peak) 
associated with typical 3D seismic surveys ranges between 233 and 240 
decibels (dB) at 1 m (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m).
    The receiving arrays could include multiple (4 to 16) streamer 
receiver cables towed behind the source array. The survey vessel may 
tow up to 12 cables, or streamers, of up to 8.0 km (5.0 mi) in length, 
spaced 50 to 150 m (164 to 492 ft) apart. Streamer cables contain 
numerous hydrophone elements at fixed distances within each cable. Each 
streamer can be 3 to 8 km (2 to 5 mi) long with an overall array width 
of up to 1,500 m (1,640 yards) between outermost streamer cables. The 
wide extent of this towed equipment limits both the turning speed and 
the area a vessel covers with a single pass over a geologic target. It 
is, therefore, common practice to acquire data using an offset 
racetrack pattern. Adjacent transit lines for a survey generally are 
spaced several hundred meters apart and are parallel to each other 
across the survey area. Seismic surveys are conducted day and night 
when ocean conditions are favorable, and one survey effort may continue 
for weeks or months throughout the open water season, depending on the 
size of the survey. Data acquisition is affected by the arrays towed by 
the survey vessel and weather conditions. Typically, data are only 
collected between 25 and 30 percent of the time (or 6 to 8 hours a day) 
because of equipment or weather problems. In addition to downtime due 
to weather, sea conditions, turning between lines, and equipment 
maintenance, surveys could be suspended to avoid interactions with 
biological resources. In the past, BOEM/BSEE has estimated that 
individual surveys could last between 20 to 30 days (with downtime) to 
cover a 322-km\2\ (200-mi\2\) area.
    Both 3D and 2D seismic surveys require a largely ice-free 
environment to allow effective operation and maneuvering of the air gun 
arrays and long streamers. In the Chukchi Sea Region, the timing and 
areas of the surveys would be dictated by ice conditions. Given optimal 
conditions, the data acquisition season in the Chukchi Sea could start 
sometime in July and end sometime in early November. Even during the 
short summer season, there are periodic incursions of sea ice; hence 
there is no guarantee that any given location will be ice-free 
throughout the survey.
    In our analysis of the previous 5-year Chukchi Sea regulations 
(2008-2013), we estimated that up to three seismic programs operating 
annually, totaling up to 15 surveys over the span of the regulations, 
would have negligible effects on small numbers of animals. Since 2006, 
only seven seismic surveys have been actually conducted in total in the 
Chukchi Sea. During the 2006 open water season, three seismic surveys 
were conducted, while only one seismic survey was conducted during the 
2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011 open water seasons, respectively. For the 5-
year time period of the regulations proposed here (2013 to 2018), based 
upon information provided by the petitioners, the Service estimates 
that, in any given year during the specified time period of the 
proposed regulations (2013 to 2018), one seismic survey program (2D or 
3D) could operate in the Chukchi Sea Region during the open water 
season. We estimate that each seismic survey vessel would be 
accompanied or serviced by one to three support vessels. Helicopters 
may also be used, when available, for vessel support and crew changes.

Shallow Hazards Surveys

    Shallow hazards surveys in the Chukchi Sea Region are expected to 
be conducted for all OCS leases in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area. 
Shallow hazards surveys, also known as site clearance or high 
resolution surveys, are conducted to collect bathymetric data and 
information on the shallow geology down to depths of about 450 m (1,500 
ft) below the seafloor at areas identified as potential drill sites. 
Detailed maps of the seafloor surface and shallow sub-surface are 
produced with the resulting data in order to identify potential hazards 
in the area. Shallow hazards surveys must be conducted at all 
exploration drill sites in the OCS before drilling can be approved by 
BOEM/BSEE. Specific requirements for these shallow hazards surveys are 
presented in BOEM/BSEE's Notice to Lessee (NTL) 05-A01. Potential 
hazards may include: Shallow faults; shallow gas; permafrost; hydrates; 
and/or archaeological features, such as shipwrecks. Drilling permits 
will only be issued by the BOEM/BSEE for locations that avoid or 
minimize any risks of encountering these types of features.
    Equipment used in past surveys included sub-bottom profilers, 
multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, high resolution seismic 
(airgun array or sparker), and magnetometers. Equipment to be used in 
future surveys in 2013 to 2018 would be expected to be these and 
similar types of equipment as required by the BOEM/BSEE NTLs.
    Shallow hazards surveys are conducted from vessels during the 
summer or open water season along a series of transects, with different 
line spacing depending on the proximity to the proposed drill site and 
geophysical equipment to be used. Generally, a single vessel is 
required to conduct the survey, but in the Chukchi Sea an additional 
vessel is often used as a marine mammal monitoring platform. The 
geophysical equipment is either hull mounted or towed behind the 
vessel, and sometimes is located on an autonomous underwater vehicle 
(AUV). Small airgun arrays with a total volume of 258 cm\3\ (40 in\3\) 
and pressured to about 2,000 psi (13,789.5 kPa) have been used as the 
energy source for past high resolution seismic surveys and would be 
expected to be used in future surveys in 2013 to 2018, but larger or 
smaller airguns under more or lesser pressure may be used. Sparkers 
have also been used in the Chukchi Sea in the past and may be used in 
the future. The magnetometer is used to locate and identify any human-
made ferrous objects that might be on the seafloor.
    From the beginning of the previous regulations (2008 to 2012), four 
shallow hazards and site clearance surveys were actually conducted. 
Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate that 
during the timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013 to 2018), up to 
two operators would conduct from four to seven shallow hazards surveys 
annually.

Marine Geophysical Surveys

    Other types of geophysical surveys are expected to occur during the 
proposed regulatory timeframe from 2013 to 2018. These include ice 
gouge surveys, strudel scours surveys, and other bathymetric surveys 
(e.g., platform and pipeline surveys). These surveys use the same types 
of remote sensing geophysical equipment used in shallow hazards

[[Page 1947]]

surveys, but they are conducted for different purposes in different 
areas and often lack a seismic (airgun) component. Each of these types 
of surveys is briefly described below.

Ice Gouge Surveys

    Ice gouging is the creation of troughs and ridges on the seafloor 
caused by the contact of the keels of moving ice floes with 
unconsolidated sediments on the seafloor. Oil and gas operators conduct 
these surveys to gain an understanding of the distribution, frequency, 
size, and orientation of ice gouging in their areas of interest in 
order to predict the location, size, and frequency of future ice 
gouging. The surveys may be conducted from June through October when 
the area is sufficiently clear of ice and weather permits. Equipment to 
be used in ice gouge surveys during this time may include, but may not 
be limited to, sub-bottom profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, and 
side scan sonar.

Strudel Scour Surveys

    Strudel scours are formed in the seafloor during a brief period in 
the spring when river discharge commences the breakup of the sea ice. 
The ice is bottom fast, with the river discharge flowing over the top 
of the ice. The overflow spreads offshore and drains through the ice 
sheet at tidal cracks, thermal cracks, stress cracks, and seal 
breathing holes reaching the seafloor with enough force to generate 
distinctive erosion patterns. Oil and gas operators conduct surveys to 
identify locations where this phenomenon occurs and to understand the 
process. Nearshore areas (State waters) by the larger rivers are first 
surveyed from the air with a helicopter at the time when rivers are 
discharging on to the sea ice (typically in May), to identify any 
locations where the discharge is moving through the ice. The identified 
areas are revisited by vessel during the open water season (typically 
July to October), and bathymetric surveys are conducted along a series 
of transects over the identified areas. Equipment to be used in the 
surveys in 2013 to 2018 would likely include, but may not be limited 
to, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, and single beam 
bathymetric sonar.

Bathymetry Surveys

    Some surveys would be conducted to determine the feasibility of 
future development. This effort would include siting such things as 
pipeline and platform surveys. These surveys use geophysical equipment 
to delineate the bathymetry/seafloor relief and characteristics of the 
surficial seafloor sediments. The surveys are conducted from vessels 
along a series of transects. Equipment deployed on the vessel for these 
surveys would likely include, but may not be limited to, sub-bottom 
profilers, multi-beam bathymetric sonar, side scan sonar, and 
magnetometers.
    Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate 
that up to two operators would conduct as many as two geophysical 
surveys, including ice gouge, strudel scour, and bathymetry surveys, in 
any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations 
(2013 to 2018).

Geotechnical Surveys

    Geotechnical surveys expected to occur within the Chukchi Sea 
Region would take place offshore on leases in federal waters of the OCS 
and adjacent onshore areas. Geotechnical site investigations are 
performed to collect detailed data about seafloor sediments, onshore 
soil, and shallow geologic structures. During site investigations, 
boreholes are drilled to depths sufficient to characterize the soils 
within the zone of influence. The borings, cores, or cone penetrometer 
data collected at the site define the stratigraphy and geotechnical 
properties at that specific location. These data are analyzed and used 
in determining optimal facility locations. Site investigations that 
include archaeological, biological, and ecological data assist in the 
development of foundation design criteria for any planned structure. 
Methodology for geotechnical surveys may vary between those conducted 
offshore and onshore. Onshore geotechnical surveys would likely be 
conducted in winter when the tundra is frozen. Rotary drilling 
equipment would be wheeled, tracked, or sled mounted. Offshore 
geotechnical studies would be conducted from dedicated vessels or 
support vessels associated with other operations such as drilling.
    Based upon information provided by the petitioners, we estimate 
that as many as two operators would conduct up to two geotechnical 
surveys in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed 
regulations (2013 to 2018).

Offshore Environmental Studies

    Offshore environmental studies are likely to include: Ecological 
surveys of the benthos, plankton, fish, bird, and marine mammal 
communities and use of Chukchi Sea waters; acoustical studies of marine 
mammals; sediment and water quality analysis; and physical 
oceanographic investigations of sea ice movement, currents, and 
meteorology. Most bird and marine mammal surveys would be conducted 
from vessels. The vessels would travel along series of transects at 
slow speeds while observers on the vessels identify the number and 
species of animals. Ecological sampling and marine mammal surveys would 
also be conducted from fixed wing aircraft as part of the mandatory 
marine mammal monitoring programs associated with seismic surveys and 
exploration drilling. Various types of buoys would likely be deployed 
in the Chukchi Sea for data collection.

Onshore Environmental Studies

    Various types of environmental studies would likely be conducted 
onshore in the Chukchi Sea Region in 2013 to 2018, in support of 
offshore oil and gas exploration. These could include, but may not be 
limited to, hydrology studies; habitat assessments; fish and wildlife 
surveys; and archaeological resource surveys. These studies would 
generally be conducted by small teams of scientists that would base 
their operations in Chukchi Sea communities and travel to study sites 
by helicopter. Most surveys would be conducted on foot or from the air. 
Small boats may be used for hydrology studies, fish surveys, and other 
studies in aquatic environments.
    During the last 5-year time period of the regulations (2008-2012), 
a total of six environmental studies were conducted, with one to two 
conducted per year. Based upon information provided by the petitioners, 
we estimate that as many as two environmental studies may be conducted 
in any given year during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed 
regulations (2013 to 2018).

Additional Onshore Activities

    Additional onshore activities may occur as well. The North Slope 
Borough (NSB) operates the Barrow Gas Fields located south and east of 
the city of Barrow. The Barrow Gas Fields include the Walakpa, South, 
and East Gas Fields. The East Barrow Gas Field is accessible via 
exiting gravel roads. The Walakpa Gas Field operation is currently 
accessed by helicopter and/or a rolligon trail. The South Gas Field is 
accessible by gravel road or dirt trail depending on the individual 
well. Access to this field during the winter would require ice road 
construction. Ice/snow road access and ice pads are proposed where 
needed. The Walakpa Gas Field and a portion of the South Gas Field are 
located within the boundaries of the Chukchi Sea geographical region. 
In 2007, ConocoPhillips conducted an exploration program south of 
Barrow near the Walakpa Gas Field. The NSB

[[Page 1948]]

conducted drilling activities in 2007, including drilling new gas 
wells, and plugged and abandoned depleted wells in the Barrow Gas 
Fields. During the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013 
to 2018), we expect the NSB to maintain an active presence in the gas 
fields with the potential for additional maintenance of the fields.

Biological Information

Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)

    The Pacific walrus is the largest pinniped species (aquatic 
carnivorous mammals with all four limbs modified into flippers) in the 
Arctic. Walruses are readily distinguished from other Arctic pinnipeds 
by their enlarged upper canine teeth, which form prominent tusks. 
Males, which have relatively larger tusks than females, also tend to 
have broader skulls (Fay 1982).
    Two modern subspecies of walruses are generally recognized 
(Wozencraft 2005, p. 525; Integrated Taxonomic Information System, 
2010): The Atlantic walrus (O. r. rosmarus), which ranges from the 
central Canadian Arctic eastward to the Kara Sea (Reeves 1978) and the 
Pacific walrus (O. r. divergens), which ranges across the Bering and 
Chukchi seas (Fay 1982). The small, geographically isolated population 
of walruses in the Laptev Sea (Heptner et al. 1976; Vishnevskaia and 
Bychkov 1990; Andersen et al. 1998; Wozencraft 2005; Jefferson et al. 
2008), which was previously known as the Laptev walrus (Lindqvist et 
al. 2009), is now considered part of the Pacific walrus population. 
Atlantic and Pacific walruses are genetically and morphologically 
distinct from each other (Cronin et al. 1994), likely because of range 
fragmentation and differentiation during glacial phases of extensive 
Arctic sea ice cover (Harington 2008).
Stock Definition, Range, and Abundance
    Pacific walrus are represented by a single stock of animals that 
inhabit the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and Chukchi 
seas (Sease and Chapman 1988). Though some heterogeneity in the 
populations has been documented by Jay et al. (2008) from differences 
in the ratio of trace elements in the teeth, Scribner et al. (1997) 
found no difference in mitochondrial or nuclear DNA among Pacific 
walruses sampled from different breeding areas. The population ranges 
across the international boundaries of the United States and Russian 
Federation, and both nations share common interests with respect to the 
conservation and management of this species. Pacific walruses are 
identified and managed in the United States and the Russian Federation 
as a single population (Service 2010).
    Pacific walruses range across the continental shelf waters of the 
northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, relying principally on broken pack 
ice habitat to access feeding areas of high benthic productivity (Fay 
1982). Pacific walruses migrate up to 1,500 km (932 mi) between summer 
foraging areas in the Arctic (primarily the offshore continental shelf 
of the Chukchi Sea) and highly productive, seasonally ice covered 
waters in the sub-Arctic (northern Bering Sea) in winter. Although many 
adult male Pacific walruses remain in the Bering Sea during the ice 
free season, where they forage from coastal haulouts, most of the 
population migrates north in summer and south in winter following 
seasonal patterns of ice advance and retreat. Walruses are rarely 
spotted south of the Aleutian archipelago; however, migrant animals 
(mostly males) are occasionally reported in the North Pacific. Pacific 
walruses are presently identified and managed as a single panmictic 
population (Service 2010, unpublished data).
    Fossil evidence suggests that walruses occurred in the northwest 
Pacific during the last glacial maximum (20,000 YBP) with specimens 
recovered as far south as northern California (Gingras et al. 2007; 
Harrington 2008). More recently, commercial harvest records indicate 
that Pacific walruses were hunted along the southern coast of the 
Russian Federation in the Sea of Okhotsk and near Unimak Pass (Aleutian 
Islands) and the Shumigan Islands (Alaska Peninsula) of Alaska during 
the 17th Century (Elliott 1882).
    Pacific walruses are highly mobile, and their distribution varies 
markedly in response to seasonal and annual variations in sea ice 
cover. During the January to March breeding season, walruses congregate 
in the Bering Sea pack ice in areas where open leads (fractures in sea 
ice caused by wind drift or ocean currents), polynyas (enclosed areas 
of unfrozen water surrounded by ice) or thin ice allow access to water 
(Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984). The specific location of winter breeding 
aggregations varies annually depending upon the distribution and extent 
of ice. Breeding aggregations have been reported southwest of St. 
Lawrence Island, Alaska; south of Nunivak Island, Alaska; and south of 
the Chukotka Peninsula in the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation (Fay 
1982; Mymrin et al. 1990; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
    In spring, as the Bering Sea pack ice deteriorates, most of the 
population migrates northward through the Bering Strait to summer 
feeding areas over the continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea. However, 
several thousand animals, primarily adult males, remain in the Bering 
Sea during the summer months, foraging from coastal haulouts in the 
Gulf of Anadyr, Russian Federation, and in Bristol Bay, Alaska (Figure 
1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
    Summer distributions (both males and females) in the Chukchi Sea 
vary annually, depending upon the extent of sea ice. When broken sea 
ice is abundant, walruses are typically found in patchy aggregations 
over continental shelf waters. Individual groups may range from fewer 
than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006). 
Summer concentrations have been reported in loose pack ice off the 
northwestern coast of Alaska, between Icy Cape and Point Barrow, and 
along the coast of Chukotka, Russian Federation, and Wrangel Island 
(Fay 1982; Gilbert et al. 1992; Belikov et al. 1996). In years of low 
ice concentrations in the Chukchi Sea, some animals range east of Point 
Barrow into the Beaufort Sea; walruses have also been observed in the 
Eastern Siberian Sea in late summer (Fay 1982; Belikov et al. 1996). 
The pack ice of the Chukchi Sea usually reaches its minimum extent in 
September. In years when the sea ice retreats north beyond the 
continental shelf, walruses congregate in large numbers (up to several 
tens of thousands of animals in some locations) at terrestrial haulouts 
on Wrangel Island and other sites along the northern coast of the 
Chukotka Peninsula, Russian Federation, and northwestern Alaska (Fay 
1982; Belikov et al. 1996; Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry 
et al. 2008; MacCracken 2012).
    In late September and October, walruses that summered in the 
Chukchi Sea typically begin moving south in advance of the developing 
sea ice. Satellite telemetry data indicate that male walruses that 
summered at coastal haulouts in the Bering Sea also begin to move 
northward towards winter breeding areas in November (Jay and Hills 
2005). The male walruses' northward movement appears to be driven 
primarily by the presence of females at that time of year (Freitas et 
al. 2009).
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
    During the summer months, walruses are widely distributed across 
the shallow continental shelf waters of the Chukchi Sea. Significant 
summer concentrations include near Wrangel

[[Page 1949]]

and Herald Islands in Russian waters and at Hanna Shoal (northwest of 
Point Barrow) in U.S. waters (Jay et al. 2012). As the ice edge 
advances southward in the fall, walruses reverse their migration and 
re-group on the Bering Sea pack ice.
    The distribution of walruses in the eastern Chukchi Sea where 
exploration activities would occur is influenced primarily by the 
distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice. In June and July, 
scattered groups of walruses are typically found in loose pack ice 
habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982; Gilbert et al. 
1992). Recent telemetry studies investigating foraging patterns in the 
eastern Chukchi Sea suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts 
near Hanna Shoal, northwest of Point Barrow (Jay et al. in press). In 
August and September, concentrations of animals tend to be in areas of 
unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 100 km of the leading edge of 
the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). Individual groups occupying unconsolidated 
pack ice typically range from fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals. 
(Gilbert 1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and September, the edge of 
the pack ice generally retreats northward to about 71[deg] N latitude; 
however in light ice years, the edge can retreat north beyond the 
continental shelf (Douglas 2010). Sea ice normally reaches its minimum 
(northern) extent sometime in September, and ice begins to reform 
rapidly in October and November. Walruses typically migrate out of the 
eastern Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the developing sea ice 
(Fay 1982l; Jay et al. in press).
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 (1982) 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 in response to varying 
levels of human exploitation. Large scale commercial harvests are 
believed to have reduced the population to 50,000 to 100,000 animals by 
the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 1997). The population apparently increased 
rapidly in size during the 1960s and 1970s in response to harvest 
regulations that limited the take of females (Fay et al. 1989). Between 
1975 and 1990, visual aerial surveys jointly conducted by the United 
States and Soviet Union at 5-year intervals produced population 
estimates ranging from 201,039 to 246,360 (Table 1). Efforts to survey 
the Pacific walrus population were suspended by both countries after 
1990, due to unresolved problems with survey methods that produced 
population estimates with unknown bias and unknown, but presumably 
large, variances that severely limited their utility (Speckman et al. 
2012).
    In 2006, a joint United States-Russian Federation survey was 
conducted 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 (Speckman et al. 
2012). The number of walruses within the surveyed area was estimated at 
129,000, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 55,000 to 507,000 
individuals. This is a conservative minimum estimate, as weather 
conditions forced termination of the survey before much of the 
southwest Bering Sea was surveyed; animals were observed in that region 
as the surveyors returned to Anchorage, Alaska. Table 1 provides a 
summary of survey results.

   Table 1--Estimates of Pacific Walrus Population Size, 1975 to 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Population size \a\
             Year                  (95% confidence        Reference
                                     interval)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975..........................  214,687 (-20,000 to  Udevitz et al.
                                 480,000) \b\.        2001.
1980..........................  246,360 (-20,000 to  Johnson et al.
                                 540,000).            1982; Fedoseev
                                                      1984.
1985..........................  242,366 (-20,000 to  Udevitz et al.
                                 510,000).            2001.
1990..........................  201,039 (-19,000 to  Gilbert et al.
                                 460,000).            1992.
2006..........................  129,000 (55,000 to   Speckman et al.
                                 507,000).            2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ due to differences in methods, comparisons of estimates across years
  (population trends) are subject to several caveats and not reliable.
\b\ 95 percent confidence intervals for 1975 to 1990 are from Fig. 1 in
  Hills and Gilbert (1994).

    These survey results suggest that the walrus population has 
declined; however, discrepancies among the survey methods and large 
confidence intervals that in some cases overlap zero do not support 
such a definitive conclusion. Resource managers in the Russian 
Federation have concluded that the population has declined and have 
reduced harvest quotas in recent years accordingly (Kochnev 2004; 
Kochnev 2005; Kochnev 2010, pers. comm.), based in part on the lower 
abundance estimate generated from the 2006 survey. However, past survey 
results are not directly comparable due to differences in survey 
methods, timing of surveys, segments of the population surveyed, and 
incomplete coverage of areas where walruses may have been present (Fay 
et al. 1997); thus, these results do not provide a basis for 
determining trends in population size (Hills and Gilbert 1994; Gilbert 
1999). Whether prior estimates are biased low or high is unknown, 
because of problems with detecting individual animals on ice or land, 
and in open water, and difficulties counting animals in large, dense 
groups (Speckman et al. 2011). In addition, no survey has ever been 
completed within a time frame that could account for the redistribution 
of individuals (leading to double counting or undercounting), or before 
weather conditions either delayed the effort or completely terminated 
the survey before the entire area of potentially occupied habitat had 
been covered (Speckman et al. 2011). Due to these problems, as well as 
seasonal differences among surveys (fall or spring) and despite 
technological advancements that correct for some problems, we do not 
believe the survey results provide a reliable basis for estimating a 
population trend.
    Changes in the walrus population have also been investigated by 
examining changes in biological parameters over time. Based on evidence 
of changes in abundance, distributions, condition indices, pregnancy 
rates, and minimum breeding age, 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 near, or had exceeded, the carrying capacity (K) of its environment 
by the early 1980s. We would expect the population to decline if K is 
exceeded. In addition, harvests increased in the 1980s. Changes in the 
size, composition, and productivity of the sampled walrus harvest in 
the Bering Strait Region of

[[Page 1950]]

Alaska over this time frame are consistent with this hypothesis 
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2006; MacCracken 2012). Harvest levels declined 
sharply in the early 1990s, and increased reproductive rates and 
earlier maturation in females occurred, suggesting that density 
dependent regulatory mechanisms had been relaxed and the population was 
likely below K (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006; MacCracken 2012). However, 
Garlich-Miller et al. (2006) also noted that there are no data 
concerning the trend in abundance of the walrus population or the 
status of its prey to verify this hypothesis, and that whether density 
dependent changes in life-history parameters might have been mediated 
by changes in population abundance or changes in the carrying capacity 
of the environment is unknown.
Habitat
    The Pacific walrus is an ice-dependent species that relies on sea 
ice for many aspects of its life history. Unlike other pinnipeds, 
walruses are not adapted for a pelagic existence and must haul out on 
ice or land regularly. Floating pack ice serves as a substrate for 
resting between feeding dives (Ray et al. 2006), breeding behavior (Fay 
et al. 1984), giving birth (Fay 1982), and nursing and care of young 
(Kelly 2001). Sea ice provides access to offshore feeding areas over 
the continental shelf of the Bering and Chukchi seas, passive 
transportation to new feeding areas (Richard 1990; Ray et al. 2006), 
and isolation from terrestrial predators (Richard 1990; Kochnev 2004; 
Ovsyanikov et al. 2007). Sea ice provides an extensive substrate upon 
which the risk of predation and hunting is greatly reduced (Kelly 2001; 
Fay 1982).
    Sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is comprised of first year sea 
ice that formed in the most recent autumn/winter period, and multi-year 
ice that has survived at least one summer melt season. Sea ice habitats 
for walruses include openings or leads that provide access to the water 
and to food resources. Walruses generally do not use multi-year ice or 
highly compacted first year ice in which there is an absence of 
persistent leads or polynyas (Richard 1990). Expansive areas of heavy 
ice cover are thought to play a restrictive role in walrus 
distributions across the Arctic and serve as a barrier to the mixing of 
populations (Fay 1982; Dyke et al. 1999; Harington 2008). Walruses 
generally do not occur farther south than the maximum extent of the 
winter pack ice, possibly due to their reliance on sea ice for breeding 
and rearing young (Fay et al. 1984) and isolation from terrestrial 
predators (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007), or because of the 
higher densities of benthic invertebrates in northern waters (Grebmeier 
et al. 2006a).
    Walruses may utilize ice that is greater than 20 cm (~8 in), but 
generally require ice thicknesses of 50 cm (~20 in) or more to support 
their weight, and are not found in areas of extensive, unbroken ice 
(Fay 1982; Richard 1990). Thus, in winter they concentrate in areas of 
broken pack ice associated with divergent ice flow or along the margins 
of persistent polynyas (Burns et al. 1981; Fay et al. 1984; Richard 
1990) in areas with abundant food resources (Ray et al. 2006). Females 
with young generally spend the summer months in pack ice habitats of 
the Chukchi Sea. Some authors have suggested that the size and 
topography of individual ice floes are important features in the 
selection of ice haulouts, noting that some animals have been observed 
returning to the same ice floe between feeding bouts (Ray et al. 2006). 
Conversely, walruses can and will exploit a broad range of ice types 
and ice concentrations in order to stay in preferred foraging or 
breeding areas (Freitas et al. 2009; Jay et al. 2010a; Ray et al. 
2010). Walruses tend to make shorter foraging excursions when they are 
using sea ice rather than land haulouts (Udevitz et al. 2009), 
suggesting that it is more energetically efficient for them to haulout 
on ice than forage from shore. Fay (1982) notes that several authors 
reported that when walruses had the choice of ice or land for a resting 
place, ice was always selected. However, walrus occupancy of an area 
can be somewhat independent of ice conditions. Many walruses will stay 
over productive feeding areas even to the point when the ice completely 
melts out. It appears that adult females and younger animals can remain 
at sea for a week or two before coming to shore to rest.
    When suitable sea ice is not available, walruses haul out on land 
to rest. A wide variety of substrates, ranging from sand to boulders, 
are used. Isolated islands, points, spits, and headlands are occupied 
most frequently. The primary consideration for a terrestrial haulout 
site appears to be isolation from disturbances and predators, although 
social factors, learned behavior, protection from strong winds and 
surf, and proximity to food resources also likely influence the choice 
of terrestrial haulout sites (Richard 1990). Walruses tend to use 
established haulout sites repeatedly and exhibit some degree of 
fidelity to these sites (Jay and Hills 2005), although the use of 
coastal haulouts appears to fluctuate over time, possibly due to 
localized prey depletion (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000). Human 
disturbance is also thought to influence the choice of haulout sites; 
many historic haulouts in the Bering Sea were abandoned in the early 
1900s when the Pacific walrus population was subjected to high levels 
of exploitation (Fay 1982; Fay et al. 1984).
    Adult male walruses use land-based haulouts more than females or 
young, and consequently, have a greater geographical distribution 
through the ice-free season. Many adult males remain in the Bering Sea 
throughout the ice-free season, making foraging trips from coastal 
haulouts in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and the Gulf of Anadyr, Russian 
Federation (Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), while females and 
juvenile animals generally stay with the drifting ice pack throughout 
the year (Fay 1982). Females with dependent young may prefer sea ice 
habitats because coastal haulouts pose greater risk from trampling 
injuries and predation (Fay and Kelly 1980; Ovsyanikov et al. 1994; 
Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et al. 2008; Mulcahy et al. 
2009). Females may also prefer sea ice habitats because they may have 
difficulty feeding while caring for a young calf that has limited 
swimming range (Cooper et al. 2006; Jay and Fischbach 2008).
    The numbers of male walruses using coastal haulouts in the Bering 
Sea during the summer months, and the relative uses of different 
coastal haulout sites in the Bering Sea, have varied over the past 
century. Harvest records indicate that walrus herds were once common at 
coastal haulouts along the Alaska Peninsula and the islands of northern 
Bristol Bay (Fay et al. 1984). By the early 1950s, most of the 
traditional haulout areas in the Southern Bering Sea had been 
abandoned, presumably due to hunting pressure. During the 1950s and 
1960s, Round Island was the only regularly used haulout in Bristol Bay, 
Alaska. In 1960, the State of Alaska established the Walrus Islands 
State Game Sanctuary, which closed Round Island to hunting. Peak counts 
of walruses at Round Island increased from 1,000 to 2,000 animals in 
the late 1950s (Frost et al. 1983) to more than 10,000 animals in the 
early 1980s (Sell and Weiss 2010), but subsequently declined to 2,000 
to 5,000 over the past decade (Sell and Weiss 2010). General 
observations indicate that declining walrus counts at Round Island may, 
in part, reflect a redistribution of animals to other coastal sites in 
the Bristol Bay region. For example, walruses have been

[[Page 1951]]

observed increasingly regularly at the Cape Seniavin haulout on the 
Alaska Peninsula since the 1970s, and at Cape Pierce and Cape Newenham 
in northwest Bristol Bay since the early 1980s (Jay and Hills 2005; 
Winfree 2010; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and more 
recently at Hagemeister Island.
    Traditional male summer haulouts along the Bering Sea coast of the 
Russian Federation include sites along the Kamchatka Peninsula, the 
Gulf of Anadyr (most notably Rudder and Meechkin spits), and 
Arakamchechen Island (Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure 1 in Garlich-
Miller et al. 2011a). Walruses have not occupied several of the 
southernmost haulouts along the coast of Kamchatka in recent years, and 
the number of animals in the Gulf of Anadyr has also declined in recent 
years (Kochnev 2005). Factors influencing abundance at Bering Sea 
haulouts are poorly understood, but may include changes in prey 
densities near the haulouts, changes in population size, disturbance 
levels, and changing seasonal distributions (Jay and Hills 2005) 
(presumably mediated by sea ice coverage or temperature).
    Historically, coastal haulouts along the Arctic (Chukchi Sea) coast 
have been used less consistently during the summer months than those in 
the Bering Sea because of the presence of pack ice for much of the year 
in the Chukchi Sea. Since the mid-1990s, reductions of summer sea ice 
coincided with a marked increase in the use of coastal haulouts along 
the Chukchi Sea coast of the Russian Federation during the summer 
months (Kochnev 2004; Kavry et al. 2008). Large, mixed (composed of 
various age and sex groups) herds of walruses, up to several tens of 
thousands of animals, began to use coastal haulouts on Wrangel Island, 
Russian Federation, in the early 1990s, and several coastal haulouts 
along the northern Chukotka coastline of the Russian Federation have 
emerged in recent years, likely as a result of reductions in summer sea 
ice in the Chukchi Sea (Kochnev 2004; Ovsyanikov et al. 2007; Kavry et 
al. 2008; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
    In 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011, walruses were also observed hauling 
out in large numbers with mixed sex and age groups along the Chukchi 
Sea coast of Alaska in late August, September, and October (Thomas et 
al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished data; Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b; 
MacCracken 2012). Monitoring studies conducted in association with oil 
and gas exploration suggest that the use of coastal haulouts along the 
Arctic coast of Alaska during the summer months is dependent upon the 
availability of sea ice. For example, in 2006 and 2008, walruses 
foraging off the Chukchi Sea coast of Alaska remained with the ice pack 
over the continental shelf during the months of August, September, and 
October. However in 2007 and 2009, the pack ice retreated beyond the 
continental shelf and large numbers of walruses hauled out on land at 
several locations between Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne, Alaska 
(Ireland et al. 2009; Thomas et al. 2009; Service 2010, unpublished 
data; Figure 1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a), and in 2010 and 2011, 
at least 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were observed hauled out 
approximately 4.8 km (3 miles[mi]) north of the Native Village of Point 
Lay, Alaska (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011b).
    Transitory coastal haulouts have also been reported in late fall 
(October to November) along the southern Chukchi Sea coast, coinciding 
with the southern migration. Mixed herds of walruses frequently come to 
shore to rest for a few days to weeks along the coast before continuing 
on their migration to the Bering Sea. Cape Lisburne, Alaska, and Capes 
Serdtse-Kamen' and Dezhnev, Russian Federation, are the most 
consistently used haulouts in the Chukchi Sea at this time of year 
(Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000). Large mixed herds of walruses have also 
been reported in late fall and early winter at coastal haulouts in the 
northern Bering Sea at the Punuk Islands and Saint Lawrence Island, 
Alaska; Big Diomede Island, Russian Federation; and King Island, 
Alaska, prior to the formation of sea ice in offshore breeding and 
feeding areas (Fay and Kelly 1980; Garlich-Miller and Jay 2000; Figure 
1 in Garlich-Miller et al. 2011a).
Life History
    Walruses are long-lived animals with low rates of reproduction, 
much lower than other pinniped species. Walruses may live 35 to 40 
years and some may remain reproductively active until relatively late 
in life (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). Females give birth to one calf 
every 2 or more years. 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).
    At birth, walrus calves are approximately 65 kg (143 lb) and 113 cm 
(44.5 in) long (Fay 1982). 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. Females tend 
newborn calves closely and accompany their mother from birth until 
weaned after 2 years or more. Cows brood neonates 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 to form large ``nursery herds'' (Burns 1970). 
Summer distribution of females and young walruses is related to the 
movements of the pack ice relative to feeding areas.
    After the first 7 years of life, the growth rate of female walruses 
declines rapidly, and they reach a maximum body size by approximately 
10 years of age. Females reach sexual maturity at 4 to 9 years of age. 
Adult females can reach lengths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft) and weigh up to 
1,100 kg (2,425 lb). Male walrus tend to grow faster and for a longer 
period than females. Males become fertile at 5 to 7 years of age; 
however, they are usually unable to compete for mates until they reach 
full adult body size at 15 to 16 years of age. Adult males can reach 
lengths of 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and can weigh more than 2,000 kg (4,409 lb) 
(Fay 1982).
Behavior
    Walruses are social and gregarious animals. They tend to travel in 
groups and haul out of the water to rest on ice or land in densely 
packed groups. On land or ice, in any season, walruses tend to lie in 
close physical contact with each other. Young animals often lie on top 
of adults. Group size can range from a few individuals up to several 
thousand animals (Gilbert 1999; Kastelein 2002; Jefferson et al. 2008). 
At any time of the year, when groups are disturbed, stampedes from a 
haulout can result in injuries and mortalities. Calves and young 
animals are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries (Fay 1980; 
Fay and Kelly 1980). The reaction of walruses to disturbance ranges 
from no reaction to escape into the water, depending on the 
circumstances (Fay et al. 1984). Many factors play into the severity of 
the response, including the age and sex of the animals, the size and 
location of the group (on ice, in water, Fay et al. 1984). Females with 
calves appear to be most sensitive to disturbance, and animals on shore 
are more sensitive than those on ice (Fay et al. 1984). A fright 
response caused by disturbance can cause stampedes on a haulout, 
resulting in injuries and mortalities (Fay and Kelly 1980).
    Mating occurs primarily in January and February in broken pack ice 
habitat

[[Page 1952]]

in the Bering Sea. Breeding bulls follow herds of females and compete 
for access to groups of females hauled out onto sea ice. Males perform 
visual and acoustical displays in the water to attract females and 
defend a breeding territory. Sub-dominant males remain on the periphery 
of these aggregations and apparently do not display. Intruders into 
display areas are met with threat displays and physical attacks. 
Individual females leave the resting herd to join a male in the water 
where copulation occurs (Fay et al. 1984; Sjare and Stirling 1996).
    The social bond between the mother and calf is very strong, and it 
is unusual for a cow to become separated from her calf (Fay 1982). The 
calf normally remains with its mother for at least 2 years, sometimes 
longer, if not supplanted by a new calf (Fay 1982). After separation 
from their mother, young females tend to remain with groups of adult 
females, whereas young males gradually separate from the females and 
begin to associate with groups of other males. Walruses appear to base 
their individual social status on a combination of body size, tusk 
size, and aggressiveness. Individuals do not necessarily associate with 
the same group of animals and must continually reaffirm their social 
status in each new aggregation (Fay 1982; NAMMCO 2004).
    Walruses produce a variety of sounds (barks, knocks, grunts, rasps, 
clicks, whistles, contact calls, etc.; Miller 1985; Stirling et al. 
1987), which range in frequency from 0.1 to 4000 Hz (Miller 1985; 
Richardson et al. 1995). Airborne vocalizations accompany nearly every 
social interaction that occurs on land or ice (Miller 1985; Charrier et 
al. 2011) and facilitate kin recognition, male breeding displays, 
recognition of conspecifics, and female mate choice (Insley et al. 
2003; Charrier et al. 2011). Miller (1985) indicated that barks and 
other calls were used to promote group cohesion and prompted herd 
members to attend to young distressed animals. Walruses also vocalize 
extensively while underwater, which has been used to track movements, 
study behavior, and infer relative abundance (Stirling et al. 1983; 
Hannay et al. 2012, Mouy et al. 2012). The purposes of underwater 
vocalizations are not explicitly known but are associated with breeding 
(Ray and Watkins 1975; Stirling et al. 1987; Sjare et al. 2003), 
swimming, and diving (Hannay et al. 2012). Stirling et al. (1987) 
suggested that variation among individuals in stereotyped underwater 
calls may be used to identify individuals. Mouy et al. (2012) opined 
that knocks made while diving may be used to locate the bottom and 
identify bottom substrates associated with prey. Underwater 
vocalizations may also be used to communicate with other walruses.
    Because of walrus grouping behavior, all vocal communications occur 
within a short distance (Miller 1985). Walrus' underwater vocalizations 
can be detected for only a few kilometers (Mouy et al. 2012) and likely 
do not act as long distance communication.
Prey
    Walruses consume mostly benthic (region at the bottom of a body of 
water) invertebrates and are highly adapted to obtain bivalves (Fay 
1982; Bowen and Siniff 1999; Born et al. 2003; Dehn et al. 2007; Boveng 
et al. 2008; Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). Fish and other vertebrates 
have occasionally been found in their stomachs (Fay 1982; Sheffield and 
Grebmeier 2009). Walruses root in the bottom sediment with their 
muzzles and use their whiskers to locate prey items. They use their 
fore flippers, nose, and jets of water to extract prey buried up to 32 
cm (12.6 in) (Fay 1982; Oliver et al. 1983; Kastelein 2002; Levermann 
et al. 2003). The foraging behavior of walruses is thought to have a 
major impact on benthic communities in the Bering and Chukchi seas 
(Oliver et al. 1983; Klaus et al. 1990). Ray et al. (2006) estimate 
that walruses consume approximately 3 million metric tons (3,307 tons) 
of benthic biomass annually, and that the area affected by walrus 
foraging is in the order of thousands of square (sq) km (thousands of 
sq mi) annually. Consequently, walruses play a major role in benthic 
ecosystem structure and function, which Ray et al. (2006) suggested 
increased nutrient flux and productivity.
    The earliest studies of food habits were based on examination of 
stomachs from walruses killed by hunters. These reports indicated that 
walruses were primarily feeding on bivalves (clams), and that non-
bivalve prey was only incidentally ingested (Fay 1982; Sheffield et al. 
2001). However, these early studies did not take into account the 
differential rate of digestion of prey items (Sheffield et al. 2001). 
Additional research indicates that stomach contents include over 100 
taxa of benthic invertebrates from all major phyla (Fay 1982; Sheffield 
and Grebmeier 2009), and while bivalves remain the primary component, 
walruses are not adapted to a diet solely of clams. Other prey items 
have similar energetic benefits (Wacasey and Atkinson 1987). Based on 
analysis of the contents from fresh stomachs of Pacific walruses 
collected between 1975 and 1985 in the Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea, prey 
consumption likely reflects benthic invertebrate composition (Sheffield 
and Grebmeier 2009). Of the large number of different types of prey, 
statistically significant differences between males and females from 
the Bering Sea were found in the occurrence of only two prey items, and 
there were no statistically significant differences in results for 
males and females from the Chukchi Sea (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009). 
Although these data are for Pacific walrus stomachs collected 25 to 35 
years ago, we have no reason to believe there has been a change in the 
general pattern of prey use described here.
    Walruses typically swallow invertebrates without shells in their 
entirety (Fay 1982). Walruses remove the soft parts of mollusks from 
their shells by suction, and discard the shells (Fay 1982). Born et al. 
(2003) reported that Atlantic walruses consumed an average of 53.2 
bivalves (range 34 to 89) per dive. Based on caloric need and 
observations of captive walruses, walruses require approximately 29 to 
74 kg (64 to 174 lbs) of food per day (Fay 1982). Adult males forage 
little during the breeding period (Fay 1982; Ray et al. 2006), while 
lactating females may eat two to three times that of non-pregnant, non-
lactating females (Fay 1982). Calves up to 1 year of age depend 
primarily on their mother's milk (Fay 1982) and are gradually weaned in 
their second year (Fisher and Stewart 1997).
    Although walruses are capable of diving to depths of more than 250 
m (820 ft) (Born et al.), they usually forage in waters of 80 m (262 
ft) or less (Fay and Burns 1988, Born et al. 2003; Kovacs and Lydersen 
2008), presumably because of higher productivity of their benthic foods 
in shallow waters (Fay and Burns 1988; Carey 1991; Jay et al. 2001; 
Grebmeier et al. 2006b; Grebmeier et al. 2006a). Walruses make foraging 
trips from land or ice haulouts that range from a few hours up to 
several days and up to 100 km (60 mi) (Jay et al. 2001; Born et al. 
2003; Ray et al. 2006; Udevitz et al. 2009). Walruses tend to make 
shorter and more frequent foraging trips when sea ice is used as a 
foraging platform compared to terrestrial haulouts (Udevitz et al. 
2009). Satellite telemetry data for walruses in the Bering Sea in April 
of 2004, 2005, and 2006 showed they spent an average of 46 hours in the 
water between resting bouts on ice, which averaged 9 hours (Udevitz et 
al. 2009). Because females and young travel with the retreating pack 
ice in the spring and summer, they are passively transported northward 
over feeding grounds across the continental shelves of the Bering and 
Chukchi seas. Male

[[Page 1953]]

walruses appear to have greater endurance than females, with foraging 
excursions from land haulouts that can last up to 142 hours (about 6 
days) (Jay et al. 2001).
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. 
Predation levels are thought to be highest near terrestrial haulout 
sites where large aggregations of walruses can be found; however, few 
observations exist for offshore 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 the late 17th century. Currently 
only Native Alaskans and Chukotkans can hunt Pacific walruses to meet 
subsistence needs. 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 to 2005. Harvests from 2006-
2010 averaged 4,854 walruses per year (Service, unpubl. data). These 
mortality estimates include 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 hundreds to thousands of 
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.

Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)

Stock Definition and Range
    Polar bears are circumpolar in their distribution in the northern 
hemisphere. In Alaska, polar bears have historically been observed as 
far south in the Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and the Pribilof 
Islands (Ray 1971). Two subpopulations, or stocks, occur in Alaska: The 
Chukchi/Bering seas stock (CS), and the Southern Beaufort Sea stock 
(SBS). This proposed rule primarily discusses the CS stock. A detailed 
description of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks can be found in the 
Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment Reports at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_sbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf and 
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_cbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf. A summary of the CS polar bear stock is described below.
    The CS stock is widely distributed on the pack ice in the Chukchi 
Sea and northern Bering Sea and adjacent coastal areas in Alaska, 
United States and Chukotka, Russian Federation. The northeastern 
boundary of the Chukchi/Bering seas stock is near the Colville Delta in 
the central Beaufort Sea (Garner et al.1990; Amstrup 1995; Amstrup et 
al. 2005), and the western boundary is near Chauniskaya Bay in the 
Eastern Siberian Sea. The stock's southern boundary is determined by 
the extent of annual sea ice. It is important to note that the eastern 
boundary of the CS stock constitutes a large overlap zone with bears in 
the SBS stock (Amstrup et al. 2004). In this large overlap zone, 
roughly north of Barrow, Alaska, it is thought that polar bears are 
approximately 50 percent from the CS stock and 50 percent from the SBS 
stock (Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010). Currently, capture-
based studies are being conducted by the Service in the U.S. portion of 
the Chukchi Sea to provide updated information on population 
delineation and habitat use.
Distribution in the Chukchi Sea
    Polar bears are common in the Chukchi Sea and their distribution is 
influenced by the movement of the seasonal pack ice. Polar bears in the 
Chukchi Sea migrate seasonally with the pack ice but are typically 
dispersed throughout the region anywhere sea ice and prey may be found 
(Garner et al. 1990; Amstrup 2003). The distance between the northern 
and southern extremes of the seasonal pack ice in the Chukchi/Bearing 
seas is approximately 1,300 km (~807 mi). There may be, however, 
significant differences year to year. Sea ice throughout the Arctic is 
changing rapidly and dramatically due to climate change (Douglas 2010). 
In May and June, polar bears are likely to be encountered over 
relatively shallow continental shelf waters associated with ice as they 
move northward from the northern Bering Sea, through the Bering Strait 
into the southern Chukchi Sea. During the fall and early winter period 
polar bears are likely to be encountered in the Chukchi Sea during 
their southward migration in late October and November. Polar bears are 
dependent upon the sea ice for foraging, and the most productive areas 
seem to be near the ice edge, leads, or polynyas where the ocean depth 
is minimal (Durner et al. 2004). In addition, polar bears may be 
present along the shoreline in this area, as they will 
opportunistically scavenge on marine mammal carcasses washed up along 
the shoreline (Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998).
Population Status
    The global population estimate of polar bears is approximately 
20,000 to 25,000 individuals (Obbard et al. 2010). Polar bears 
typically occur at low densities throughout their circumpolar range 
(DeMaster and Stirling 1981). The CS stock likely increased after the 
level of harvest in the United States was reduced subsequent to passage 
of the MMPA in 1972; however, its status is now considered uncertain 
(Obbard et al. 2010). Polar bears in the CS stock are classified as 
depleted under the MMPA and listed as threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It has 
been difficult to obtain a reliable population estimate for this stock 
due to the vast and inaccessible nature of the habitat, movement of 
bears across international boundaries, logistical constraints of 
conducting studies in Russian Federation territory, and budget 
limitations (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Garner et al. 1992; Garner et 
al. 1998; Evans et al. 2003). The recent estimate of the CS stock is 
approximately 2,000 animals, based on extrapolation of aerial den 
surveys (Lunn et al. 2002). Past estimates of the stock have been 
derived from observations of dens and aerial surveys (Chelintsev 1977; 
Stishov 1991a; Stishov 1991b; Stishov et al. 1991); however, these 
estimates have wide confidence intervals, are considered to be of 
little value for management, and cannot be used to evaluate status and 
trends for this stock. Reliable estimates of population size based upon 
traditional wildlife research methods such as capture-recapture or 
aerial surveys are not available for this region, and measuring the 
population size remains a research challenge (Evans et al. 2003). 
Current and new research studies in the United States and Russian 
Federation are aimed at monitoring population status via ecological 
indicators (e.g., recruitment rates and body condition) and reducing 
uncertainty associated with estimates of survival and population size.
Habitat
    Polar bears depend on the sea-ice-dominated ecosystem for survival. 
Polar bears of the Chukchi Sea are subject to the movements and 
coverage of the pack ice and annual ice as they are dependent on the 
ice as a platform for hunting, feeding, and mating. Historically, polar 
bears of the Chukchi Sea have spent most of their time on the

[[Page 1954]]

annual ice in near-shore, shallow waters over the productive 
continental shelf, which is associated with the shear zone and the 
active ice adjacent to the shear zone. Sea ice and food availability 
are two important factors affecting the distribution of polar bears and 
their use of habitat. During the ice-covered season, bears use the 
extent of the annual ice. The most extensive north-south movements of 
polar bears are associated with the spring and fall ice movement. For 
example, during the 2006 ice-covered season, six bears radio-collared 
in the Beaufort Sea were located in the Chukchi and Bering Seas as far 
south as 59[deg] latitude, which was the farthest extent of the annual 
ice during 2006. In addition, a small number of bears sometimes remains 
on the Russian and Alaskan coasts during the initial stages of ice 
retreat in the spring.
    Polar bear distribution during the open-water season in the Chukchi 
Sea, where maximum open water occurs in September, is dependent upon 
the location of the ice edge as well. The summer ice pack can be 
unconsolidated, and segments move great distances by wind, carrying 
polar bears with them. Recent telemetry movement data are lacking for 
bears in the Chukchi Sea; however, an increased trend by polar bears to 
use coastal habitats in the fall during open-water and freeze-up 
conditions has been noted by researchers since 1992. Recently, during 
the minimum sea ice extents, which occurred in 2005 and 2007, polar 
bears exhibited this coastal movement pattern as observations from 
Russian biologists and satellite telemetry data of bears in the 
Beaufort Sea indicated that bears were found on the sea ice or along 
the Chukotka coast during the open-water period.
    Changes in sea ice are occurring in the Chukchi Sea because of 
climate change (Service 2010). With sea ice decreasing, scientists are 
observing effects of climate change on polar bear habitat, such as an 
increased amount of open water for longer periods; a reduction in the 
stable, multi-year ice; and a retraction of sea ice away from 
productive continental shelf areas (Service 2010). Polar bears using 
the Chukchi Sea are currently experiencing the initial effects of 
changes in the sea-ice conditions (Rode and Regehr et al. 2007) and 
would be vulnerable to seasonal changes in sea ice that could limit 
their access to prey.
    As a measure to protect polar bears and their habitat from the 
effects of climate change, 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 essential for the conservation of an 
endangered or threatened species, and that may require special 
management or protection.
    The Service designated critical habitat in three areas or units: 
Barrier island habitat, sea ice habitat (both described in geographic 
terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a functional determination). 
Barrier island habitat includes coastal barrier islands and spits along 
Alaska's coast, and is used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, 
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 ft) or less in depth. Terrestrial denning 
habitat includes lands within 32 km (~20 mi) of the northern coast of 
Alaska between the Canadian border and the Kavik River, and within 8 km 
(~5 mi) between the Kavik River and Barrow. The total area designated 
covers approximately 484,734 sq km (~187,157 sq mi), and is entirely 
within the lands and waters of the United States.
    Polar bear habitat is described in detail in the final rule that 
designated polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086; December 7, 2010). 
A detailed description of polar bear habitat can be found at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.
Life History
    Polar bears are specially adapted for life in the Arctic and are 
distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the circumpolar 
Northern Hemisphere (Amstrup 2003). 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 (Stirling and 
Smith 1975; Stirling et al. 1981; Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Stirling 
1990; Stirling and [Oslash]ritsland 1995; Stirling and Lunn 1997; 
Amstrup et al. 2000; Amstrup 2003). Over most of their range, polar 
bears remain on the sea ice year-round, or spend only short periods on 
land (Amstrup 2003).
Denning and Reproduction
    Female polar bears without dependent cubs breed in the spring. 
Females can produce their first litter of cubs at 5 to 6 years of age 
(Stirling et al. 1976; Stirling et al. 1977; Lentfer and Hensel 1980; 
Lentfer et al. 1980; Ramsay and Stirling 1982, 1988; Furnell and 
Schweinsburg 1984; Amstrup 2003). Pregnant females typically enter 
maternity dens from November through December, and the young are 
usually born in late December or early January (Lentfer and Hensel 
1980; Amstrup 2003). Only pregnant females den for an extended period 
during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens to 
escape harsh winter conditions, but otherwise remain active year-round 
(Amstrup 2003). Each pregnancy can result in up to three cubs, an 
average pregnancy results in two cubs being born. 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 may survive through their 
first year of life after leaving the den (Amstrup 2003). In late March 
or early April, the female and cubs emerge from their den. Polar bears 
have extended maternal care and most dependent young remain with their 
mother for approximately 2.3 years (Amstrup 2003). If the mother moves 
young cubs from the den before they can walk or withstand the cold, 
mortality of the cubs may result. Therefore, it is thought that 
successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities require a 
relatively undisturbed environment. Amstrup (2003), however, observed 
that polar bear females in a den can display remarkable tolerance for a 
variety of human disturbance.
    Radio and satellite telemetry studies 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 from 1985 to 1994, to 40 percent from 1998 to 
2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). In Alaska, areas of maternal polar bear 
dens of both the CS and SBS stocks appear to be less concentrated than 
stocks located in Canada and the Russian Federation. Though some 
variations in denning occurs among polar bears from various stocks, 
there are significant similarities. A common trait of polar bear 
denning habitat is topographic features that accumulate enough drifted 
snow for females to excavate a den (Amstrup 2003; Durner et al. 2003; 
Durner et al. 2006). 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

[[Page 1955]]

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 by bears from the SBS stock (Durner et al. 
2003; Durner et al. 2006). Maternal denning occurs on tundra-bearing 
barrier islands along the Beaufort Sea and in the large river deltas, 
such as the Colville and Canning Rivers. Denning of bears from the CS 
stock occurs primarily on Wrangel and Herald Islands, and on the 
Chukotka coast in the Russian Federation. Maternal denning on land for 
the U.S. portion of the CS stock is rare, though anecdotal reports and 
traditional knowledge of Alaska Natives indicate that it does happen.
Prey
    Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the primary prey of polar bears in 
most areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) are also common prey 
for polar bears in the CS stock. Pacific walrus calves are hunted 
occasionally, and walrus carcasses are scavenged at haulouts where 
trampling occurs. Polar bears will occasionally feed on bowhead whale 
(Balaena mysticetus) carcasses opportunistically wherever they may wash 
ashore and at Point Barrow, Cross, and Barter islands, which are areas 
where bowhead whales are harvested for subsistence purposes. There are 
also reports of polar bears killing beluga whales (Delphinapterus 
leucas) trapped in the ice.
    Utilization of sea ice is a vital component of polar bear predatory 
behavior. Polar bears use sea ice as a platform to hunt seals, travel, 
seek mates, and rest, among other things. They may hunt along leads, 
polynyas, and other areas of open water associated with sea ice. Polar 
bears employ a diverse range of methods and tactics to hunt prey. They 
may wait motionless for extended periods at a seal breathing hole, or 
may use scent to locate a seal lair then break through the roof; seal 
lairs are excavated in snow drifts on top of the ice. Polar bears may 
ambush seals along an ice edge from the ice or from the water. Polar 
bears also stalk seals hauled out on the ice during warmer weather in 
the spring. These are just few examples of the predatory methods of 
polar bears. The common factor is the presence of sea ice in order for 
polar bears to access prey. Due to changing sea ice conditions, the 
area and time period of open water and proportion of marginal ice has 
increased. On average, ice in the Chukchi Sea is melting sooner and 
retreating farther north each year, and re-forming later. The annual 
period of time that sea ice is over the shallow, productive waters of 
the continental shelf is also diminishing. These effects may limit the 
availability of seals to polar bears, as the most productive areas for 
seals appear to be over the shallow waters of the continental shelf.
Mortality
    Natural causes of mortality among polar bears are not well 
understood (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 years 
in captivity); have no natural predators, except other polar bears; and 
do not appear prone to death by diseases or parasites (Amstrup 2003). 
Accidents and injuries incurred in the dynamic and harsh sea ice 
environment, injuries incurred while fighting other bears, starvation 
(usually during extreme youth or old age), freezing (also more common 
during extreme youth or old age), and drowning are all known natural 
causes of polar bear mortality (Derocher and Stirling 1996; Amstrup 
2003). Cannibalism by adult males on cubs and other adult bears is also 
known to occur; however, it is not thought that this is a common or 
significant cause of mortality. After natural causes and old age, the 
most significant source of polar bear mortality is from humans hunting 
polar bears (Amstrup 2003). Other sources of polar bear mortality 
related to human activities, though few and very rare, include research 
activities, euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and defense of life 
kills by non-Natives (Brower et al. 2002).

Subsistence Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar 
Bears

    The Alaska Native communities most likely to be impacted by oil and 
gas activities projected to occur in the Chukchi Sea during the 5-year 
timeframe of the proposed regulations are: Barrow, Wainwright, Point 
Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Shishmaref, Little Diomede, 
Gambell, and Savoonga. However, all communities that harvest Pacific 
walruses or polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region could be affected by 
Industry activities. Pacific walruses and polar bears are 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 northern and western coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is consumed 
by humans while the ivory is used to manufacture traditional 
handicrafts. Alaska Natives hunt polar bears primarily for their fur, 
which is used to manufacture cold weather clothing and handicrafts, but 
also for their meat.
    Under section 101(b) of the MMPA, Alaska Natives who reside in 
Alaska and dwell on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic 
Ocean are allowed to harvest walruses and polar bears if such harvest 
is for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling 
authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, as long as the 
harvest is not done in a wasteful manner. Additionally, and similar to 
the exemption under the MMPA, section 10(e) of the ESA allows for the 
continued harvest of species listed as endangered or threatened in 
Alaska for subsistence purposes.
    The sale of handmade clothing and handicrafts made of walrus or 
polar bear parts is an important source of income in these remote 
Alaska Native communities. Fundamentally, the production of handicrafts 
is not a commercial activity, but rather a continuation and adaptation 
to a market economy of an ancient Alaska Native tradition of making and 
then bartering handicrafts and clothing for other needed items. The 
limited cash that Alaska Native villagers can make from handmade 
clothing and handicrafts is vital to sustain their subsistence hunting 
and fishing way of life (Pungowiyi 2000).
    The Service collects information on the subsistence harvest of 
Pacific walruses and polar bears in Alaska through the Walrus Harvest 
Monitor Program (WHMP) and the Marking, Tagging and Reporting Program 
(MTRP). The WHMP is an observer-based program focused on the harvest of 
Pacific walruses from the St. Lawrence Island communities Gambell and 
Savoonga. The MTRP program is administered through a network of 
``taggers'' employed in subsistence hunting communities. The marking 
and tagging rule requires that hunters report harvested walruses and 
polar bears to MTRP taggers within 30 days of the harvest. Taggers also 
certify (tag) specified parts (ivory tusks for walruses, hide and skull 
for polar bears) to help control illegal take and trade. The MTRP 
reports are thought to underestimate total U.S. Pacific walrus and 
polar bear subsistence harvest. Harvest levels of polar bears and 
walruses can vary considerably between years, presumably in response to 
differences in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter 
effort.
    In 2010, the Native Villages of Gambell and Savoonga adopted local 
ordinances that limit the number of walruses harvested to four and five 
per hunting trip, respectively, which likely influences the total 
number of animals harvested each year. No Chukchi Sea

[[Page 1956]]

villages have adopted anything similar, but they harvest comparatively 
few walruses. Information on subsistence harvests of walruses and polar 
bears in selected communities derived from MTRP harvest reports from 
2007 to 2011 is summarized in Table 2.

 Table 2--Number of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears Harvested From 2007
 to 2011 in 12 Alaska Communities, as Reported Through the U.S. Fish and
                     Wildlife Service (Service) MTRP
    [Walrus harvest numbers presented here are not corrected for MTRP
             compliance rates or struck-and-lost estimates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Pacific
                                                   walrus     Polar bear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrow........................................           24           49
Gambell.......................................        3,069            9
Kivalina......................................            4            3
Kotzebue......................................            2            3
Little Diomede................................          166           14
Nome..........................................           24            1
Point Hope....................................           25           51
Point Lay.....................................           10            2
Savoonga......................................        2,918           16
Shishmaref....................................           52            6
Wainwright....................................           71            4
Wales.........................................           41            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pacific Walrus

Barrow
    Barrow is the northernmost community within the geographical region 
of the proposed regulations. Most walrus hunting from Barrow occurs in 
June and July when the landfast ice breaks up and hunters can access 
walruses by boat as they migrate north on the retreating pack ice. 
Walrus hunters from Barrow sometimes range up to 60 miles from shore; 
however, most harvests reported through the MTRP have occurred within 
30 miles of the community.
Wainwright
    Wainwright hunters have typically harvested more walruses than 
other mainland coastal subsistence communities on the North Slope. 
Walruses are thought to represent approximately 40 percent of this 
communities' annual subsistence diet of marine mammals. Wainwright 
residents hunt walruses from June through August as the ice retreats 
northward. Walruses can be plentiful in the pack ice near the village 
this time of year. Most of the harvest from Wainwright occurs in June 
and July. Most walrus hunting is thought to occur within 20 miles of 
the community, in all seaward directions.
Point Hope
    Point Hope hunters typically begin their walrus hunt in late May 
and early June as walruses migrate north into the Chukchi Sea. The sea 
ice is usually well off shore of Point Hope by July and does not bring 
animals back into the range of hunters until late August and September. 
Most of the reported walrus harvest at Point Hope occurs in the months 
of June and September. Point Hope harvest occurs mostly within 5 miles 
of the coast, or near coastal haulout sites at Cape Lisburne.
Point Lay
    Point Lay walrus hunting peaks in June and July. Historically, 
harvests have occurred primarily within 40 miles north and south along 
the coast from Point Lay and approximately 30 miles offshore. Beginning 
in 2010, walruses started hauling out on the barrier island about 4 
miles north of Point Lay in August and remain there until late 
September to early October. This provides Point Lay hunters with new 
opportunities to harvest walrus, and reports indicate that from two to 
five animals are harvested at that time of year. Hunters harvest during 
the early stages of haulout formation and as the haulout begins to 
dissipate to avoid creating a disturbance resulting in a large 
stampede.
St. Lawrence Island
    St. Lawrence Island is located in the Bering Sea south of the 
Bering Strait. The two communities on the island are Gambell, on 
western tip, and Savoonga on the north central shore. These two 
subsistence hunting communities account for the majority of the Pacific 
walrus harvest in Alaska. Most of the walrus harvest from Gambell and 
Savoonga takes place in the spring, but some harvest also takes place 
in the fall and winter, depending on ice and weather conditions. 
Hunters from Gambell typically use areas north and east of the island 
while hunters from Savoonga traditionally utilize areas north, west, 
and south of the island. St. Lawrence Island hunters will typically 
travel from 40 to 60 miles, and as much as 90 miles, out to sea to find 
walruses. The consumption of traditional subsistence foods, such as 
marine mammals, and the economic value of marine mammal parts, such as 
walrus ivory, is thought to be more significant in Gambell and Savoonga 
than in communities on the mainland coast of Alaska.

Polar Bears

    Polar bears are harvested by Alaska Natives for subsistence and 
handicraft purposes. This species plays an important role in the 
culture and economy of many villages throughout western and northern 
coastal Alaska, where the polar bear figures prominently in Alaska 
Native stories, art, traditions, and cultural activities. In these 
northern and western coastal Alaskan Native villages, the taking and 
use of the polar bear is a fundamental part of Alaska Native culture. 
For Alaska Natives engaged in subsistence uses, the very acts of 
hunting, fishing, and gathering, coupled with the seasonal cycle of 
these activities and the sharing and celebrations that accompany them, 
are intricately woven into the fabric of their social, psychological, 
and religious life (Pungowiyi 2000).

Polar Bear Harvest Patterns in Alaska

    The following summary is excerpted from the Report of the 
Scientific working group to the US-Russian Federation Polar Bear 
Commission (May 2010), which describes the history of the polar bear 
harvest during the last century. A more detailed description can be 
found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm:

    Prior to the 20th century Alaska's polar bears were hunted 
primarily by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes although 
commercial sales of hides occurred primarily as a result of Yankee 
whaling and arctic exploration ventures. During the 20th century, 
polar bears were harvested for subsistence, handicrafts, and 
recreational sport hunting. Based on records of skins shipped from 
Alaska for 1925 to 1953, the estimated annual statewide harvest 
averaged 120 bears and this take was primarily by Native hunters. 
Recreational hunting by non-Native sport hunters using aircraft 
became popular from 1951 to 1972, increasing the statewide annual 
harvest to 150 during 1951 to 1960 and to 260 during 1960 to 1972 
(Amstrup et al. 1986). During the late 1960s and 1970s the size of 
the Beaufort Sea stock declined substantially (Amstrup et al. 1986) 
due to excessive sport harvest. Hunting by non-Natives was 
prohibited in 1973 when provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA) went into effect. The prohibition of non-Native sport 
hunting led to a reduction in the annual harvest of polar bears from 
the Alaska-Chukotka population from 189  50 bears/year 
for the period 1961 to 1972 to 80  54 bears/year for the 
period 1973 to 1984 (Amstrup et al. 1986; Fig. 1). According to 
Service harvest records, from 1980 through the present, harvest of 
the Alaska-Chukotka population in the U.S. portion has declined. 
Reasons for a decline in the Alaska native subsistence harvest are 
currently unknown, but are currently being investigated. Possible 
causes include decreased hunter effort, decreased polar bear 
numbers, changes in polar bear distribution, and environmental 
conditions that make polar bears less available to hunters.


[[Page 1957]]


As stated previously, harvest levels of polar bears can vary 
considerably between years for a variety of reasons, including annual 
variations in animal distribution, sea ice conditions, and hunter 
effort. Table 2 summarizes MTRP harvest reports for polar bears for 
selected western Alaska communities from 2007 to 2011, the most recent 
five-year period for which complete data are available. The harvest 
information in Table 2 provides an insight into the level of polar bear 
harvest by western Alaska communities during the previous five-year 
period of Chukchi Sea ITRs. Average polar bear harvest levels in Alaska 
have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years in the Southern 
Beaufort Sea, but have declined in the Chukchi/Bering seas. Over these 
past 20 years, six communities (Barrow, Point Hope, Savoonga, Gambell, 
Little Diomede, and Wainwright) consistently account for the majority 
of all polar bears harvested in Alaska. The reason for the decline in 
harvest in western Alaska is unknown, but could be a result of reduced 
hunter effort, changing distribution of bears, and/or a decline in the 
number of bears in the population.
    Polar bears are harvested throughout the calendar year, depending 
on availability. Hunters in western Alaska, from Point Lay to St. 
Lawrence Island, usually harvest bears after December, since bears 
moving southward with advancing pack ice are not available in this area 
until later in the season. The number of polar bears harvested from 
Barrow is thought to be influenced by ice conditions and the number of 
people out on the ice. Most polar bear harvests reported by Barrow 
occurred in February and March. Polar bears are harvested from 
Wainwright throughout much of the year, with peak harvests reported in 
May and December within 10 miles of the community. Polar bears are 
typically harvested from Point Hope from January to April within 10 
miles of the community; however, Point Hope hunters reported taking 
polar bears as far away as Cape Thompson and Cape Lisburne.
    Although few people are thought to hunt specifically for polar 
bears, those that do hunt primarily between October and March. Polar 
bears are often harvested coincidentally with beluga and bowhead whale 
harvests. Hunting areas for polar bears overlap strongly with areas of 
bowhead subsistence hunting, particularly the area from Point Barrow 
South to Walakpa Lagoon where walrus and whale carcasses are known to 
concentrate polar bears.

Harvest Management of Polar Bears in Alaska

    The Service works through existing co-management agreements with 
Alaska Natives to address future actions that affect polar bears and 
polar bear hunting. This includes working with the Alaska Nanuuq 
Commission (ANC), the NSB and its Native-to-Native Agreement with the 
Inuvialuit Game Council of Canada (Beaufort Sea region), and the Joint 
Commission formed with the Russian Federation under the Bilateral 
Agreement (Chukchi/Bering seas region).
    The ANC was formed in 1994, to represent the villages in North and 
Northwest Alaska on matters concerning the conservation and sustainable 
subsistence use of the polar bear. The mission of ANC is to ``conserve 
Nanuuq and the Arctic ecosystem for present and future generations of 
Arctic Alaska Natives.'' The tribal council of each member village has 
passed a resolution to become a member and to authorize the ANC to 
represent them on matters concerning the polar bear at regional and 
international levels. Fifteen villages are currently members: Barrow; 
Wainwright; Kotzebue; Nuiqsut; Savoonga; Kaktovik; Point Lay; Point 
Hope; Brevig Mission; Shishmaref; Gambell; King Island; Wales; Little 
Diomede; and Kivalina.
    Polar bears harvested from the communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, 
Kaktovik, Wainwright, and Atqasuk are currently considered part of the 
SBS stock and thus are subject to the terms of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat 
Polar Bear Management Agreement (Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement).
    The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement establishes quotas and 
recommendations concerning protection of denning females, family 
groups, and methods of harvest. Adherence to the quota is voluntary in 
the United States, and it has generally been followed since 
implementation of the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement (Brower et al. 
2002). Under the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement, quotas are recommended 
by technical advisors based on estimates of population size and age 
specific estimates of survival and recruitment. The current quota of 70 
total bears per year was established in July 2010, and represents a 
decrease from the previous quota of 80 total bears per year (Brower et 
al. 2002). The quota is allocated to Canadian Inuvialuit and to Alaskan 
Inupiat, with 35 bears each. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement and its 
quotas are voluntary between the Inupiat and Inuvialuit, and are not 
enforceable by any law or authority of the governments of the United 
States or Canada.
    The ``Agreement Between the Government of the United States of 
America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the 
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear 
Population,'' signed in Washington, DC, on October 16, 2000 (the 2000 
Agreement), provides legal protections for the population of polar 
bears found in the Chukchi--Northern Bering Sea. The 2000 Agreement is 
implemented in the United States through Title V of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and builds upon those 
protections already provided to this population of polar bears through 
the ``Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears,'' executed in Oslo, 
Norway on November 13, 1973 (the 1973 Agreement), which was a 
significant early step in the international conservation of polar 
bears.
    The 1973 Agreement is a multilateral treaty to which the United 
States and Russia are parties with other polar bear range states: 
Norway, Canada, and Denmark. While the 1973 Agreement provides 
authority for the maintenance of a subsistence harvest of polar bears 
and provides for habitat conservation, the 2000 Agreement specifically 
establishes a common legal, scientific, and administrative framework 
for the conservation and management of the Alaska--Chukotka polar bear 
population between the United States and Russia.
    The 2000 Agreement requires the United States and the Russian 
Federation to manage and conserve polar bears based on reliable science 
and to provide for subsistence harvest by native peoples. The U.S.--
Russian Federation Polar Bear Commission (Commission), which functions 
as the bilateral managing authority, consists of a Native and Federal 
representative of each country. The Commission is advised by a 16-
member Scientific Working Group (SWG), including experts on ice 
habitat, bear ecology and population dynamics, and traditional 
ecological knowledge.
    Meetings of the Commission have occurred yearly since 2009. At the 
fourth meeting of the Commission, which took place from June 25 through 
27, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska, United States, the Commission, based on 
the recommendation of the SWG, agreed that no change was necessary to 
the sustainable harvest level identified in 2010. In 2012, the 
Commission adopted a 5-year sustainable harvest level of 290 polar 
bears with no more than one third

[[Page 1958]]

to be female, with the requirements that the 5-year sustainable harvest 
level be allocated over the 5-year period using methods recognized by 
the SWG as biologically sound, and that these methods include the 
identification of annual sustainable harvest levels, for consideration 
by the Commission in setting annual taking limits. This cooperative 
management regime for the subsistence harvest of bears is key to both 
providing for the long term viability of the population as well as 
addressing the social, cultural, and subsistence interests of Alaska 
Natives and the native people of Chukotka.

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

    Industry activities can affect individual walruses and polar bears 
in numerous ways. The petitioners in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the AOGA 
Petition describe anticipated impacts for Incidental Take Regulations 
for Oil and Gas Activities in the Chukchi Sea and Adjacent Lands in 
2013 to 2018, January 31, 2012. Potential effects, detailed below, from 
Industry activities could include: (1) Disturbance due to noise; (2) 
physical obstructions; (3) human encounters; and (4) effects on prey.
    A thorough discussion of the impacts of Industry activities in the 
Chukchi Sea on marine mammals is found in the Chukchi Sea Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2007-026-Vol%20I.pdf and the 
Chukchi Sea Final Supplemental EIS, Chukchi Sea Planning Area, Oil and 
Gas Lease Sale 193 at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/BOEM-Regions/Alaska-Region/Environment/Environmental-Analysis/OCS-EIS/EA-BOEMRE-2011-041.aspx.

Pacific Walruses

    Proposed oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea 
Region include the operation of seismic survey vessels, drillships, 
icebreakers, supply boats, fixed wing aircrafts, and helicopters. These 
activities could disturb walruses. Walruses that are disturbed may 
experience insufficient rest, increased stress and energy expenditure, 
interference with feeding, and masking of communication. Cows with 
calves that experience disturbance may alter their care of calves, such 
as staying in the water longer or nursing less frequently. Calves that 
experience disturbance could spend an increased amount of time in the 
water, affecting their thermoregulation. Prolonged or repeated 
disturbances could potentially displace individuals or herds from 
preferred feeding or resting areas. Disturbance events could cause 
walrus groups to abandon land or ice haulouts.
    The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly variable. 
Observations by walrus hunters and researchers suggest that males tend 
to be more tolerant of disturbances than females and individuals tend 
to react less than groups. Females with dependent calves are considered 
the least tolerant of disturbances. Hearing sensitivity is assumed to 
be within the 13 Hz and 1,200 Hz range of their own vocalizations. 
Walrus hunters and researchers have noted that walruses tend to react 
to the presence of humans and machines at greater distances from upwind 
approaches than from downwind approaches, suggesting that odor is also 
a stimulus for a flight response. The visual acuity of walruses is 
thought to be less than for other species of pinnipeds (Kastelein et 
al. 1993).
    Walruses must periodically haul out onto ice or land to rest 
between feeding bouts. Aerial surveys in the eastern Chukchi Sea found 
that 80 to 96 percent of walruses were closely associated with sea ice 
and that the number of walruses observed in open water decreased 
significantly with distance from the pack ice. Under minimal or no ice 
conditions, walruses either follow the ice out of the region, or 
relocate to coastal haulouts where their foraging trips are usually 
restricted to near shore habitats. However, in 2010 and 2011, more than 
20,000 walruses hauled out near Point Lay and many traveled to the 
Hanna Shoal area to feed, returning to Point Lay. Therefore, in 
evaluating the potential impacts of exploration activities on walruses, 
the presence or absence of pack ice serves as one indicator of whether 
or not walruses are likely to be found in the area. In addition, if 
walruses are using coastal haulouts near Point Lay, or farther north, 
many walruses could be encountered in the water over or near Hannah 
Shoal as well as between the haul out area and Hanna Shoal (Jay et al. 
2012; Delarue et al. 2012). Activities occurring in or near sea ice 
habitats or areas of high benthic productivity have the greatest 
potential for affecting walruses. Activities occurring during the open 
water period away from known feeding areas are expected to affect 
relatively small numbers of animals except as described above in 
regards to walruses moving between coastal haulouts and offshore 
feeding areas.
1. Disturbance From Noise
    Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or 
mobile, has the potential to disturb 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. Most impacts of Industry noise 
on walruses are likely to be limited to a few groups or individuals 
rather than the population due to their geographic range and seasonal 
distribution within the geographic region. 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.
    Unobserved impacts to walruses due to aquatic and airborne noises 
may occur, but cannot be estimated. Airborne noises have the greatest 
potential to impact walruses occurring in large numbers at coastal 
haulouts or on ice floes near industry activities. However, 
restrictions on aircraft altitude and offset distances, as well as the 
25-mile coastal exclusion zone enacted by BOEM, adequately mitigate 
this potential impact of Industry activities when walruses are on land. 
A detailed discussion of noise disturbance in the marine environment 
follows.
A. Stationary Sources
    An exploratory drill rig is an example of a stationary source of 
sounds, odors, and visual stimuli. In estimating impacts, it is 
difficult to separate those stimuli. However, walruses appear to rely 
primarily on auditory and olfactory senses, and then sight when 
responding to potential predators or other stimuli (Kastelein et al. 
1993). Industrial ambient noise associated with the drilling 
operations, such as generators and other equipment, is expected. 
Walruses may respond to sound sources by either avoidance or tolerance. 
Typically, walruses will avoid a disturbance by moving away.
    In one reported observation in 1989 by Shell Western E & P, Inc., a 
single walrus actually entered the moon pool of a stationary drillship 
several times during a drilling operation. A moon pool is the opening 
to the sea on a drillship for a marine drill apparatus. The drill 
apparatus protrudes from the ship through the moon pool to the sea 
floor. Eventually, the walrus had to be

[[Page 1959]]

removed from the ship for its own safety. During the same time period, 
Shell Western E & P, Inc., also reported encountering multiple walruses 
close to their drillship during offshore drilling operations in the 
Chukchi Sea.
B. Mobile Sources
    Seismic operations are expected to add significant levels of noise 
into the marine environment. 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, walruses found near 
source levels within the 180-decibel (dB re 1 [mu]Pa at 1 m) safety 
radius described by Industry for seismic activities could potentially 
suffer shifts in hearing thresholds and temporary hearing loss. Seismic 
survey vessels would be required to ramp up airguns slowly to allow 
marine mammals the opportunity to move away from potentially injurious 
sound sources. Marine mammal monitors would also be required to monitor 
seismic safety zones and call for the power down or shutdown of airgun 
arrays if any marine mammals are detected within the prescribed safety 
zone.
    Geotechnical seismic surveys and high resolution site clearance 
seismic surveys are expected to occur primarily in open water 
conditions, at a sufficient distance from the pack ice and large 
concentrations of walruses to avoid most disturbances. Although most 
walruses are expected to be closely associated with sea ice or coastal 
haulouts during offshore exploration activities, animals may be 
encountered in open water conditions. Walruses swimming in open water 
would likely be able to detect seismic airgun pulses up to several 
kilometers from a seismic source vessel. The most likely response of 
walruses to noise generated by seismic surveys would be to move away 
from the source of the disturbance. Because of the transitory nature of 
the proposed seismic surveys, impacts to walruses exposed to seismic 
survey operations would are expected to be temporary in nature and have 
little or no effects on survival or recruitment.
    Although concentrations of walruses in open water environments are 
expected to be low, groups of foraging or migrating animals transiting 
through the area may be encountered. Adaptive mitigation measures 
(e.g., avoidance distance guidelines, seismic airgun shutdowns) based 
upon monitoring information would be implemented to mitigate potential 
impacts to walrus groups feeding or traveling in offshore locations and 
ensure that these impacts would be limited to small numbers of animals.
C. Vessel Traffic
    Offshore drilling exploration activities are expected to occur 
primarily in areas of open water some distance from the pack ice; 
however, support vessels and/or aircraft may occasionally encounter 
aggregations of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The sight, sound, or 
smell of humans and machines could potentially displace these animals 
from ice haulouts. The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is 
dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to 
disturbances. Generally, walruses react to vessels by leaving the area, 
but we are aware of at least one occasion where an adult walrus used a 
vessel as a haulout platform in 2009. Walruses in the water appear to 
be less readily disturbed by vessels than walruses hauled out on land 
or sea ice, and 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 vessels typically avoid these areas. 
Furthermore, barges and vessels associated with Industry activities 
travel in open water and avoid large ice floes or land where walruses 
will be found.
    Monitoring programs associated with exploratory drilling operations 
in the Chukchi Sea in 1989 and 1990 noted that 25 to 60 percent, 
respectively, of walrus groups encountered in the pack ice during 
icebreaking responded by ``escaping'' (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991). 
Escape was not defined, but we assume that walruses escaped by 
abandoning the ice and swimming away. Ice management operations are 
expected to have the greatest potential for disturbances since these 
operations typically require vessels to accelerate, reverse direction, 
and turn rapidly, activities that maximize propeller cavitations and 
resulting noise levels. Previous studies (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991) 
suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some walrus groups up 
to several miles away; however, most groups of walruses resting on the 
ice showed little reaction when they were beyond 805 m (0.5 mi) from 
the activity.
    When walruses are present, underwater noise from any vessel traffic 
in the Chukchi Sea may ``mask'' ordinary communication between 
individuals and prevent them from locating each other. It may also 
prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the Chukchi Sea and 
may have the potential to impede movement. Vessel traffic would likely 
increase if offshore Industry expands and may increase if warming 
waters and seasonally reduced sea ice cover alter northern shipping 
lanes.
    Impacts associated with transiting support vessels and aircrafts 
are likely to be widely distributed throughout the area. Therefore, 
noise and disturbance from aircraft and vessel traffic associated with 
exploration projects are expected to have localized, short-term 
effects. Nevertheless, the potential for disturbance events resulting 
in injuries, mortalities, or cow-calf separations is of concern. The 
potential for injuries, though unlikely, is expected to increase with 
the size of affected walrus aggregations. Adaptive mitigation measures 
(e.g., distance restrictions, reduced vessel speeds) designed to 
separate Industry activities from walrus aggregations at coastal 
haulouts and in sea ice habitats are expected to reduce the potential 
for animal injuries, mortalities, and cow-calf separations.
    While drilling operations are expected to occur during open water 
conditions, the dynamic movements of sea ice could transport walruses 
hauled out on ice within range of drilling operations. Any potential 
disturbance to walrus in this condition would be through ice management 
practices, where ice management may displace walruses from ice in order 
to prevent displacement of the drill rig. Mitigation measures specified 
in an LOA may include: requirements for ice scouting; surveys for 
walruses and polar bears near active drilling operations and ice 
breaking activities; requirements for marine mammal observers onboard 
drillships and ice breakers; and operational restrictions near walrus 
and polar bear aggregations. These measures are expected to reduce the 
potential for interactions between walruses and drilling operations.
    Ice floes that threaten drilling operations may have to be 
intercepted and moved with a vessel, and those floes could be occupied 
by resting walruses. Observations by icebreaker operators suggest that 
most walruses will abandon drifting ice floes long before they reach 
drilling rigs and before ice management vessels need to intercept a 
floe that has to be deflected or broken. Ice management activities that 
cause walruses to flush from or abandon ice would be considered as 
intentional takes by the Service. Given the observations from previous 
operations (Brueggeman et al. 1990, 1991), we expect this to be a rare 
event and involve only small numbers of animals. In addition, Industry 
has

[[Page 1960]]

developed an adaptive ice management procedure that requires case-by-
case approval by Service officials prior to managing ice occupied by 
walruses. If ice threatening drilling operations is too large and thick 
to be moved, drilling operations would be suspended, the well would be 
capped, and the drill vessel would be moved until the ice passes.
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 wing aircraft 
are less likely to elicit a response than are helicopters. Walruses are 
particularly sensitive to changes in engine, propeller, or rotor noise 
and are more likely to stampede when aircraft turn sharply while 
accelerating or fly low overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys 
for walruses in sea ice habitats have observed less reaction to fixed 
wing aircraft above 457 m (1,500 ft) (Service 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, with helicopters usually causing the strongest reactions.
2. Physical Obstructions
    It is unlikely that walrus movements would be displaced by offshore 
stationary facilities, such as an exploratory drill rig. 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 during Industry 
operations. These types of encounters would most likely be associated 
with support activities in the coastal environments near walrus coastal 
haulouts. Disturbance events could result in trampling injuries or cow-
calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal. Calves and young 
animals at the perimeter of the herds appear particularly vulnerable to 
trampling injuries. Mortalities from trampling are most severe when 
large numbers of walruses resting on land are disturbed and flee en 
masse to the ocean. In 2007, more than 3,000 calves died along the 
Chukotka coast due to stampedes caused by humans and polar bears. Since 
then, mortalities in the Russian Federation and the United States have 
been less than 700 per year. This type of disturbance from Industry 
activity is considered highly unlikely. Areas where and when walrus 
coastal haulouts form in the United States would be protected with 
additional mitigation measures, such as activity exclusion zones, 
airspace restrictions, and close monitoring.
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, and altered 
metabolic and growth rates. 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) indicates that 
Industry activities would likely have limited effects on walruses 
through effects on prey species.

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Walruses

    Based on our review of the proposed activities; existing and 
proposed operating conditions and mitigation measures; information on 
the biology, ecology, and habitat use patterns of walruses in the 
Chukchi Sea; information on potential effects of oil and gas activities 
on walruses; and the results of previous monitoring efforts associated 
with Industry activity in the Chukchi as well as the Beaufort Sea, we 
conclude that, while the incidental take (by harassment) of walruses is 
reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as a result of the 
proposed activities, most of the anticipated takes would be limited to 
minor behavioral modifications due to temporary, nonlethal 
disturbances. These behavioral changes are not outside the subspecies' 
normal range of activity and are not reasonably expected to, or likely 
to, affect rates of overall population recruitment or survival. Our 
review of the nature and scope of the proposed activities, when 
considered in light of the observed impacts of past exploration 
activities by Industry, indicates that it is unlikely that there would 
be any lethal take of walruses associated with these activities or any 
impacts on survival or reproduction.

Polar Bears

    In the Chukchi Sea, polar bears will have a limited presence during 
the open water season associated with Industry operations. This is 
because most bears move with the ice to the northern portion of the 
Chukchi Sea and distribute along the pack ice during this time, which 
is outside of the geographic region of the proposed regulations. 
Additionally, they are found more frequently along the Chukotka 
coastline in the Russian Federation. This would limit the probability 
of major impacts on polar bears from offshore Industry activities in 
the Alaskan portion of the Chukchi Sea. Although polar bears have been 
observed in open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, this has 
been a relatively rare occurrence.
    Polar bears will be present in the region of activity in limited 
numbers and, therefore, oil and gas activities could affect polar bears 
in various ways during both offshore and onshore activities. (1) 
Impacts from offshore activities; (2) impacts from onshore activities; 
(3) impacts from human encounters; (4) effects on prey species; and (5) 
effects on polar bear critical habitat are described below.
1. Offshore Activities
    In the open water season, Industry activities would be limited to 
vessel-based exploration activities, such as exploratory drilling and 
seismic surveys. These activities avoid ice floes and the multi-year 
ice edge; however, they could contact a limited number of bears in open 
water and on ice floes.
A. Vessel Activities
    Vessel-based activities, including operational support vessels, 
such as barges, supply vessels, oil spill response, and ice management 
vessels, in the Chukchi Sea could affect polar bears in a number of 
ways. Seismic ships, icebreakers, or the drilling rig may become 
physical obstructions to polar bear movements, although these impacts 
would be short-term and localized. Likewise, noise, sights, and smells 
produced by exploration activities could disrupt their natural behavior 
by repelling or attracting bears to human activities.
    Polar bears are curious and tend to investigate novel sights, 
smells, and noises. If bears are present, noise produced by offshore 
activities could elicit several different responses in individual polar 
bears. Noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering the area of 
operation, or the noise could potentially attract curious bears.
    In general, little is known about the potential for seismic survey 
sounds to

[[Page 1961]]

cause auditory impairment or other physical effects in polar bears. 
Researchers have studied the hearing sensitivity of polar bears to 
understand how noise can affect polar bears, but additional research is 
necessary to elaborate on potential negative effects of noise. 
Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all, would 
be limited to short distances from the sound source and probably to 
projects involving large airgun arrays. Polar bears swim predominantly 
with their heads above the surface, where underwater noises are weak or 
undetectable, and this behavior may naturally limit noise exposure to 
polar bears. There is no evidence that airgun pulses can cause serious 
injury or death to bears, even in the case of large airgun arrays. 
Additionally, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures include 
shutdowns of the airguns, which would reduce any such effects that 
might otherwise occur if polar bears are observed in the ensonification 
zones. Thus, it is doubtful that any single bear would be exposed to 
strong underwater seismic sounds long enough for significant 
disturbance, such as an auditory injury, to occur.
    Though polar bears are known to be extremely curious and may 
approach sounds and objects to investigate, they are also known to move 
away from sources of noise and the sight of vessels, icebreakers, 
aircraft, and helicopters. The effects of retreating from vessels or 
aircraft may be minimal if the event is short and the animal is 
otherwise unstressed. For example, retreating from an active icebreaker 
may produce minimal effects for a healthy animal on a cool day; 
however, on a warm spring or summer day, a short run may be enough to 
overheat a well-insulated polar bear.
    As already stated, polar bears spend the majority of their time on 
pack ice during the open water season in the Chukchi Sea or along the 
Chukotka coast, which limits the potential of impacts from human and 
Industry activities in the geographic region. In recent years, the 
Chukchi Sea pack ice has receded over the Continental Shelf during the 
open water season. Although this poses potential foraging 
ramifications, by its nature the exposed open water creates a barrier 
between the majority of the ice-pack-bound bear population and human 
activity occurring in open water, thereby limiting potential 
disturbance.
    Bears in water may be in a stressed state if found near Industry 
sites. Researchers have recently documented that bears occasionally 
swim long distances during the open water period seeking either ice or 
land. They suspect that the bears may not swim constantly, but find 
solitary icebergs or remnants to haulout on and rest. The movement is 
becoming more common, but highlights the ice-free environment that 
bears are being increasingly exposed to that requires increased energy 
demands. In one study (between 2004 through 2009), researchers noted 
that 52 bears embarked on long-distance swim events. In addition, they 
documented 50 swims that had an average length of 96 miles. They noted 
that long-distance swim events are still uncommon, but 38 percent of 
collared bears took at least one long-distance swim.
    The majority of vessels, such as seismic boats and barges, 
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid 
large ice floes. Some, such as ice management vessels, operate in close 
proximity to the ice edge and unconsolidated ice during open-water 
activities. Vessel traffic could encounter an occasional bear swimming 
in the open water. However, the most likely habitat where bears would 
be encountered during the open-water season is on the pack ice edge or 
on ice floes in open water. During baseline studies conducted in the 
Chukchi Sea between 2008 and 2010, 14 of 16 polar bears encountered by 
a research vessel were observed on the ice, while the remaining two 
bears were observed in the water swimming (Service unpublished data).
    If there is an encounter between a vessel and a polar bear, it 
would most likely result in temporary behavioral disturbance only. In 
open water, vessel traffic could result in short-term behavioral 
responses to swimming polar bears through ambient noise produced by the 
vessels, such as underwater propeller cavitation, or activities 
associated with them, such as on-board machinery, where a bear would 
most likely swim away from the vessel. Indeed, observations from 
monitoring programs report that when bears are encountered in open 
water swimming, bears have been observed retreating from the vessel as 
it passes (Service unpublished data).
    Polar bears could be encountered if a vessel is operating in ice or 
near ice floes, where the response of bears on ice to vessels is 
varied. Bears on ice have been observed retreating from vessels; 
exhibiting few reactions, such as a cessation in activity or turning 
their head to watch the vessel; and exhibiting no perceived reaction at 
all to the vessel. Bears have also been observed approaching vessels in 
the ice.
B. Aircraft
    Routine, commercial aircraft traffic flying at high altitudes 
(approximately 10,000 to 30,000 feet above ground level (AGL)) appears 
to have little to no effect on polar bears; however, extensive or 
repeated over-flights of fixed wing aircraft or helicopters could 
disturb polar bears. A minimum altitude requirement of 1,500 feet for 
aircraft associated with Industry activity would help mitigate 
disturbance to polar bears. Behavioral reactions of polar bears are 
expected to be limited to short-term changes in behavior that would 
have no long-term impact on individuals and no identifiable impacts on 
the polar bear population.
    In summary, while offshore, open water seismic exploration 
activities could encounter polar bears in the Chukchi Sea during the 
latter part of the operational period, it is unlikely that 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, and 
likely limited to deflecting bears from their route. Seismic surveys 
are unlikely to cause serious impacts to polar bears as they normally 
swim with their heads above the surface, where noises produced 
underwater are weak, and polar bears rarely dive below the surface. Ice 
management activities in support of the drilling operation have the 
greatest potential to disturb bears by flushing bears off ice floes 
when moving ice out of the path of the drill rig.
    Monitoring and mitigation measures required for open water, 
offshore activities would include, but would not be limited to: (1) A 
0.5-mile operational exclusion zone around polar bear(s) on land, ice, 
or swimming; (2) marine mammal observers (MMOs) on board all vessels; 
(3) requirements for ice scouting; (4) surveys for polar bears in the 
vicinity of active operations and ice breaking activities; and (5) 
operational restrictions near polar bear aggregations. We expect these 
mitigation measures would further reduce the potential for interactions 
between polar bears and offshore operations.
2. Onshore Activities
    While no large exploratory programs, such as drilling or seismic 
surveys, are currently being developed for onshore sites in the Chukchi 
Sea geographic area, land-based support facilities, maintenance of the 
Barrow Gas Fields, and onshore baseline studies may contact polar 
bears. Bear-human interactions at onshore activities are

[[Page 1962]]

expected to occur mainly during the fall and ice-covered season when 
bears come ashore to feed, den, or travel. Noise produced by Industry 
activities during the open water and ice-covered seasons could 
potentially result in takes of polar bears at onshore sites. Noise 
disturbance could originate from either stationary or mobile sources. 
Stationary sources include support facilities. Mobile sources can 
include vehicle and aircraft traffic in association with Industry 
activities, such as ice road construction. The effects for these 
sources are described below.
A. Noise
    Noise produced by onshore Industry activities could elicit several 
different responses in polar bears. The noise may act as a deterrent to 
bears entering the area, or the noise could potentially attract bears. 
Noise attracting bears to Industry activities, especially activities in 
the coastal or nearshore environment, could result in bear-human 
interactions, which could result in unintentional harassment, 
deterrence (under a separate authorization), or lethal take of the 
bear. Unintentional harassment would most likely be infrequent, short-
term, and temporary by either attracting a curious bear to the noise or 
causing a bear to move away. Deterrence by non-lethal harassment to 
move a bear away from humans would be much less likely, infrequent, 
short-term, and temporary. Lethal take of a polar bear from bear-human 
interaction related to Industry activity is extremely unlikely 
(discussed in the Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on 
Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea).
    During the ice-covered season, noise from onshore activities could 
deter females from denning in the surrounding area, given the 
appropriate conditions, although a few polar bears have been known to 
den in proximity to industrial activity. Only a minimal amount of 
denning by polar bears has been recorded on the western coast of 
Alaska; however, onshore activities could affect potential den habitat 
and den site selection if they were located near facilities. However, 
with limited onshore denning, proposed activities impacts to onshore 
denning are expected to be minimal.
    Known polar bear dens around the oil and gas activities are 
monitored by the Service, when practicable. Only a small percentage of 
the total active den locations are known in any year. Industry 
routinely coordinates with the Service to determine the location of 
Industry's activities relative to known dens and den habitat. 
Implementation of mitigation measures, such as the one-mile operational 
exclusion area around known dens or the temporary cessation of Industry 
activities, would ensure that disturbance is minimized.
B. Aircraft
    As with offshore activities, routine high altitude aircraft traffic 
would likely have little to no effect on polar bears; however, 
extensive or repeated low altitude over-flights of fixed wing aircraft 
for monitoring purposes or helicopters used for re-supply of Industry 
operations could disturb polar bears on shore. Behavioral reactions of 
non-denning polar bears are expected to be limited to short-term 
changes in behavior and would have no long-term impact on individuals 
and no impacts on the polar bear population. Mitigation measures, such 
as minimum flight elevations over polar bears or areas of concern and 
flight restrictions around known polar bear dens, would be required, as 
appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that bears are disturbed by 
aircraft.
3. Human Encounters
    While more polar bears transit through the coastal areas than 
inland, we do not anticipate many bear-human interactions due to the 
limited amount of human activity that has occurred on the western coast 
of Alaska. Near-shore activities could potentially increase the rate of 
bear-human interactions, which could result in increased incidents of 
harassment of bears. Industry currently implements company policies, 
implements interaction plans, and conducts employee training to reduce 
and mitigate such encounters under the guidance of the Service. The 
history of the effective application of interaction plans has shown 
reduced interactions between polar bears and humans and no injuries or 
deaths to humans since the implementation of incidental take 
regulations.
    Industry has developed and uses devices to aid in detecting polar 
bears, including human bear monitors, remote cameras, motion and 
infrared detection systems, and closed circuit TV systems. Industry 
also takes steps to actively prevent bears from accessing facilities 
using safety gates and fences. The types of detection and exclusion 
systems are implemented on a case-by-case basis with guidance from the 
Service.
    Bear-human interactions would be mitigated through conditions in 
LOAs, which require the applicant to develop a polar bear interaction 
plan for each operation. These plans outline the steps the applicant 
would take, such as garbage disposal, attractant management, and snow 
management 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.
4. Effect on Prey Species
    Ringed seals are the primary prey of polar bears and bearded seals 
are a secondary prey source. Both species are managed by the U.S. 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which will evaluate the 
potential impacts of oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi 
Sea through their appropriate authorization process and will identify 
appropriate mitigation measures for those species, if a negligible 
impact finding is appropriate. Industry would mainly have an effect on 
seals through the potential for industrial noise disturbance and 
contamination (oil spills). The Service does not expect prey 
availability to be significantly changed due to Industry activities. 
Mitigation measures for pinnipeds required by BOEM and NMFS would 
reduce the impact of Industry activities on ringed and bearded seals. A 
detailed description of potential Industry effects on pinnipeds in the 
Chukchi Sea can be found in the NMFS biological opinion, ``Endangered 
Species Act--Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion; Issuance of 
Incidental Harassment Authorization Under Section 101(a)(5)(a) of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act to Shell Offshore, Inc. for Exploratory 
Drilling in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea in 2012'' (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/shell_chukchi_opinion.pdf).
5. Polar Bear Critical Habitat
    Industry activities could also have potential impacts to polar bear 
habitat, which in some cases could lead to impacts to bears. The 
proposed regulations may only authorize incidental take within a 
specified geographic area (Figure 1). The geographic area covered by 
the proposed regulations includes polar bear critical habitat. The 
discussion of potential impacts to polar bear habitat is therefore 
focused on areas identified as polar bear critical habitat. In the 
final rule that established polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086; 
December 7, 2010), the Service identified three critical habitat units 
for polar bear critical habitat, these are: (1) Sea ice, used for 
feeding, breeding, denning, and movements; (2) barrier island habitat, 
used for denning, refuge from human disturbance, and transit corridors; 
and (3) terrestrial denning habitat for

[[Page 1963]]

denning. Industry activities may affect this described habitat as 
discussed below.
A. Sea Ice Habitat
    The proposed regulations would only allow exploratory oil and gas 
activities to occur during the open water season. However, support 
activities can occur throughout the year and may interact with sea ice 
habitat on a limited basis. Ice reconnaissance flights to survey ice 
characteristics and ice management operations using vessels to deflect 
ice floes from drill rigs are two types of activities that have the 
potential to affect sea ice. Support activities outside of the open 
water season would be limited in scope and would likely have limited 
effects on sea ice habitat during the ice-covered seasons within the 
timeframe of the proposed regulations (2013 to 2018).
B. Barrier Island Habitat
    Proposed support activities near communities, such as Wainwright 
and Point Lay, for seismic, shallow hazard surveys; open water marine 
survey; or terrestrial environmental studies are the types of 
exploration activities requested that may affect polar bear barrier 
island habitat. Vessels associated with marine activities operating in 
the Chukchi Sea may use barrier island habitat to ``wait out a storm.'' 
Bears using the islands to rest and travel may encounter temporarily 
beached vessels. Past observations reported to the Service indicate 
that bears will walk by such vessels, but may not rest near them. This 
is a temporary effect associated with the beached vessel and once the 
vessel is removed from the beach, the bears return to travelling or 
resting on the beach.
    Aerial transport activities in support of Industry programs may 
also encounter barrier island habitat while transiting to and from 
communities. Air operations would have regulatory flight restrictions, 
but in certain circumstances, such as emergencies, flights could 
displace bears from barrier island habitat. Established mitigation 
measures described in the proposed regulations, such as minimum 
altitude restrictions, wildlife observers and adherence to company 
polar bear interaction plans, would further limit potential 
disturbances.
C. Terrestrial Denning Habitat
    In western Alaska, mainland support facilities for offshore 
activities may occur within designated coastal polar bear critical 
habitat. Staging activities, remote camps, construction of ice roads, 
and aerial transport to support projects all have the potential to 
occur in coastal areas in or near denning habitat. If necessary, 
proactive and reactive mitigation measures set forth in the proposed 
regulations would minimize disturbance impacts within designated 
critical habitat and/or impacts to denning habitat. The Service 
encourages that all transit routes occur outside of critical habitat 
and may require den detection surveys in areas of denning habitat. At 
times, Industry may have to place ice roads or staging activities in 
coastal denning areas. Mitigation measures to minimize potential 
impacts include establishment of the 1-mile exclusion zone around known 
maternal dens, and the reduction of activity levels until the natural 
departure of the bears. Currently, what little is known about the 
denning habits of the Chukchi-Bering Sea population suggests that the 
majority of maternal dens occur in the Russian Federation, 
predominantly on Wrangel Island (DeBruyn et al. 2010). While denning 
habitat exists in western Alaska, no confirmed polar bear dens have 
been recorded in western Alaska since 2006 (Durner et al. 2010). A more 
detailed description of den detection techniques required by the 
Service and employed by exploration activities to limit disturbance and 
minimize impacts to maternal polar bear den sites has been discussed in 
the Service's Beaufort Sea regulations (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011). 
The Service would implement these techniques if active polar bear dens 
are recorded during Industry activities.
    Although Industry activities may temporarily reduce site-specific 
availability of small portions of polar bear critical habitat primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) for feeding, mating, movements, denning, 
and access to prey, these actions would be temporary and not result in 
long-term effects on the PCE's capabilities to support biological 
functions of polar bears. Based on the information provided by the 
petitioners, the Service concludes that effects from Industry activity 
to polar bear critical habitat and the associated PCEs would be 
insignificant, due to the limited magnitude and temporary nature of the 
proposed activities.

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on Polar Bears

    The Service anticipates that potential impacts of seismic noise, 
physical obstructions, human encounters, changes in distribution or 
numbers of prey species in the offshore and onshore environments on 
polar bears would be limited to short-term changes in behavior that 
would have no long-term impact on individuals or identifiable impacts 
to the polar bear population during the 5-year timeframe of the 
proposed regulations. Individual polar bears may be observed in the 
open water during offshore activities in Alaska waters, but the vast 
majority of the bear populations will be found on the pack ice or along 
the Chukotka coastline in the Russian Federation during this time of 
year. Onshore encounters with polar bears are expected to be minimal 
due to the limited activity planned along the coastline of Alaska 
during the timeframe of the regulations. We do not anticipate any 
lethal take due to Industry activities during the 5-year time period of 
the proposed regulations. We expect that specific mitigation measures, 
such as education of Industry personnel, would minimize bear-human 
interactions that could lead to lethal take of polar bears. Our 
experience in the Beaufort Sea similarly suggests that it is unlikely 
there would be any lethal take of bears due to Industry activity within 
the 5-year time period of the proposed regulations.
    Potential impacts to bears would be mitigated through various 
requirements stipulated within LOAs. Mitigation measures that would be 
required for all projects include a polar bear 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. Examples of mitigation measures that would 
be used on a case-by-case basis include: The use of trained marine 
mammal observers associated with offshore activities; bear monitors for 
onshore activities; and seismic shutdown procedures in ensonification 
zones. The Service implements an adaptive management approach where 
certain mitigation measures are based on need and effectiveness for 
specific activities based largely on timing and location. For example, 
the Service would implement different mitigation measures for an 
onshore baseline study 20 miles inland, than for an offshore drilling 
project. Based on past monitoring information, bears are more prevalent 
in the coastal areas than 20 miles inland. Therefore, the monitoring 
and mitigation measures that the Service deems appropriate must be 
implemented to limit the disturbance to bears, and the measures deemed 
necessary to limit bear-human interactions may differ depending on 
location and the timing of the activity.
    Furthermore, mitigation measures imposed through BOEM/BSEE lease 
stipulations are designed to avoid Level A harassment (injury), reduce 
Level B

[[Page 1964]]

harassment, reduce the potential for population level significant 
adverse effects on polar bears, and avoid an unmitigable adverse impact 
on their availability for subsistence purposes. Additional measures 
described in the these incidental take regulations would help reduce 
the level of Industry impacts to polar bears during the exploration 
activities, and the issuance of LOAs with site specific operating 
restrictions and monitoring requirements would provide mitigation and 
protection for polar bears. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed 
exploration activities, as mitigated through the regulatory process, 
would impact small numbers of animals, are not expected to have more 
than negligible impacts on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea and would not 
have an unmitigable, adverse impact on the availability of polar bears 
for subsistence uses.

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

    In this section, we discuss the potential effects of oil spills 
from Industry activities on Pacific walruses and polar bears. We 
recognize that a wide range of potential effects from oil spills on 
these species could occur, from minimal effects to potentially 
substantial ones. We emphasize, however, that the only types of spills 
that could have significant effects on these species are large spills. 
Based on projections from BOEM/BSEE, the likelihood of large spills 
from Industry exploration activities are extremely remote, and thus, we 
consider impacts from such spills to be highly unlikely. Nevertheless, 
we provide a full discussion of oil spill risks and possible effects 
from oil spills, in the extremely unlikely event that such as spill 
could occur.

Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Pacific Walrus

    The possibility of oil and waste product spills from Industry 
exploration activities and the subsequent impacts on walruses are a 
concern. Little is known about the effects of either on walruses as no 
studies have been conducted and no documented spills have occurred 
affecting walruses in their habitat. Depending on the extent of an oil 
spill, adult walruses may not be severely affected through direct 
contact, but they will be extremely sensitive to any disturbances 
created by spill response activities. In addition, due to the 
gregarious nature of walruses, a release of contaminants would most 
likely affect multiple individuals if it occurred in an area occupied 
by walruses. Walruses may repeatedly expose themselves to waste or oil 
that has accumulated at the edge of a shoreline or ice lead as they 
enter and exit the water.
    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. Like other pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to 
oil contamination in their eyes. Direct exposure to oil could also 
result in conjunctivitis. Continuous exposure to oil would 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.
    Adult and sub-adult 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. Direct exposure of adult 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.
    Walrus calves are also likely to suffer from the effects of oil 
contamination. Walrus calves can swim almost immediately after birth 
and will often join their mother in the water, increasing their risk of 
being oiled. However, calves have not yet developed enough insulating 
blubber to spend as much time in the water as adults. It is possible, 
but unknown, that oiled walrus calves may not be able to regulate heat 
loss and may be more susceptible to hypothermia. Another possibility is 
an oiled calf that is unable to swim away from the contamination and a 
cow that would not leave without the calf, resulting in the potential 
exposure of both animals. However, it is also possible that an oiled 
calf would be unrecognizable to its mother either by sight or by smell, 
and be abandoned.
    Walruses are benthic feeders, and the fate of benthic prey 
contaminated by an oil spill is difficult to predict. In general, 
benthic invertebrates preferred by walruses (bivalves, gastropods, and 
polychaetes) may either decline or increase as the result of a spill 
(Sanders et al. 1980; Jacobs 1980; Elmgren et al. 1983; Jewett et al. 
1999). Impacts vary among spills and species within a spill, but in 
general, benthic communities move through several successive stages of 
temporal change until the communities approach pre-disturbance 
conditions (Dauvin 1998), which may take 20 years. Much of the benthic 
prey contaminated by an oil spill or gas release, such as methane, may 
be killed immediately. 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 highly vulnerable to a loss of 
this prey species. However, epifaunal bivalves were one of the benthic 
community classes that increased following the Exxon Valdez spill in 
Alaska (Jewett et al. 1999).
    Depending on the location and timing, oil spills could affect 
walruses in a number of ways. An offshore spill during open water may 
only affect a few walruses swimming through the affected area. However, 
spilled oil present along ice edges and ice leads 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 wildlife in prime feeding areas over the 
continental shelf during this period. Oil spills affecting areas where 
walruses and polar bears are concentrated, such as along off-shore 
leads, polynyas, preferred feeding areas, and terrestrial habitat used 
for denning or haul-outs would affect more animals than spills in other 
areas.
    The potential impacts to Pacific walruses from a spill could be 
significant, particularly if subsequent cleanup efforts are 
ineffective. These potential impacts would be greatest when walrus are 
aggregated at coastal haulouts. For example, walruses would be most 
vulnerable to the effects of an oil spill at coastal haulouts if the 
oil comes within 60 km of the coast (Garlich-Miller et al. 2010, p. 
87). Spilled oil during the ice-covered season not cleaned up could 
become part of the ice substrate and be eventually released back into 
the

[[Page 1965]]

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.
    In the unlikely event there is an oil spill and walruses are in the 
same area, mitigation measures, especially those to deflect and deter 
animals from spilled areas, may minimize the associated risks. 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 are required to 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/FWSContingencyTOC.htm.
    Although fuel and oil spills have the potential to cause adverse 
impacts to walruses and possibly some prey species, operational spills 
associated with the proposed exploration activities are not considered 
a major threat. Operational spills would likely be of a relatively 
small volume, and occur in areas of open water where walrus densities 
are expected to be low. Furthermore, blowout prevention technology 
would be required for all exploratory drilling operations in the 
Chukchi Sea by the permitting agencies, and the BOEM/BSEE considers the 
likelihood of a blowout occurring during exploratory drilling in the 
Chukchi Sea as negligible (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-026). The BOEM/BSEE 
operating stipulations, including oil spill prevention and response 
plans, reduce both the risk and scale of potential spills. For these 
reasons, any impacts associated with an operational spill are expected 
to be limited to a small number of animals.

Effects of Waste Discharge and Potential Oil Spills on Polar Bear

    Individual polar bears can potentially be affected by Industry 
activities through waste product discharge and oil spills. 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) 
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 ([Oslash]ritsland 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 is 
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 sub-lethal 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.
    Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. Seals that die 
because 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 because 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.
    The persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even 
at sub-lethal 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 because 
of bioaccumulation. Polar bears are biological sinks for pollutants 
because they are the apical predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are 
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. Sub-lethal, 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 
are to environmental effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult polar bears 
would be most prone to the lethal and sub-lethal effects of an oil 
spill due to their proclivity for scavenging (thus increasing their 
exposure to oiled marine mammals) and their inexperience in hunting. 
Indeed, grizzly bear researchers in Katmai National Park suspected that 
oil ingestion contributed to the death of two yearling grizzly bears in 
1989, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. They detected levels of 
naphthalene and phenathrene in the bile of one of the bears. 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).
    During the open water season (July to October), bears in the open 
water or on land may encounter and be affected by any such oil spill; 
however, given the seasonal nature of the Industry activities, the 
potential for direct negative impacts to polar bears would be 
minimized. During the ice-covered season (November to May), onshore 
Industry activities would have the greatest likelihood of exposing

[[Page 1966]]

transiting polar bears to potential oil spills. Although the majority 
of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population spends a large amount of time 
offshore on the annual or multi-year pack ice and along the Chukotka 
coastline, some bears could encounter oil from a spill regardless of 
the season and location.
    Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year by 
Industry activities on land could potentially affect 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, in the Beaufort Sea, 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 industrial in origin, the source of the mixture was unknown.
    The major concern regarding large oil spills is the impact a spill 
would have on the survival and recruitment of the Chukchi Sea and 
southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations that use the region. 
Currently, the Southern Beaufort Seas bear population is approximately 
1,500 bears, and the Chukchi Sea bear population estimate is 2,000. 
These populations 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 either population would 
exceed sustainable levels, potentially causing a decline in bear 
populations and affecting bear productivity and subsistence use.
    The time of greatest impact from an oil spill to polar bears is 
most likely during the ice-covered season when bears use the ice. To 
access ringed and bearded seals, polar bears 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). At this 
time, bears may be exposed to any remnant oil from the previous open 
water season. Spilled oil also can concentrate and accumulate in leads 
and openings that occur during spring break-up 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.
    Potential impacts of Industry waste products and oil spills suggest 
that individual bears could be impacted by this type of disturbance 
were it to occur. 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. According to BOEM/BSEE, during exploratory activities, the 
probability of a large oil spill (defined as >= 1,000 barrels [bbls]) 
occurring throughout the duration of these proposed regulations (5 
years) is very small. In addition, protocols for controlling waste 
products in project permits would limit exposure of bears to the waste 
products. 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 
affecting the population. Oil spill contingency plans are authorized by 
project permitting agencies and, if necessary, would limit the exposure 
of bears to oil.

Description of Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills

    Waste products are substances that can be accidently introduced 
into the environment by Industry activities. Examples include ethyl 
glycol, drilling muds, or treated water. Generally, they are released 
in small amounts. Oil spills are releases of oil or petroleum products. 
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Permit Program, all oil companies must submit an oil spill contingency 
plan with their projects. It is illegal to discharge oil into the 
environment, and a reporting system requires operators to report even 
small spills. BOEM/BSEE classifies oil spills as either small (< 1,000 
barrels [bbls]) or large (>= 1,000 bbls). A volume of oil of 1,000 bbl 
equals 42,000 U.S. gallons (gal), or 158,987 liters (L). Reported small 
spills are those that have occurred during standard Industry 
operations. Examples include oil, gas, or hydraulic fluid spills from 
mechanized equipment or spills from pipelines or facilities. While oil 
spills are unplanned events, large spills are associated with oil 
platforms, such as drill rigs or pads and pipelines. There is generally 
some form of human error combined with faulty equipment, such as 
pipeline degradation, that causes a large spill.
    Most regional oil spill information comes from the Beaufort Sea 
area, where oil and gas production has already been established. 
According to BOEM/BSEE, on the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS, Industry has 
drilled 35 exploratory wells, five of which occurred in the Chukchi 
Sea. The most recent drilling operation in the Chukchi Sea occurred in 
1991. BOEM's most current data suggest that between 1977 and 1999, an 
average of 70 oil and 234 waste product spills occurred annually on the 
North Slope oil fields in the terrestrial and marine environment. 
Although most spills have been small (less than 50 bbl, 2,100 gal, or 
7,950 L) by Industry standards, larger spills accounted for much of the 
annual volume. Historically, Industry has had 35 small spills totaling 
26.7 bbl (1,121 gal, 4,245 L) in the Beaufort and Chukchi OCS. Of the 
26.7 bbl spilled, approximately 24 bbl (1,008 gal, 3,816 L) were 
recovered or cleaned up. Seven large, terrestrial oil spills occurred 
between 1985 and 2009 on the Beaufort Sea North Slope. The largest oil 
spill occurred in the spring of 2006, where approximately 5,714 bbl 
(260,000 gal, 908,500 L) leaked from flow lines near a gathering 
center. In November 2009, a 1,095 bbl (46,000 gal, 174,129 L) oil spill 
occurred as well. Both of these spills occurred at production sites. 
More recently, in 2012, a gas blowout occurred at an exploration well 
where approximately 1,000 bbl (42,000 gal, 159,987 L) of drilling mud 
and an unknown amount of natural gas was expelled. These spills were 
terrestrial and posed minimal harm to polar bears and walruses. To 
date, no major exploratory offshore-related oil spills have occurred on 
the North Slope in either the Beaufort or Chukchi seas.
    Historical large spills (>= 1,000 bbl, 42,000 gal, or 159,987 L) 
associated with Alaskan oil and gas activities on the North Slope have 
been production-related, and have occurred at production facilities or 
pipelines connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The 
BOEM/BSEE estimates the chance of a large (> 1,000 bbl, 42,000 gal, or 
159,987 L) oil spill from exploratory activities in the Chukchi Sea to 
be low based on the types of spills recorded in the Beaufort Sea. The 
greatest risk potential for oil spills from exploration activities 
likely occurs with the marine vessels. From past experiences, BOEM/BSEE 
believes these would most likely be localized and relatively small. 
Spills in the offshore or onshore environments classified as small 
could occur during normal operations (e.g., transfer of fuel,

[[Page 1967]]

handling of lubricants and liquid products, and general maintenance of 
equipment). The likelihood of small spills occurring is higher than 
large spills. However, because small spills would likely be contained 
and remediated quickly, their potential impacts on walruses and polar 
bears are expected to be low. There is a greater potential for large 
spills in the Chukchi Sea region from drilling platforms. Exploratory 
drilling platforms are required to have containment ability in case of 
a blowout as part of their oil spill contingency plans, where the 
likelihood of a large release during the 5-year timeframe of the 
proposed regulations remains minimal.
    Our analysis of oil and gas development potential and subsequent 
risks was based on the BOEM/BSEE analysis that they conducted for the 
Chukchi Sea lease sale (MMS 2007 and BOEMRE 2011), which is the best 
available information. Due to the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) incident in 
the Gulf of Mexico, offshore oil and gas activities are under increased 
scrutiny. As such, BOEM/BSEE developed a very large oil spill analysis 
(BOEMRE 2011-041; http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/About_BOEM/BOEM_Regions/Alaska_Region/Environment/Environmental_Analysis/2011-041v1.pdf), where the potential impacts of a very large oil spill to 
polar bears and Pacific walruses are described (sections IV.E.8 and 
IV.E.11, respectively).
    Of the several potential impacts to Pacific walruses and polar 
bears from Industry activity in the Chukchi Sea, a very large oil spill 
is of the most concern during the duration of the proposed regulations. 
While not analyzed as part of standard operating conditions, we have 
addressed the analysis of a very large oil spill due to the potential 
that a spill of this magnitude could significantly impact Pacific 
walruses and polar bears. During the next 5 years, offshore exploratory 
drilling would be the predominant source of a very large oil spill in 
the unlikely event one occurred.
    Multiple factors have been examined to compare and contrast an oil 
spill in the Arctic to that of Deepwater Horizon. In the event of a 
spill in the Chukchi Sea favorable factors that could limit the impact 
of a spill could include the drilling depth and the well pressures. The 
Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred in 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of water with 
well pressures of approximately 15,000 psi (approximately 103,421 kPa). 
(Schmidt 2012). The Chukchi Sea sites are calculated to have drilling 
depths of approximately 150 ft (46 m) and well pressures not to exceed 
3,000 to 4,000 psi (approximately 20,684 to 27,579 kPa). With lower 
drilling depths and well pressures, well sites in the Chukchi Sea will 
be more accessible in the event of a spill. However, spill response and 
cleanup of an oil spill in the Arctic has not been fully vetted to the 
point where major concerns no longer remain.
    The BOEM/BSEE has acknowledged difficulties in effectively 
responding to oil spills 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'' (NRC 2003). Current oil 
spill responses in the Chukchi Sea include three main response 
mechanisms, blowout prevention, in-situ burning, and chemical 
dispersants (http://www.bsee.gov/OSRP/Shell-Chukchi-OSRP.aspx.). Each 
response has associated strengths and weaknesses, where the success 
would be mostly dependent on weather conditions. The BOEM/BSEE 
advocates the use of non-mechanical methods of spill response, such as 
in-situ burning, during periods when broken ice would hamper an 
effective mechanical response (MMS 2008). 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 continues to be problematic.
    In addition to the BOEM/BSEE analysis (BOEMRE 2011), policy and 
management changes have occurred within the Department of the Interior 
that are designed to increase the effectiveness of oversight activities 
and further reduce the probability and effects of an accidental oil 
spill (USDOI 2010). As a result, based on projections from BOEM/BSEE, 
we anticipate that the potential for a significant oil spill would 
remain small at the exploration stage; however, we recognize that 
should a large spill occur, effective strategies for oil spill cleanup 
in the broken ice and open-water conditions that characterize walrus 
and polar bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea are limited.
    In the event of a large oil spill, Service-approved response 
strategies are in place to reduce the impact of a spill on walrus and 
polar bear populations. Service response efforts will be conducted 
under a 3-tier approach characterized as: (1) Primary response, 
involving containment, dispersion, burning, or cleanup 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 most applicable, as little evidence exists 
that tertiary methods would be effective for cleaning oiled walruses or 
polar bears.
    In 2012, the Service and representatives from oil companies 
operating in the Arctic conducted tests on polar bear fur to evaluate 
appropriate oil cleaning techniques specific to oil grades extracted 
from local Alaskan oil fields. The analysis is ongoing and will be 
reported in the future. In addition, capturing and handling of adult 
walruses is difficult and risky, as walruses do not react well to 
anesthesia, and calves have little probability of survival in the wild 
following capture and rehabilitation. In addition, many Alaska Native 
organizations are opposed to releasing rehabilitated marine mammals 
into the wild due to the potential for disease transmission.
    All Industry projects would have project specific oil spill 
contingency plans that would be approved by the appropriate permitting 
agencies prior to the issuance of an LOA. The contingency plans have a 
wildlife component, which outlines protocols to minimize wildlife 
exposure, including exposure of polar bears and walruses, to oil 
spills. Operators in the OCS are advised to review the Service's Oil 
Spill Response Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska and the Pacific Walrus 
Response Plan at http://www.fws.gov/Contaminants/FWS_OSCP_05/FWSContingencyTOC.htm when developing spill-response tactics. Multiple 
factors will be considered when responding to an oil spill, including: 
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 walruses and polar bears that are (or are likely to be) 
affected; degree of contact; importance of affected habitat; cleanup 
proposal; and likelihood of animal-human interactions.
    As discussed above, large oil spills from Industry activities in 
the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and coastal regions that would impact 
walruses and polar bears have not yet occurred, although the 
exploration of oil and gas has increased the potential for large 
offshore oil spills. With limited background

[[Page 1968]]

information available regarding oil spills in the Arctic environment, 
the outcome of such a spill is uncertain. For example, the extent of 
impacts of a large oil spill as well as the types of equipment needed 
and potential for effective cleanup would be greatly influenced by 
seasonal weather and sea conditions, including temperature, winds, wave 
action, and currents. Based on the experiences of cleanup efforts 
following the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez oil spills, where 
logistical support was readily available and wildlife resources were 
nevertheless affected, spill response may be largely unsuccessful in 
open-water conditions. Arctic conditions and the remoteness of 
exploration activities would greatly complicate any spill response.
    While it is extremely unlikely that a significant amount of oil 
would be discharged into the environment by an exploratory program 
during the proposed regulatory period, the Service is aware of the risk 
that hydrocarbon exploration entails and that a large spill could occur 
in the development and production of oil fields in the future, where 
multiple operations incorporating pads and pipelines would increase the 
possibility of oil spills and impacts to walruses and polar bears. The 
Service will continue to work to minimize impacts to walruses and polar 
bears from Industry activities, including reducing impacts of oil 
spills.

Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Subsistence 
Uses of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

    The open-water season for oil and gas exploration activities 
coincides with peak walrus hunting activities in the Chukchi Sea 
region. The subsistence harvest of polar bears can occur year-round in 
the Chukchi Sea, depending on ice conditions, with peaks usually 
occurring in spring and fall. Effects to subsistence harvests would be 
addressed in Industry POCs. The POCs are discussed in detail later in 
this section.
    Noise and disturbances associated with oil and gas exploration 
activities have the potential to adversely impact subsistence harvests 
of walruses and polar bears by displacing animals beyond the hunting 
range (60 to 100 mi [96.5 to 161 km] from the coast) of these 
communities. Disturbances associated with exploration activities could 
also heighten the sensitivity of animals to humans with potential 
impacts to hunting success. Little information is available to predict 
the effects of exploration activities on the subsistence harvest of 
walruses and polar bears. Hunting success varies considerably from year 
to year because of variable ice and weather conditions. Changing walrus 
distributions due to declining sea ice and accelerated sea ice melt are 
currently affecting hunting opportunities.
    Measures to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas exploration 
activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use of those 
resources were identified and developed through previous BOEM/BSEE 
Lease Sale National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) review and analysis processes. The Final Lease Stipulations for 
the Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the Chukchi Sea identify several 
existing measures designed to mitigate potential effects of oil and gas 
exploration activities on marine mammal resources and subsistence use 
of those resources (http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/Regional_Leasing/Alaska_Region/Alaska_Lease_Sales/Sale_193/Stips.pdf).
    Seven lease stipulations were selected by the Secretary of the 
Interior in the Final Notice of Sale for Lease 193. These are: 
Stipulation (1) Protection of Biological Resources; Stipulation (2) 
Orientation Program; Stipulation (3) Transportation of Hydrocarbons; 
Stipulation (4) Industry Site Specific Monitoring Program for Marine 
Mammal Subsistence Resources; Stipulation (5) Conflict Avoidance 
Mechanisms to Protect Subsistence Whaling and Other Marine Mammal 
Subsistence Harvesting Activities; Stipulation (6) Pre-Booming 
Requirements for Fuel Transfers; and Stipulation (7) Measures to 
Minimize Effects to Spectacled and Steller's Eiders during Exploration 
Activities.
    Lease stipulations that would directly support minimizing impacts 
to walruses, polar bears and the subsistence use of those animals 
include Stipulations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Stipulation 1 allows BOEM/BSEE 
to require the lessee to conduct biological surveys for previously 
unidentified biological populations or habitats to determine the extent 
and composition of the population or habitat. Stipulation 2 requires 
that an orientation program be developed by the lessee to inform 
individuals working on the project of the importance of environmental, 
social, and cultural resources, including how to avoid disturbing 
marine mammals and endangered species. Stipulation 4 provides for site-
specific monitoring programs, which will provide information about the 
seasonal distributions of walruses and polar bears. The information can 
be used to improve evaluations of the threat of harm to the species and 
provides immediate information about their activities, and their 
response to specific events, where this stipulation applies 
specifically to the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, and 
Point Hope. This stipulation is expected to reduce the potential 
effects of exploration activities on walruses, polar bears, and the 
subsistence use of these resources. This stipulation also contributes 
important information to ongoing walrus and polar bear research and 
monitoring efforts.
    Stipulation 5 will help reduce potential conflicts between 
subsistence hunters and proposed oil and gas exploration activities. 
This stipulation is meant to help reduce noise and disturbance 
conflicts from oil and gas operations during specific periods, such as 
peak hunting seasons. It requires that the lessee meet with local 
communities and subsistence groups to resolve potential conflicts. The 
consultations required by this stipulation ensure that the lessee, 
including contractors, consult and coordinate both the timing and 
sighting of events with subsistence users. The intent of these 
consultations is to identify any potential conflicts between proposed 
exploration activities and subsistence hunting opportunities in the 
coastal communities. Where potential conflicts are identified, BOEM/
BSEE may require additional mitigation measures as identified by NMFS 
and the Service through MMPA authorizations. Finally, stipulation 6 
will limit the potential of fuel spill into the environment by 
requiring the fuel barge to be surrounded by an oil spill containment 
boom during fuel transfer.
    The BOEM/BSEE lease sale stipulations and mitigation measures will 
be applied to all exploration activities in the Chukchi Lease Sale 
Planning Area and the geographic region of the ITRs. The Service has 
incorporated these BOEM/BSEE lease sale stipulations into their 
analysis of impacts to walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea.
    In addition to the existing BOEM/BSEE Final Lease Stipulations 
described above, the Service has also developed additional mitigation 
measures that would be implemented through these ITRs. These 
stipulations are currently in place under our regulations published on 
June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33212), and will also apply if we adopt these 
proposed regulations. The following LOA stipulations, which would 
mitigate potential impacts to subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting 
from the proposed activities, apply to all incidental take 
authorizations:

[[Page 1969]]

    (1) Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants must contact and consult 
with the communities of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow 
through their local government organizations to identify any additional 
measures to be taken to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence hunters 
in these communities. A POC will be developed if there is a general 
concern from the community that the proposed activities will impact 
subsistence uses of walruses or polar bears. The POC must address how 
applicants will work with the affected Native communities and what 
actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of 
walruses and polar bears. The Service will review the POC prior to 
issuance of the LOA to ensure that any potential adverse effects on the 
availability of the animals are minimized.
    (2) Authorization will not be issued by the Service for activities 
in the marine environment that occur within a 40-mile (64 km) radius of 
Barrow, Wainwright, Point Hope, or Point Lay, unless expressly 
authorized by these communities through consultations or through a POC. 
This condition is intended to limit potential interactions between 
Industry activities and subsistence hunting in near shore environments.
    (3) Offshore exploration activities will be authorized only during 
the open water season, which will not exceed the period of July 1 to 
November 30. This condition is intended to allow communities the 
opportunity to participate in subsistence hunts without interference 
and to minimize impacts to walruses during the spring migration. 
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.
    (4) A 15-mile (24-km) separation must be maintained between all 
active seismic survey vessels and/or drilling rigs/vessels/platforms to 
mitigate cumulative impacts to resting, feeding, and migrating 
walruses.

Plan of Cooperation (POC)

    As a condition of incidental take authorization, and to ensure that 
Industry activities do not impact subsistence opportunities for 
communities within the geographic region covered by the proposed 
regulations, any applicant requesting an LOA is required to present a 
record of communication that reflects discussions with the Alaska 
Native communities most likely affected by the activities. Prior to 
issuance of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to the Service that 
an adequate POC has been coordinated with any affected subsistence 
community (or, as appropriate, with the EWC, the ANC, and the NSB) if, 
after community consultations, Industry and the community conclude 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 would 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 process and the overall State and 
Federal permitting process of Industry activities, Industry engages the 
Alaska Native communities in numerous informational meetings. During 
these community meetings, Industry must ascertain if community 
responses indicate that impact to subsistence uses would 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 bears and walruses for subsistence harvest.
    In making this finding, we considered the following: (1) Historical 
data regarding the timing and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness 
of mitigation measures stipulated by BOEM/BSEE-issued operational 
permits; (3) Service regulations proposed to be codified at 50 CFR 
18.118 for obtaining an LOA, which include requirements for community 
consultations and POCs, as appropriate, between the applicants and 
affected Native communities; (4) effectiveness of mitigation measures 
stipulated by Service-issued LOAs; and (5) anticipated effects of the 
applicants' proposed activities on the distribution and abundance of 
walruses and polar bears. Based on the best scientific information 
available and the results of harvest data, including affected villages, 
the number of animals harvested, the season of the harvests, and the 
location of hunting areas, we find that the effects of the proposed 
exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of walruses and polar 
bears for taking for subsistence uses during the 5-year timeframe of 
the proposed regulations.

Analysis of Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry on Pacific Walruses and 
Polar Bears in the Chukchi Sea

Pacific Walrus

    Recent offshore activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas from 
the 1980s to the present highlight the type of documented impacts 
offshore activities can have on walruses. More oil and gas activity has 
occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS than in the Chukchi Sea OCS. Many 
offshore activities required ice management (icebreaking), helicopter 
traffic, fixed wing aircraft monitoring, other support vessels, and 
stand-by barges. Although Industry has encountered walruses while 
conducting exploratory activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, to 
date, no walruses are known to have been killed due to encounters 
associated with Industry activities.
1. Reported Observations
    Aerial surveys and vessel based observations of walruses were 
carried out in 1989 and 1990, to examine the responses of walruses to 
drilling operations at three Chukchi Sea drill prospects (Brueggeman et 
al. 1990, 1991). Aerial surveys documented several thousand walruses in 
the vicinity of the drilling prospects; most of the animals (> 90 
percent) were closely associated with sea ice. The observations 
demonstrated that: (1) Walrus distributions were closely linked with 
pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active drill prospects for short time 
periods; and (3) ice passing near active prospects contained relatively 
few animals. Thus, the effects of the drilling operations on walruses 
were short-term, temporary, and in a discrete area near the drilling 
operations, and the portion of the walrus population affected was 
small.
    Between 2006 and 2011, monitoring by Industry during seismic 
surveys in the Chukchi Sea resulted in 1,801 observed encounters 
involving approximately 11,125 individual walruses (Table 3). We 
classified the behavior of walruses associated with these encounters 
as: (1) No reaction; (2) attention (watched vessel); (3) approach 
(moved toward vessel); (4) avoidance (moved away from vessel at normal 
speed); (5) escape or flee (moved away from vessel at high rate of 
speed); and (6) unknown. These classifications were

[[Page 1970]]

based on MMO on-site determinations or their detailed notes on walrus 
reactions that accompanied the observation. Data typically included the 
behavior of an animal or group when initially spotted by the MMO and 
any subsequent change in behavior associated with the approach and 
passing of the vessel. This monitoring protocol was designed to detect 
walruses far from the vessel and avoid and mitigate take, not to 
estimate the long-term impacts of the encounters on individual animals.

  Table 3--Summary of Pacific Walrus Responses to Encounters With Seismic Survey Vessels in the Chukchi Sea Oil
            and Gas Lease Sale Area 193 in 2006-2010 as Recorded by On-Board Marine Mammal Observers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Mean (SE)     Mean (SE \a\)
                 Walrus reaction                     Number of       Number of     individuals/     meters from
                                                    encounters      individuals      encounter        vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None............................................             955           7,310         8 (1.7)        710 (24)
Attention.......................................             285           1,419         5 (1.9)        446 (29)
Approach........................................              47              89         2 (0.3)        395 (50)
Avoidance.......................................             435             940         2 (0.1)        440 (26)
Flee............................................              47             170         4 (0.9)        382 (56)
Unknown.........................................              32           1,197       37 (29.0)        558 (78)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total or overall mean.......................           1,801          11,125         6 (1.1)        582 (15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard error.

    Nonetheless, the data do provide insight as to the short-term 
responses of walruses to vessel encounters.
    Descriptive statistics were estimated based on both the number of 
encounters and number of individuals involved (Table 3). For both 
metrics (encounters and individuals), the most prevalent behavioral 
response was no response (53 and 66 percent, respectively) (Table 3); 
followed by attention or avoidance (8 and 24 percent combined, 
respectively), with the fewest animals exhibiting a flight response (3 
and 2 percent, respectively). Based on these observation data, it is 
likely that relatively few animals were encountered during these 
operations each year (less than 2 percent of a minimum population of 
129,000) and that of those encountered, walrus responses to vessel 
encounters were minimal. The most vigorous observed reactions of 
walruses to the vessels was a flight response, which is within their 
normal range of activity. Walruses vigorously flee predators such as 
killer whales and polar bears. However, unlike a passing ship, those 
encounters are likely to last for some time causing more stress as 
predators often spend time pursuing, testing, and manipulating 
potential prey before initiating an attack. As most observed animals 
exhibited minimal responses to Industry activity and relatively few 
animals exhibited a flight response we do not anticipate that 
interactions would impact survival or reproduction of walrus at the 
individual or population level.
    We do not know the length of time or distance traveled by walruses 
that approached, avoided, or fled from the vessels before resuming 
normal activities. However, it is likely that those responses lasted 
less than 30 minutes and covered less than 805 m (0.5 mi).
    MMO data collected in 2012 for 48 walrus observations indicate that 
walrus encounter times ranged from less than 1 to 31 minutes, averaging 
3 minutes. The shortest duration encounters usually involved single 
animals that did not react to the vessel or dove and were not seen 
again. The longest duration encounter occurred when a vessel was moving 
through broken ice and encountered several groups of walruses in rapid 
succession. These data indicate that most encounters were of single 
animals where behavioral response times were limited to short 
durations.
    During 2006-2011, observations from Industry activities in the 
Beaufort Sea indicate that, in most cases, walruses appeared 
undisturbed by human interactions. Walrus have hauled out on the armor 
of offshore drilling islands or coastal facilities and exhibited mild 
reactions (raise head and observe) to helicopter noise. There is no 
evidence that there were any physical effects or impacts to these 
individual walruses based on the observed interactions with Industry. A 
more detailed account of Industry-generated noise effects can be found 
in the Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific 
Walruses and Polar Bears, Pacific Walrus, 1. Disturbance from Noise 
section.
2. Cumulative Impacts
    The Status of the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) 
(Garlich-Miller et al. 2011) prepared by the Service (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/pdf/review_2011.pdf) and Jay et 
al. (2012) describe natural and human factors that could contribute to 
cumulative effects that could impact walruses into the future. Factors 
other than oil and gas activities that could affect walruses within the 
5-year period of these proposed regulations include climate change, 
harvest, and increased shipping, all of which are discussed below.
A. Climate Change
    Analysis of long-term environmental data sets indicates that 
substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness of the Arctic 
sea ice cover have occurred over the past 40 years. The record minimum 
sea ice extent occurred in September 2012 with 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 
2010, and 2011 ice extent close to the record low and substantially 
below the 20-year mean (NSIDC 2012). 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. Observed impacts to walruses as a 
result of diminishing sea ice cover include: A northward shift in range 
and declines in Bering Sea haulout use; an increase in the speed of the 
spring migration; earlier formation and longer duration of Chukchi Sea 
coastal haulouts; and increased vulnerability to predation and 
disturbance while at Chukchi Sea coastal haulouts, resulting in 
increased mortality rates among younger animals. Postulated effects 
include: Premature separation of females and dependent calves; 
reductions in the prey base;

[[Page 1971]]

declines in animal health and condition; increased interactions with 
development activities; population decline; and the potential for the 
harvest to become unsustainable. Future studies investigating walrus 
distributions, population status and trends, harvest sustainability, 
and habitat use patterns in the Chukchi Sea are important for 
responding to walrus conservation and management issues associated with 
environmental and habitat changes.
B. Harvest
    Walruses have an intrinsically low rate of reproduction and are 
thus limited in their capacity to respond to exploitation. In the late 
19th century, American whalers intensively harvested walruses in the 
northern Bering and southern Chukchi seas. Between 1869 and 1879, 
catches averaged more than 10,000 per year, with many more animals 
struck and lost. The population was substantially depleted by the end 
of the century, and the commercial hunting industry collapsed in the 
early 1900s. Since 1930, the combined walrus harvests of the United 
States and Russian Federation have ranged from 2,300 to 9,500 animals 
per year. Notable harvest peaks occurred during 1930 to 1960 (4,500 to 
9,500 per year) and in the 1980s (7,000 to 16,000 per year). Commercial 
hunting continued in the Russian Federation until 1991, under a quota 
system of up to 3,000 animals per year. Since 1992, the harvest of 
walruses has been limited to the subsistence catch of coastal 
communities in Alaska and Chukotka. Harvest levels through the 1990s 
ranged from approximately 4,100 to 7,600 animals per year and 3,800 to 
6,800 in the 2000s. As described in detail earlier in the Subsistence 
Use and Harvest Patterns of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears section, 
recent harvest levels are lower than historic highs. The Service is 
currently working to assess population size and sustainable harvest 
rates.
C. Commercial Fishing and Marine Vessel Traffic
    Available data suggest that walruses rarely interact with 
commercial fishing and marine vessel traffic. Walruses are normally 
closely associated with sea ice, which limits their interactions with 
fishing vessels and barge traffic. However, as previously noted, the 
temporal and seasonal extent of the sea ice is projected to diminish in 
the future. Commercial shipping through the Northwest Passage and 
Northern Sea Route may increase in coming decades. Commercial fishing 
opportunities may also expand should the sea ice continue to diminish. 
The result could be increased temporal and spatial overlap between 
fishing and shipping operations and walrus habitat use and increased 
interactions between walruses and marine vessels.
    Hunting pressure, declining sea ice due to 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. The success of future management efforts will rely 
in part on continued investments in research investigating population 
status and trends and habitat use patterns. Research by the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) and the Chukotka Branch of the Pacific 
Fisheries Research Center examining walrus habitat use patterns in the 
Chukchi Sea is beginning to provide useable results (Jay 2012, pers. 
comm.). In addition, the Service is beginning to develop and test some 
methods for a genetic mark-recapture project to estimate walrus 
population size and trends and demographic parameters. The 
effectiveness of various mitigation measures and management actions 
will also need to be continually evaluated through monitoring programs 
and adjusted as necessary. The decline in sea ice is of particular 
concern, and will be considered in the evaluation of future proposed 
activities and as more information on walrus population status becomes 
available.

Evaluation of Documented Impacts to Pacific Walrus

    The proposed projects, including the most extensive activities, 
such as seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations, identified 
by the petitioners are likely to result in some incremental cumulative 
effects to walruses through the potential exclusion or avoidance of 
walruses from feeding or resting areas and the disruption of associated 
biological behaviors. However, based on the habitat use patterns of 
walruses in the Chukchi Sea and their close association with seasonal 
pack ice, relatively small numbers of walruses are likely to be 
encountered in the open sea conditions where most of the proposed 
activities are expected to occur, with the exception of the Hanna Shoal 
area, where we can reliably predict that many walruses will remain even 
after the ice melts. Industry activities that occur near coastal 
haulouts, near Hanna Shoal, or intersect travel corridors between 
haulouts and Hanna Shoal would require close monitoring and additional 
special mitigation procedures, such as seasonal exclusions (e.g., July 
to September) of Industry activities from Hanna Shoal and routing 
vessel traffic and aircraft flights around walrus travel corridors. 
Required monitoring and mitigation measures, designed to minimize 
interactions between authorized projects and concentrations of resting 
or feeding walruses, are expected to limit interactions and trigger 
real time consultations if needed. 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 walrus population from past, present, 
and future activities that are reasonably likely to occur within the 5-
year period covered by these proposed regulations.

Polar Bear

    Information regarding interactions between oil and gas activities 
and polar bears in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas has been collected for 
several decades. This analysis concentrates on the Chukchi Sea 
information collected through regulatory requirements and is useful in 
predicting how polar bears are likely to be affected by the proposed 
activities.
    To date, most impacts to polar bears from Industry operations in 
the Chukchi Sea have been temporary disturbance events, 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.
1. Reported Observations
    From 1989 to 1991, Shell Western E&P conducted drilling operations 
in the Chukchi Sea. A total of 110 polar bears were recorded from 
aerial surveys and from support and ice management vessels during the 3 
years. In 1989, 18 bears were sighted in the pack ice during the 
monitoring programs associated with the drilling program. In 1990, a 
total of 25 polar bears were observed on the pack ice in the Chukchi 
Sea between June 29 and August 11, 1990. Seventeen bears were 
encountered by the support vessel, Robert LeMeur, during an ice 
reconnaissance survey before drilling began at the prospects. During 
drilling operations, four bears were observed near (<9 km or 5.5 mi) 
active prospects, and the remainder were considerably beyond the 
drilling operation (15 to 40 km or 9.3 to 24.8 mi). These bears 
responded to the drilling or icebreaking operations by approaching (two 
bears), watching (nine bears), slowly moving away (seven

[[Page 1972]]

bears), or ignoring (five bears) the activities; response was not 
evaluated for two bears. During the 1991 drilling program, 64 polar 
bears were observed on the pack ice, and one was observed swimming 
south of the ice edge. The researchers of the 1990 monitoring program 
for the Shell exploration concluded that: (1) Polar bear distributions 
were closely linked to the pack ice; (2) the pack ice was near the 
active prospects for a brief time; and (3) the ice passing near active 
prospects contained few animals. These data were collected when sea ice 
in the region was more prevalent than today, and we anticipate that 
current and future operations will observe fewer bears; however, we 
expect that behaviorally the bears observed will react similarly.
    Between 2006 and 2011, 16 offshore projects were issued incidental 
take authority for polar bears: Seven seismic surveys; four shallow 
hazards and site clearance surveys; and five environmental studies, 
including ice observation flights and onshore and offshore 
environmental baseline surveys. Observers associated with these 16 
projects documented 62 individual bears in 47 different observations. 
These observations and bear responses are discussed below.
    The majority of the bears were observed on land (50 percent; 31 of 
62 polar bears). Twenty-one bears (34 percent) were recorded on the 
ice, mainly in unconsolidated ice on ice floes, and 10 bears (16 
percent) were observed swimming in the water. Fifty-seven percent of 
the polar bears (35 of 62 bears) were observed from vessels, while 35 
percent (22 of 62 bears) were sighted from aerial surveys and 8 percent 
(5 of 62 bears) were observed from the ground.
    Of the 62 polar bears documented, 32 percent (20 of 62 bears) of 
the observations were recorded as Level B harassment takes, where the 
bears exhibited short-term, temporary reactions to the conveyance, 
vessel, plane, or vehicle, such as moving away from the conveyance. No 
polar bears were intentionally deterred. Sixty-five percent of the 
bears (40 of 62 bears) exhibited no behavioral reactions to the 
conveyance, while the reactions of 3 percent of the bears (2 of 62 
bears) were unknown (not observed or not recorded).
    Most polar bears were observed during secondary or support 
activities, such as aerial surveys or transiting between project areas. 
These activities were associated with a primary project, such as a 
seismic operation. No polar bears were observed during active seismic 
operations.
    Additionally, other activities have occurred in the Chukchi Sea 
region that have resulted in reports of polar bear sightings to the 
Service. Five polar bear observations (11 individuals) were recorded 
during the University of Texas at Austin's marine geophysical survey 
performed by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cutter Healy in 2006. All 
bears were observed on the ice between July 21 and August 19. The 
closest point of approach distances of bears from the Healy ranged from 
780 m to 2.5 km (853 yards [yd] to 1.5 mi). One bear was observed 
approximately 575 m (628.8 yd) from a helicopter conducting ice 
reconnaissance. Four of the groups exhibited possible reactions to the 
helicopter or vessel, suggesting that disturbances from offshore vessel 
operations when they occur are short-term and limited to minor changes 
in behavior.
    In 2007, a female bear and her cub were observed approximately 100 
meters (110 yd) from a drill pad at the Intrepid exploration drilling 
site, located on the Chukchi Sea coast south of Barrow. The bear did 
not appear concerned about the activity and eventually the female 
changed her direction of movement and left the area.
    Additional information exists on Industry and polar bear encounters 
from the Beaufort Sea (76 FR 47010; August 3, 2011). Documented impacts 
on polar bears by Industry in the Beaufort Sea during the past 30 years 
appear minimal. Polar bears spend time on land, coming ashore to feed, 
den, or move to other areas. Recent studies suggest that bears are 
spending more time on land than they have in the past in response to 
changing ice conditions.
    Annual monitoring reports from Industry activities and community 
observations in the Beaufort Sea indicate that fall storms, combined 
with reduced sea ice, force bears to concentrate along the coastline 
(between August to October) where bears remain until the ice returns. 
For this reason, polar bears have 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. During 2011, in the Beaufort Sea region, 
companies observed 237 polar bears in 140 sightings on land and in the 
nearshore marine environment. Of the 237 bears observed in 2011, 44 
bears (19 percent of the total observed) were recorded as Level B takes 
as they were deterred (hazed) away from facilities and people. Industry 
monitoring reports indicate that most bears are observed within a mile 
of the coastline. Similarly, we expect intermittent periods with high 
concentrations of bears to occur along the Chukchi Sea coastline as 50 
percent of the bear encounters between 2006 and 2011 were documented in 
the onshore habitat.
    While no lethal take of polar bears has occurred in the Chukchi 
Sea, a lethal take associated with Industry occurred at the Beaufort 
Sea Endicott facility in 2011, when a security guard mistakenly used a 
crackershell in place of a bean bag deterrent round and killed the bear 
during a deterrence action. Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal 
takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, there have been two documented 
cases, one in the winter of 1968-1969, and one in 1990, of lethal take 
of polar bears associated with oil and gas activities; in both of these 
instances, the lethal take was reported to be in defense of human life.
2. Cumulative Impacts
    Cumulative impacts of oil and gas activities are assessed, in part, 
through the information we gain in monitoring reports, which are a 
required component of each operator's LOA under the authorizations. We 
have over 20 years of monitoring reports, and the information on all 
incidental and intentional polar bear interactions provides a 
comprehensive history of past effects of Industry activities on polar 
bears. We use the information on previous impacts to evaluate potential 
impacts from existing and future Industry activities and facilities. 
Additional information used in our cumulative effects assessment 
includes: Service, USGS, and other polar bear research and data; 
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 activity that is currently being 
conducted. LOA trend data also help the Service track progress on 
various projects as they move through the stages of oil field 
development. An increase in Industry projects across the Arctic has the 
ability to 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://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm. The status review 
concentrated on oil and gas

[[Page 1973]]

development in the Beaufort Sea because of the established presence of 
Industry in the Beaufort Sea. The Service believes the conclusions of 
the status review would apply to Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea 
during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations as the 
exploratory activities in the Beaufort Sea are similar to those being 
conducted and proposed in the Chukchi Sea.
    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 that:
    (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.'' Industry activity 
in the Chukchi Sea during the timeframe of the proposed regulations 
would be limited to exploration activities, such as seismic, drilling, 
and support activities.
    (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.'' The Service would use mitigation measures similar to those 
established in the Beaufort Sea to limit impacts of polar bears in the 
Chukchi Sea. ``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.'' Full-scale 
development of this nature would not occur during the prescribed 
timeframe of the proposed regulations in the Chukchi Sea.
    (3) ``A major Beaufort Sea oil spill would have major effects on 
polar bears and ringed seals.'' One of the concerns for future oil and 
gas development is for those activities that occur in the marine 
environment due to the chance for oil spills to impact polar bears or 
their habitats. No production activities are planned for the Chukchi 
Sea during the duration of these proposed regulations. Oil spills as a 
result of exploratory drilling activity could occur in the Chukchi Sea; 
however, the probability of a large spill is expected to be minimal.
    (4) ``Climatic warming at predicted rates in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi seas region 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.'' The Service is 
currently working to minimize the impacts of climate change on its 
trust species. The implementation of incidental take regulations is one 
effective way to address and minimize impacts to polar bears.
    (5) ``Unless studies to address the potential accumulation of 
effects on North Slope polar bears or ringed seals 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.'' Current studies in the Chukchi Sea are examining polar 
bear habitat use and distribution, reproduction, and survival relative 
to a changing sea ice environment.
    Climate change, predominantly through sea ice decline, will alter 
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration 
of open water, will preclude sea ice habitat use by restricting some 
bears to coastal areas. Biological effects on polar bears are expected 
to include increased movements or travel, changes in bear distribution 
throughout their range, changes to the access and allocation of denning 
areas, and increased open water swimming. Demographic effects that may 
be influenced by climate change include changes in prey availability to 
polar bears, a potential reduction in the access to prey, and changes 
in seal productivity.
    In the Chukchi Sea, it is expected that the reduction of sea ice 
extent will 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, the Service anticipates that there may be an 
increased use of terrestrial habitat in the fall period by polar bears 
on the western coast of Alaska and an increased use of terrestrial 
habitat by denning bears in the same area, which may expose bears to 
Industry activity. Mitigation measures would be effective in minimizing 
any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in distributions 
of denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed 
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. As with the Beaufort Sea, the challenge in the 
Chukchi Sea will be predicting changes in ice habitat and coastal 
habitats in relation to changes in polar bear distribution and use of 
habitat.
    A detailed description of climate change and its potential effects 
on polar bears by the Service can be found in the documents supporting 
the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the 
ESA at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/esa.htm#listing. 
Additional detailed information by the USGS regarding the status of the 
SBS stock in relation to decreasing sea ice due to increasing 
temperatures in the Arctic, projections of habitat and populations, and 
forecasts of rangewide status can be found at: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears.
    The proposed activities (drilling operations, seismic surveys, and 
support operations) identified by the petitioners are likely to result 
in some incremental cumulative effects to polar bears during the 5-year 
timeframe of the proposed regulations. This could occur through the 
potential exclusion or avoidance of polar bears from feeding, resting, 
or denning areas and disruption of associated biological behaviors. 
However, the level of cumulative effects, including those of climate 
change, during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations would 
result in negligible effects on the bear population.

Evaluation of Documented Impacts on Polar Bears

    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, provides 
evidence that these populations have not been adversely affected. For 
the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations, we anticipate the 
level of oil and gas Industry interactions with polar bears would 
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 habitats influences seasonal and annual distribution 
and abundance of polar bears and walruses

[[Page 1974]]

in the specified geographical region (eastern Chukchi Sea). The 
following analysis demonstrates that, if we adopt the regulations as 
proposed, only small numbers of walruses and polar bears are likely to 
be taken incidental to the described Industry activities. This analysis 
is based upon known distribution patterns and habitat use of walruses 
and polar bears.

Pacific Walrus

    The Service has based its small numbers determination on an 
examination of the best available information concerning the range of 
this species and its habitat use patterns (see Biological Information 
for additional details); information regarding the siting, timing, 
scope, and footprint of proposed activities (see Description of 
Activities for additional details); information regarding monitoring 
requirements and mitigation measures designed to avoid and mitigate 
incidental take of walruses during authorized activities (see Section 
18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements in the 
Proposed Regulation Promulgation section for additional details); and 
the 193 lease sale stipulations by the Mineral Management Service (now 
BOEM in February 2008 regarding protection of biological resources. The 
objective of this analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed 
Industry activities described in the ITR petition are likely to impact 
small numbers of individual animals.
    The specified geographic region covered by this request includes 
the waters (State of Alaska and OCS) and bed of the Chukchi Sea, as 
well as terrestrial habitat up to 40 km (25 mi) inland (Figure 1). The 
marine environment and terrestrial coastal haulouts are considered 
walrus habitat for this analysis. The petition specifies that offshore 
exploration activities would be limited to the July 1 to November 30 
open-water season to avoid seasonal pack ice. Furthermore, the petition 
specifies that onshore or near shore activities would not occur in the 
vicinity of coastal walrus haulouts. Oil and gas activities anticipated 
and considered in our analysis include: (1) Offshore exploration 
drilling; (2) offshore 3D and 2D seismic surveys; (3) shallow hazards 
surveys; (4) other geophysical surveys, such as ice gouge, strudel 
scour, and bathymetry surveys; (5) geotechnical surveys; (6) onshore 
and offshore environmental studies; and (7) associated support 
activities for the aforementioned activities. A full description of 
these activities can be found in this document in the Description of 
Activities section.
Distribution of Walruses During the Open Water Season
    During the July to November open-water season, the Pacific walrus 
population ranges well beyond the boundaries of the specified 
geographic region (Figure 1). Based on population surveys, haulout 
monitoring studies, and satellite tracking studies, the population 
generally occurs in three areas: The majority of males remain in the 
Bering Sea outside of the specified geographic region, and juveniles, 
adult females, and calves are distributed both in the western Chukchi 
Sea in the vicinity of Wrangel and Herald Islands in Russian waters, 
and another subset of females and young are in the eastern Chukchi Sea, 
which includes the specified geographic region, with high densities in 
the Hanna Shoal area (Fay 1982; Jay et al. 2012; Jay et al. pers. 
comm.). Therefore, the animals in the northeast Chukchi Sea that could 
potentially be influenced by Industry activities represent only a 
portion of the overall population.
    Though the specified geographic region of these regulations (Figure 
1) includes areas of potential walrus habitat, the actual area of 
Industry activities occurring within this region would be relatively 
small. The entire Chukchi Sea is approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 
mi\2\). The area of the specified geographic region (Figure 1) is 
approximately 240,000 km\2\ (92,664 mi\2\), and the area covered by 
Lease Sale 193 offered in 2006 was approximately 138,000 km\2\ (53,282 
mi\2\), with currently active leases covering approximately 11,163 
km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi Sea is only a portion of the overall 
Pacific walrus range, and though most of it contains suitable walrus 
habitat, some portions are not suitable (e.g., where water depths 
exceed 100 m). However, if we assume that the entire 600,000 km\2\ 
(231,660 mi\2\) of the Chukchi Sea is utilized by walruses, then the 
specified geographic region (Figure 1) covers approximately 40 percent, 
Lease Sale 193 area covers approximately 23 percent, and current active 
leases cover approximately 2 percent of the Chukchi Sea, respectively. 
In any single year, and over the 5-year period of the proposed 
regulations, Industry activity would only occur on a portion of the 
active lease area. For example, AOGA indicates in its petition that one 
seismic survey would occur each year during the 5-year period of the 
proposed regulations. AOGA further estimates that a typical marine 3D 
seismic survey is expected to ensonify approximately 1680 km\2\ (649 
mi\2\) of sea floor. This equates to roughly 15 percent of the active 
lease area, 0.7 percent of the specified geographic region (Figure 1), 
and 0.28 percent of the Chukchi Sea per year, respectively.
    We anticipate that Industry activities would impact a relatively 
small proportion of the potential walrus habitat in the specified 
geographical region at any given time, whether or not the habitat is 
occupied by walruses. The narrow scope and footprint of activities that 
would occur in any given year limits the potential for Industry to 
interact with the subset of the walruses that may be distributed in the 
eastern Chukchi Sea during the open water season.
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
    The subset of the overall walrus population residing in the eastern 
Chukchi Sea can be widespread and abundant depending on ice conditions 
and distribution. Walruses typically migrate into the region in early 
June along lead systems that form along the coast. Walruses summering 
in the eastern Chukchi Sea exhibit strong selection for sea ice 
habitats. Previous aerial survey efforts in the area found that 80 to 
96 percent of walruses were closely associated with sea ice habitats, 
and that the number of walruses observed in open water habitats 
decreased significantly with distance from the pack ice (Gilbert 1999).
    The distribution of the subset of the walrus population that occurs 
in the specified geographic region (Figure 1) each year is primarily 
influenced by the distribution and extent of seasonal pack ice, which 
is expected to vary substantially both seasonally and annually. In June 
and July, scattered groups of walruses are typically associated with 
loose pack ice habitats between Icy Cape and Point Barrow (Fay 1982; 
Gilbert et al. 1992). Recent walrus telemetry studies investigating 
foraging patterns suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts 
near Hanna Shoal in the eastern Chukchi Sea, northwest of Point Barrow 
(Jay et al. pers. comm.). Recent walrus telemetry studies investigating 
foraging patterns suggest that many walruses focus foraging efforts 
near Hanna Shoal in the eastern Chukchi Sea, northwest of Point Barrow 
(Jay et al. pers. comm.). In August and September, concentrations of 
animals tend to be in areas of unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 
100 km (62 mi) of the leading edge of the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). 
Individual groups occupying unconsolidated pack ice

[[Page 1975]]

typically range from fewer than 10 to more than 1,000 animals (Gilbert 
1999; Ray et al. 2006). In August and September, the edge of the pack 
ice generally retreats north to approximately 71[deg] N latitude (the 
majority of active lease blocks are between 71 and 72[deg] N), but in 
light ice years can retreat north of the continental shelf (Douglas 
2010), about 73 to 75[deg] N. Sea ice normally reaches its minimum 
(northern) extent in September, and ice begins to reform rapidly in 
October and November. Walruses typically migrate out of the eastern 
Chukchi Sea in October in advance of the developing sea ice (Fay 1982; 
Jay et al. pers. comm.).
    Sea ice has historically persisted in the Chukchi Sea region 
through the entire year although the extent of sea ice cover over 
continental shelf areas during the summer and fall has been highly 
variable. Over the past decade, sea ice has begun to retreat beyond 
shallow continental shelf waters in late summer. For example, in 5 of 
the last 8 years (2004 to 2012), the continental shelf waters of the 
eastern Chukchi Sea have become ice free in late summer, for a period 
ranging from a few weeks up to 2 months. Climate-based models suggest 
that the observed trend of rapid ice loss from continental shelf 
regions of the Chukchi Sea is expected to persist, and perhaps 
accelerate in the future (Douglas 2010).
    Based on telemetry studies, during periods of minimal or no-ice 
cover over continental shelf regions of the eastern Chukchi Sea, we 
expect that most walruses in that subset of the population will either 
migrate out of the region beyond the scope of Industry activities in 
pursuit of more favorable ice habitats (i.e., the western Chukchi Sea), 
or relocate to coastal haulouts where they can rest on land between 
foraging excursions (Jay et al. pers. comm.). Walruses occupying 
coastal haulouts along the Chukchi Sea coast tend to aggregate in large 
dense groups, which are vulnerable to disturbances that can result in 
trampling injuries and mortalities (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011). The 
AOGA petition specifically notes that Industry activities would not 
occur near coastal walrus haulouts. In addition, OCS Lease Sale Area 
193 excluded a 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer zone from the lease area to 
protect sensitive coastal habitats and mitigate potential interactions 
with subsistence hunting activities along the coast. We expect that a 
similar coastal buffer zone would be included in future lease sales in 
the region. Moreover, required mitigation measures for authorized 
activities pursuant to the proposed ITRs expressly forbid operating 
near coastal walrus haulouts (see mitigation measures below). For 
example, all support vessels and aircraft would be required to maintain 
a 1-mile buffer area around groups of walruses hauled out on land. 
Because of these limitations on authorized activities near coastal 
walrus haulouts, we do not expect that any takes would occur at coastal 
haulouts from Industry activities.
    We expect that the density of walruses in offshore, open water 
environments, where most exploration activities are expected to occur, 
will be relatively low. Based on previous aerial survey efforts in the 
region (Gilbert 1999) and satellite tracking of walrus distributions 
and movement patterns in the region (Jay et al. pers. comm.), we expect 
that most walruses in the subset of the overall population in the 
specified geographic region will be closely associated with broken pack 
ice during the open water season. This would limit the exposure of 
walruses to seismic surveys and exploratory drilling operations, where 
we expect them to avoid these areas of broken ice cover in order to 
avoid damaging their equipment. Furthermore, during the open water 
season, walruses could also occupy coastal haulouts when ice 
concentrations are low in offshore regions.
    Telemetry studies investigating the foraging behavior of walruses 
at coastal haulouts indicate that most animals forage within 30 to 60 
km (19 to 37 mi) of coastal haulouts (Fischbach et al. 2010), primarily 
within the 40-km (25-mi) coastal buffer, which is closed to seismic 
surveys and drilling. However, some animals appear to make long 
foraging excursions from coastal haulouts to offshore feeding areas 
near Hanna Shoal (about 180 km, 112 mi from Point Lay, AK) (Jay et al. 
pers. comm.). This movement pattern is also apparent based on walrus 
vocalizations recorded at buoys placed throughout the area in 2010 
(Delarue et al. 2012). Given this observed behavior, we expect that the 
density of walruses in the Hanna Shoal region could be relatively high 
compared with other offshore regions, even during periods of minimal 
sea ice cover. Most of the lease sale blocks in the Hanna Shoal region 
are currently not leased. Based on the significant biological value of 
Hanna Shoal to walrus foraging, and the likelihood of encountering 
large groups of foraging walruses in that area through September, we do 
not anticipate issuing any LOAs for seismic or drilling activity in the 
Hanna Shoal region during the 5-year span of these proposed 
regulations. In recognition of the biological significance of Hanna 
Shoal, BOEM has funded an environmental study of the area to better 
understand the resources available there. The BOEM study will be used, 
in part, by BOEM to determine if it would be appropriate to include or 
exclude areas within Hanna Shoal in future lease sales.
    Authorized Industry activities occurring near Hanna Shoal could 
potentially encounter groups of walruses moving from other areas, 
including coastal haulouts. The timing and movement routes between 
coastal haulouts and offshore foraging areas are not known, and are 
likely to vary from year to year. Although it is difficult to predict 
where groups of moving or feeding walruses are likely to be encountered 
in offshore open water environments, monitoring requirements and 
adaptive mitigation measures are expected to limit interactions with 
groups of walruses encountered in open water habitats. For example, all 
authorized support vessels must employ MMOs to monitor for the presence 
of walruses and other marine mammals. Vessel operators are required to 
take every precaution to avoid interactions with concentrations of 
feeding or moving walruses, and must maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) 
operational exclusion zone around walrus groups encountered in open 
water. Although monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation 
measures are not expected to completely eliminate interactions with 
walruses in open water habitats, they are expected to limit takes to 
relatively small numbers of animals.
    In summary, based upon scientific knowledge of the habitat use 
patterns of walruses in the specified region, we expect the number of 
animals using pelagic waters during the operating season to be small 
relative to the number of animals using habitats preferred by and more 
favorable to walruses (i.e., pack ice habitats and/or coastal haulouts 
and near-shore environments). Industry would not be operating in areas 
with extensive ice cover due to their own operating limitations, and 
therefore Industry activities would avoid preferred walrus habitats. 
Further regulatory restrictions, such as stipulations on activities 
near haulouts, would insure that Industry activities would not occur in 
or near those preferred walrus habitat areas. Moreover, we do not 
anticipate issuing any LOAs for seismic and drilling activities in the 
Hanna Shoal area.
    Most of the proposed oil and gas exploration activity is projected 
to occur in offshore areas under open water conditions where densities 
of walruses are expected to be low. Support vessels

[[Page 1976]]

and aircraft transiting through areas of broken ice habitat where 
densities of walruses may be higher would be required to employ 
monitoring and adaptive mitigation measures intended to reduce 
interactions with walruses. Accordingly, in consideration of the 
habitat characteristics where most exploration activities are expected 
to occur (open-water environments) and specific mitigation measures 
designed to reduce potential interactions with walruses and other 
marine mammals, we expect that interactions would be limited to 
relatively small numbers of animals compared to the number of walruses 
in the specified geographic region as well as the overall population.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
    Holders of a LOA must use methods and conduct activities in a 
manner that minimizes adverse impacts on walruses to the greatest 
extent practicable. Monitoring programs are required to inform 
operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice. Adaptive 
management responses based on real-time monitoring information 
(described in these proposed regulations) would be used to avoid or 
minimize interactions with walruses. Adaptive management approaches, 
such as temporal or spatial limitations in response to the presence of 
walruses in a particular place or time, or in response to the 
occurrence of walruses engaged in a particularly sensitive activity, 
such as feeding, would be used to avoid or minimize interactions with 
walruses. A full description of the mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements associated with LOAs under these proposed 
regulations can be found in Section 18.118 Mitigation, Monitoring, and 
Reporting Requirements in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section. 
Some of the mitigation measures expected to limit interactions with 
walruses would include:
    1. Industry operations are not permitted in the geographic region 
until July 1. This condition is intended to allow walruses the 
opportunity to disperse from the confines of the spring lead system and 
minimize Industry interactions with subsistence walrus hunters.
    2. Vessels must be staffed with MMOs to alert crew of the presence 
of walruses and initiate adaptive mitigation responses when walruses 
are encountered.
    3. Vessels should take all practical measures (i.e., reduce speed, 
change course heading) to maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational 
exclusion zone around groups of 12 or more walruses encountered in the 
water. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to separate members 
of a group of walruses.
    4. Set back distances have been established between walruses and 
vessels to minimize impacts and limit disturbance, 805 m (0.5 mi) when 
walruses are observed on ice and in the water; 1,610 m (1 mi) when 
observed on land.
    5. Set back distances have been established between walruses and 
aircraft to minimize impacts and limit disturbance. No fixed-wing 
aircraft may operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 
805 m of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1 mi) of 
walrus groups observed on land. No rotary winged aircraft (helicopter) 
may operate at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) elevation within 
a lateral distance of 1,610 m (1 mi) of walrus groups observed on land. 
These operating conditions are intended to avoid and mitigate the 
potential for walruses to be flushed from ice floes or land based 
haulouts.
    6. Operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi) 
between all active seismic-source vessels and/or exploratory drilling 
operations to avoid significant synergistic or cumulative effects from 
multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating 
walruses.
    7. Any offshore exploration activity expected to include the 
production of downward-directed, 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.
    8. Trained MMOs must establish acoustically verified exclusion 
zones for walruses surrounding seismic airgun arrays where the received 
level would be >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa in order 
to monitor incidental take.
    9. Whenever 12 or more walruses are detected within the 
acoustically verified 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa disturbance zone ahead of or 
perpendicular to the seismic vessel track, operators must immediately 
power down or shut down 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 operators cannot 
begin powering up the seismic airgun array until it can be established 
that there are no walrus aggregations within the 160-dB disturbance 
zone based upon ship course, direction to walruses, and distance from 
last sighting.
    These proposed monitoring requirements and mitigation measures are 
not expected to completely eliminate the potential for walruses to be 
taken incidental to proposed Industry activities in the region; 
however, they are expected to significantly reduce the number of takes 
and the number of walruses affected. By substantially limiting the 
season of operation and by requiring buffer areas around groups of 
walruses on land, ice, and in open water areas, we conclude that 
mitigation measures would significantly reduce the number of walruses 
incidentally taken by Industry activities.
Pacific Walrus Small Number Conclusion
    Based upon our review of the best scientific information available, 
we conclude that proposed Industry activities described in the AOGA 
petition would impact a relatively small number of walruses both within 
the specified geographical region and at the broader population scale. 
The information available includes the range, distribution, and habitat 
use patterns of Pacific walruses during the operating season, the 
relatively small footprint and scope of authorized projects both within 
the specified geographic region and on a broader scale within the known 
range of this species during the open water season, and consideration 
of monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures intended to 
avoid and limit the number of takes to walruses encountered through the 
course of authorized activities.

Polar Bears

Distribution of Polar Bears During the Open Water Season
    The number of polar bears occupying the specified geographical 
region during the open water exploration season, when the majority of 
Industry activities are anticipated to occur, is expected to be smaller 
than the number of animals distributed throughout their range. Polar 
bears range well beyond the boundaries of the proposed geographic 
region of the ITRs and the Chukchi Sea Lease Sale area. Even though 
they are naturally widely distributed throughout their range, a 
relatively large proportion of bears from the CS population utilize the 
western Chukchi Sea region of the Russian Federation during the open-
water season. Concurrently, polar bears from the SBS population 
predominantly utilize the central Beaufort Sea region of the Alaskan 
and Canadian Arctic during this period. These areas are well outside of 
the geographic region of these

[[Page 1977]]

proposed regulations. Movement data and habitat use analysis of bears 
from the CS and SBS populations suggest that they utilize the ice 
habitat as a platform to survive, by feeding and resting. As the ice 
recedes, the majority of the bears ``move'' with it. A small portion of 
bears can be associated with the coast during the open-water season. In 
addition, open water is not selected habitat for polar bears and bears 
observed in the water likely try to move to a more stable habitat 
platform, such as sea ice or land.
    As stated earlier, though the specified geographic region described 
for these proposed regulations (Figure 1) includes areas of potential 
polar bear habitat, the actual area of Industry activity occurring 
within this region would be relatively small. The entire Chukchi Sea is 
approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\). The area of the specified 
geographic region (Figure 1) is approximately 240,000 km\2\ (92,664 
mi\2\), the lease sale 193 area offered for leases was approximately 
138,000 km\2\ (53,282 mi\2\) with active leases of approximately 11,163 
km\2\ (4,310 mi\2\). The Chukchi Sea is only a portion of the overall 
polar bear range and though most of it contains suitable polar bear 
habitat, some portions are not suitable. However, if we conservatively 
assume that the entire approximately 600,000 km\2\ (231,660 mi\2\) of 
the Chukchi Sea is utilized by polar bears, then the specified 
geographic region (Figure 1) covers approximately 40 percent, the lease 
sale 193 area approximately 23 percent, and current active leases are 
approximately 2 percent of that area, respectively. In any single year, 
and over the 5-year period of the proposed regulations, Industry 
activity would occur only on a portion of the active lease area. 
Additionally, polar bear critical habitat encompasses 519,401 km\2\ 
(200,541 mi\2\) of offshore and onshore habitat in the Chukchi Sea and 
Beaufort Sea regions. The area of individual marine activities is 
expected to comprise a small percentage of the lease area. Vessel 
operations would be operating in habitats where polar bear densities 
are expected to be lowest, that is, open water. Although it is 
impossible to predict with certainty the number of polar bears that 
might be present in the offshore environment of the lease sale area in 
a given year, or in a specific project area during the open water 
season, based on habitat characteristics where most exploration 
activities would occur (open-water environments) and based on 
scientific knowledge and observation of the species, only small numbers 
of polar bears are expected to contact Industry operations, and of 
those, only a small percentage will exhibit behavioral responses 
constituting take.
    Likewise, the number of polar bears expected to be incidentally 
taken by Industry activities is a small proportion of the species' 
abundance. The estimate for Level B incidental take of polar bears is 
based on the past monitoring data from 2006 to 2011; the timing (open-
water season) of the primary, off-shore Industry activities in the 
Chukchi Sea region; and the limited use of the pelagic environment by 
polar bears during the open water season. The estimated total Level B 
incidental take for polar bears is expected to be no more than 25 
animals per year. This is a conservative estimate which takes into 
account that between 2006 to 2011, only 20 polar bears of the 62 polar 
bears documented by Industry exhibited behavioral responses equivalent 
to Level B harassment takes (3.3 Level B takes of bears/year). In 
addition, this number is less than 1 percent of the estimated combined 
populations of the CS and SBS polar bear stocks (approximately 2,000 
and 1,500, respectively). This estimate reflects the low densities of 
polar bears occurring in the Alaska region of the Chukchi Sea during 
the open water period. The majority of interactions between polar bears 
and Industry are expected to occur near the pack ice edge habitat and 
in the terrestrial environment, where this estimate anticipates a 
potential increase of bears interacting with terrestrial facilities 
through the duration of the proposed regulatory period (2013 to 2018).
Habitat Use Patterns in the Specified Geographic Region
    Within the specified geographic region, the number of polar bears 
utilizing open water habitats, where the primary activity (offshore 
exploration operations) would occur, is expected to be small relative 
to the number of animals utilizing pack ice habitats or coastal areas. 
Polar bears are capable of swimming long distances across open water 
(Pagano et al. 2012). However, polar bears remain closely associated 
with primarily sea ice (where food availability is high) during the 
open water season (Durner et al. 2004). A limited number of bears could 
also be found in coastal areas. We expect the number of polar bears 
using pelagic waters during proposed open water exploration activities 
to be very small relative to the number of animals exploiting more 
favorable habitats in the region (i.e., pack ice habitats and/or 
coastal haulouts and near shore environments).
    In addition, a small portion of terrestrial habitat used by polar 
bears may be exposed to Industry activities. As detailed in the 
section, ``Description of Geographic Region,'' terrestrial habitat 
encompasses approximately 10,000 km\2\ (3,861 mi\2\) of the NPR-A. 
Bears can use the terrestrial habitat to travel and possibly den and a 
smaller portion of this habitat situated along the coast could be 
potential polar bear denning habitat. However, the majority of coastal 
denning for the Chukchi Sea bears occurs along the Chukotka coast in 
the Russian Federation, outside of the geographic region. Hence, 
Industry activities operating on the Alaskan coast have the potential 
to impact only a small number of bears. Additionally, where terrestrial 
activities may occur in coastal areas of Alaska in polar bear denning 
habitat, specific mitigation measures would be required to minimize 
Industry impacts.
The Use of Monitoring Requirements and Mitigation Measures
    Holders of an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation 
measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on 
polar bears. Restrictions on the season of operation (July to November) 
for marine activities are intended to limit operations to ice-free 
conditions when polar bear densities are expected to be low in the 
proposed area of Industry operation. Additional mitigation measures 
could also occur near areas important to polar bears, such as certain 
critical habitat. Specific aircraft or vessel traffic patterns would be 
implemented when appropriate to minimize potential impacts to animals. 
Monitoring programs are required to inform operators of the presence of 
marine mammals and sea ice incursions. Adaptive management responses 
based on real-time monitoring information (described in these proposed 
regulations) would be used to avoid or minimize interactions with polar 
bears. For example, in Industry activities in terrestrial environments 
where denning polar bears may be a factor, mitigation measures would 
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 required Industry mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements associated with an LOA can be found in 50 CFR 
18.118. While these regulations describe a suite of general 
requirements, additional mitigation measures could be developed at the 
project level given site-specific parameters or techniques developed in 
the future that could be more

[[Page 1978]]

appropriate to minimize Industry impacts.
Polar Bear Small Number Conclusion
    We anticipate a low number of polar bears at any given time in the 
areas the Service anticipates Industry operations to occur, and given 
the size of the operations and the mitigation factors anticipated, the 
likelihood of impacting individual animals is low. We anticipate that 
the type of take would be similar to that observed in 2006 to 2011, 
i.e., nonlethal, minor, short-term behavioral changes that would not 
cause a disruption in normal behavioral patterns of polar bears. In 
addition, these takes are unlikely to have cumulative effects from year 
to year as the response of bears would be short-lived, behavioral or 
physiological responses, and the same individuals are unlikely to be 
exposed in subsequent years. Overall, these takes (25 annually) are not 
expected to, or not likely to, result in adverse effects that would 
influence population-level reproduction, recruitment, or survival.

Small Number Summary and Conclusion

    To summarize, relative to species abundance, only a small number of 
the Pacific walrus population and the Chukchi/Bering Sea and Southern 
Beaufort Sea polar bear populations would be impacted by the proposed 
Industry activities. This statement can be made with a high level of 
confidence because:
    (1) Pacific walruses and polar bears are expected to remain closely 
associated with either sea ice or coastal zones, predominantly the 
Russian Federation coast, where food availability is high and not in 
open water where the proposed activity will occur.
    (2) Vessel observations from 2006 to 2011 recorded encountering 
11,125 walruses, which is a small percentage of the overall walrus 
population. Of this small percentage of walruses observed, only 2,448 
individuals appeared to have exhibited mild forms of behavioral 
response, such as being attentive to the vessel. During the same 6-year 
period, 62 polar bears were observed, which is a small percentage of 
the overall Alaskan population. Of this small percentage of observed 
polar bears, only 20 individuals exhibited mild forms of behavioral 
response.
    (3) The restrictive monitoring and mitigation measures that would 
be placed on Industry activity would further reduce the number of 
animals encountered and minimize any potential impacts to those 
individuals encountered.
    (4) The continued predicted decline in sea ice extent as the result 
of climate change is anticipated to further reduce the number of polar 
bears and walruses occurring in the specified geographic area during 
Industry activities because neither species prefers using the open 
water environment. This would further reduce the potential for 
interactions with Industry activities during the open-water season.
    In conclusion, given the spatial distribution, habitat 
requirements, and applicable data, the number of animals interacting 
with Industry activities would be small compared to the total Pacific 
walrus and the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear 
populations. Moreover, not all interactions would result in a taking as 
defined under the MMPA, which will reduce the numbers even further.

Negligible Effects Determination

    Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of the 
proposed Industry activities and mitigation measures, and in 
consideration of the best available scientific information, it is our 
determination that the proposed activities would have a negligible 
impact on walruses and on polar bears. We considered multiple factors 
in our negligible effects determination.
    The predicted impacts of proposed activities on walruses and polar 
bears would be nonlethal, temporary passive takes of animals. The 
documented impacts of previous similar Industry activities on walruses 
and polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, provides 
direct information that the Industry activities analyzed for this 
proposed rule are likely to have minimal effects on individual polar 
bears and Pacific walruses. All anticipated effects would be short-
term, temporary behavioral changes, such as avoiding the activity and/
or moving away from the activity. Any minor displacement would not 
result in more than negligible impacts because habitats of similar 
value are not limited to the area of immediate activity and are 
abundantly available within the region. The Service does not anticipate 
that these impacts would cause disruptions in normal behavioral 
patterns of affected animals. The Service predicts the impacts of 
Industry activities on walruses and polar bears would be infrequent, 
sporadic, and of short duration. Additionally, impacts would involve 
passive forms of take and are not likely to adversely affect overall 
population reproduction, recruitment, or survival. The potential 
effects of Industry activities are discussed in detail in the section 
``Potential Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activities on Pacific 
Walruses and Polar Bears.''
    A review of similar Industry activities and associated impacts in 
2006 to 2011 in the Chukchi Sea, where the majority of the proposed 
activities will occur, help us predict the type of impacts and their 
effects that would likely occur during the timeframe of these proposed 
regulations. Vessel-based monitors reported 11,125 walrus sightings 
during Industry seismic activity from 2006 to 2011. Approximately 7,310 
animals exhibited no response to the vessels while 2,448 of the 
walruses sighted exhibited some form of behavioral response to stimuli 
(auditory or visual) originating from the vessels, primarily exhibiting 
attentiveness, approach, avoidance, or fleeing. Again, other than a 
short-term change in behavior, no negative impacts were noted, and the 
numbers of animals demonstrating a change in behavior was small in 
comparison to those observed in the area.
    During the same time, polar bears documented during Industry 
activities in the Chukchi Sea were observed on land, on ice, and in the 
water. Bears reacted to the human presence, whether the conveyance was 
marine, aerial, or ground-based, by distancing themselves from the 
conveyance. In addition, polar bear reactions recorded during 
activities suggested that 65 percent of the bears (45 of 62 individual 
bears) observed elicited no reaction at all to the human presence. 
Thirty-two percent of the bears exhibited temporary, minor changes in 
behavior.
    Mitigation measures would limit potential effects of Industry 
activities. As described in the Small Numbers Determination, holders of 
an LOA must adopt monitoring requirements and mitigation measures 
designed to reduce potential impacts of their operations on walruses 
and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, required monitoring programs to 
inform operators of the presence of marine mammals and sea ice 
incursions, den detection surveys for polar bears, and adaptive 
management responses based on real-time monitoring information 
(described in these proposed regulations) would all be used to avoid or 
minimize interactions with walruses and polar bears and therefore limit 
Industry effects on these animals. First, restricting Industry 
activities to the open water season (July to November) would insure 
that walruses reach preferred summering areas without interference and 
polar bears are able to exploit sea ice habitats in active lease sale 
areas. Second, MMOs on all

[[Page 1979]]

vessels would inform the bridge when animals are observed; identify 
their location and distance; and identify situations when seismic 
survey shutdowns, course changes, and speed reductions are needed to 
maintain specified separation distances designed to avoid take. Third, 
the data collected by MMOs about encounters would be used to refine 
mitigation measures, if needed. Fourth, standard operation procedures 
for aircraft (altitude requirements and lateral distance separation) 
are also designed to avoid disturbance of walruses and polar bears.
    We conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely to occur as 
a result of carrying out any of the activities described under these 
proposed regulations would have no more than negligible impacts on 
walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea region, and we do not 
expect any resulting disturbances to negatively impact the rates of 
recruitment or survival for the Pacific walrus and polar bear 
populations. As described in detail previously, we expect that only 
small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears would be exposed to 
Industry activities. We expect that individual Pacific walruses and 
polar bears that are exposed to Industry activity would experience only 
short-term, temporary, and minimal changes to their normal behavior. 
These proposed regulations would not authorize lethal take, and we do 
not anticipate any lethal take would occur.

Findings

    We propose the following findings regarding this action:

Small Numbers

    The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to 
result from the effects of the proposed activities, as mitigated 
through this proposed regulatory process, would be limited to small 
numbers of walruses and polar bears relative to species abundance. In 
making this finding the Service developed a ``small numbers'' analysis 
based on: (a) The seasonal distributions and habitat use patterns of 
walruses and polar bears in the Chukchi Sea; (b) the timing, scale, and 
habitats associated with the proposed Industry activities and the 
limited potential area of impact in open water habitats, and (c) 
monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to limit 
interactions with, and impacts to, polar bears and walruses. We 
concluded that only a subset of the overall walrus population would 
occur in the specified geographic region and that a small proportion of 
that subset would encounter Industry operations. In addition, only a 
small proportion of the relevant stocks of polar bear and Pacific 
walruses will would likely be impacted by any individual project 
because: (1) The proportion of walruses and polar bears in the U.S. 
portion of the Chukchi Sea during the open water season is relatively 
small compared to numbers of walruses and polar bears found outside the 
region; (2) within the specified geographical region, only small 
numbers of walruses or polar bears will occur in the open water habitat 
where proposed marine Industry activities would occur; (3) within the 
specified geographical region, the scope of marine operations is a 
small percentage of the open water habitat in the region; (4) based on 
monitoring information, only a portion of the animals in the vicinity 
of the industrial activities are likely to be affected; and (5) the 
required monitoring requirements and mitigation measures described 
below would further reduce impacts.
    The number of animals likely to be affected is small, because: (1) 
A small proportion of the Pacific walrus population or the Chukchi Sea 
and Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear populations will be present in the 
area of proposed Industry activities; (2) of that portion, a small 
percentage would come in contact with Industry activities; and (3) of 
those individuals that may come in contact with Industry activities, 
less than one-third are anticipated to exhibit a behavioral response 
that may rise to the level of harassment as defined by the MMPA.

Negligible Effects

    The Service finds that any incidental take reasonably likely to 
result from the effects of oil and gas related exploration activities 
during the period of this proposed rule in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent 
western coast of Alaska would have no more than a negligible effect, if 
any, on Pacific walruses and polar bears. We make this finding based on 
the best scientific information available including: (1) The results of 
monitoring data from our previous regulations (19 years of monitoring 
and reporting data); (2) 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; (3) the analysis of the listing of the 
Pacific walrus as a candidate species under the ESA, and the status of 
the population; (4) the biological and behavioral characteristics of 
the species, which is expected to limit the amount of interactions 
between walruses, polar bears, and Industry; (5) the nature of proposed 
oil and gas Industry activities; (6) the potential effects of Industry 
activities on the species, which would not impact the rates of 
recruitment and survival of polar bears and walruses in the Chukchi Sea 
Region; (7) the documented impacts of Industry activities on the 
species, where nonlethal, temporary, passive takes of animals occur, 
taking into consideration cumulative effects; (8) potential impacts of 
declining sea ice due to climate change, where both walruses and polar 
bears can potentially be redistributed to locations outside the areas 
of Industry activity due to their fidelity to sea ice; (9) mitigation 
measures that would minimize Industry impacts through adaptive 
management; and (10) other data provided by monitoring activities 
through the incidental take program in the Beaufort Sea (1993 to 2011) 
and in the Chukchi Sea (1989 to 1996 and 2006 to 2011).
    In making these findings, we considered the following:
    (1) The distribution of the species (through 10 years of aerial 
surveys and studies of feeding ecology, and analysis of pack ice 
position and Pacific walrus and polar bear distribution);
    (2) The biological characteristics of the species (through harvest 
data, biopsy information, and 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;
    (7) The potential impacts of climate change, where both walruses 
and polar bears can potentially be displaced from preferred habitat;
    (8) 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

[[Page 1980]]

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 a 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)].

    We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas Industry activities on 
polar bears and 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 walruses and polar bears, we conclude that any 
incidental take reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as 
a result of proposed activities would have a negligible impact on polar 
bear and Pacific walrus populations. Furthermore, we do not expect 
these disturbances to affect the annual rates of recruitment or 
survival for the walrus and polar bear populations. These proposed 
regulations would not authorize lethal take, and we do not anticipate 
any lethal take would occur.
    The probability of an exploratory oil spill that would cause 
significant impacts to walruses and polar bears appears to be extremely 
low during the 5-year timeframe of the proposed regulations. 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.
    Our finding of ``negligible impact'' applies to incidental take 
associated with the petitioner's oil and gas exploration 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 
would 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. A 
complete list and description of conditions attached to all LOAs is 
found at the end of this document in the proposed changes to 50 CFR 
18.118. Examples of conditions include, but are not limited to: (1) 
These regulations would not authorize intentional taking of polar bear 
or 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 and 
walrus interaction plan. We may add additional measures depending upon 
site specific and species specific concerns. 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 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 walrus and 
polar bear habitat because seasonal changes, such as extended duration 
of open water, may preclude sea ice habitat use and restrict some 
animals to coastal areas. The reduction of sea ice extent, caused by 
climate change, may also affect the timing of walrus and 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 Hudson Bay, Canada. Climate change could also 
alter terrestrial denning habitat through coastal erosion brought about 
by accelerated wave action. The challenge will be predicting changes in 
ice habitat, barrier islands, and coastal habitats in relation to 
changes in polar bear and walrus distribution and use of habitat.
    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 Chukchi Sea walrus and polar bear populations. As we 
gain a better understanding of climate change effects on the Chukchi 
Sea 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 and walrus habitat use, 
reproduction, and survival relative to a changing sea ice environment. 
Specific objectives of the project include: An enhanced understanding 
of walrus and polar bear habitat availability and quality influenced by 
ongoing climate changes and the response by polar bears and walruses; 
the effects of walrus and 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.

Impact on Subsistence Take

    Based on the best scientific information available and the results 
of harvest data, including affected villages, the number of animals 
harvested, the season of the harvests, and the location of hunting 
areas, we find that the effects of the proposed exploration activities 
in the Chukchi Sea region would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for 
subsistence uses during the period of the proposed rule. In making this 
finding, we considered the following: (1) Historical data regarding the 
timing and location of harvests; (2) effectiveness of mitigation 
measures stipulated by Service regulations for obtaining an LOA at 50 
CFR 18.118, which includes requirements for community consultations and 
POCs, as appropriate, between the applicants and affected Native 
communities; (3) the BOEM/BSEE issued operational permits; (4) records 
on subsistence harvest from the Service's Marking, Tagging, and 
Reporting Program; (5) community consultations; (6) effectiveness of 
the POC process between Industry and affected Native communities; and 
(7) anticipated 5-year effects of proposed Industry activities on 
subsistence hunting.
    Applicants must use methods and conduct activities identified in 
their LOAs 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. 
Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to us that 
community consultations have occurred and that an adequate POC has been 
presented to the subsistence communities. Industry would be required to 
contact subsistence

[[Page 1981]]

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 walruses are minimized. 
Documentation of all consultations must be included in LOA 
applications. Documentation must include meeting minutes, a summary of 
any concerns identified by community members, and the applicant's 
responses to identified concerns. If community concerns suggest that 
the proposed activities could have an adverse impact on the subsistence 
uses of these species, conflict avoidance issues must be addressed 
through a POC. The POC would help ensure that oil and gas activities 
would continue not to have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses.
    Where prescribed, holders of LOAs must have a POC on file with the 
Service and on site. The POC must address how applicants will work with 
potentially affected Native communities and what actions will be taken 
to avoid interference with subsistence hunting opportunities for 
walruses and polar bears. The POC must include:
    1. A description of the procedures by which the holder of the LOA 
will work and consult with potentially affected subsistence hunters.
    2. 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.
    The Service will review the POC to ensure 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 
that marine mammals will remain available for subsistence use.
    The Service has not received any reports and is aware of no 
information that indicates that polar 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 the proposed oil and gas activity. If there is evidence during the 
5-year period of the proposed regulations that oil and gas activities 
are affecting the availability of walruses or polar bears for take for 
subsistence uses, we would 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 and 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 would 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 would 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 would 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 bears 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 regulations are consistent with the Bilateral Agreement for the 
Conservation and Management of the Polar Bear between the United States 
and the Russian Federation. 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 proposed 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 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.
Clarity of the Rule
    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized:
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly

[[Page 1982]]

written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where 
you feel tables would be useful, etc.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations

    We have prepared a draft EA in conjunction with this proposed 
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 EA, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search 
for Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043 or contact the individual identified 
above in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    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. Sections 
7(a)(1) and 7(a)(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. In addition, the status of walruses rangewide was 
reviewed for potential listing under the ESA. The listing of walruses 
was found to be warranted, but precluded due to higher priority listing 
actions (i.e., walrus is a candidate species) on February 10, 2011 (76 
FR 7634). Consistent with our statutory obligations, the Service's 
Marine Mammal Management Office has initiated an intra-Service section 
7 consultation regarding the effects of these proposed regulations on 
the polar bear with the Service's Fairbanks' Ecological Services Field 
Office. Consistent with established agency policy, we will also conduct 
a conference regarding the effects of these proposed regulations on the 
Pacific walrus. We will complete the consultation and conference prior 
to finalizing these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The OIRA 
has determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainly, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.
    Expenses would be related to, but not necessarily limited to, the 
development of applications for LOAs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting activities conducted during Industry oil and gas operations, 
development of polar bear interaction plans, and coordination with 
Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on subsistence 
hunting. Compliance with the rule, if adopted, is not expected to 
result in additional costs to Industry that it has not already been 
subjected to for the previous 7 years. Realistically, these costs are 
minimal in comparison to those related to actual oil and gas 
exploration, development, and production operations. The actual costs 
to Industry to develop the petition for promulgation of regulations and 
LOA requests probably does not exceed $500,000 per year, short of the 
``major rule'' threshold that would require preparation of a regulatory 
impact analysis.

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 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 U.S. based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also determined that this rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed analysis for this rule 
is available from the individual identified above in the section FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Takings Implications

    This rule does not have takings implications under Executive Order 
12630 because it proposes to authorize the nonlethal, incidental, but 
not intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas 
Industry companies and thereby would exempt these companies from civil 
and criminal liability as long as they operate in compliance with the 
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 impact summary 
statement 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 would 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 proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of 
$100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or 
private entities. This rule would 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,

[[Page 1983]]

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. In 
accordance with Secretarial Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 [Endangered 
Species Act and Subsistence Uses in Alaska (Supplement to Secretarial 
Order 3206)], Department of the Interior Memorandum of January 18, 2001 
(Alaska Government-to-Government Policy), Department of the Interior 
Secretarial Order 3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal Consultation and 
Policy), and the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, June 28, 1994, we acknowledge our responsibilities to work 
directly with Alaska Natives in developing programs for healthy 
ecosystems, to seek their full and meaningful participation in 
evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for listed species, to 
remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information 
available to Tribes. We have evaluated possible effects on federally 
recognized Alaska Native tribes. Through the LOA process identified in 
the proposed regulations, Industry presents a communication process, 
culminating in a POC, if warranted, 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), the 
Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), and Qayassiq Walrus Commission (QWC). 
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, QWC, 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 NSB 
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 
proposed 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 proposed 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 I, 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 proposed rule 
would provide exceptions from the taking prohibitions of the MMPA for 
entities engaged in the exploration of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea 
and adjacent coast of Alaska. By providing certainty regarding 
compliance with the MMPA, this rule would have a positive effect on 
Industry and its activities. Although the rule would require 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

    A list of the references cited in this rule is available on the 
Federal eRulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov) under Docket 
No. FWS-R7-ES-2012-0043.

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.

Proposed 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 to be effective June 11, 2013, to June 11, 2018, as 
set forth below.

PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

0
1. The authority citation of 50 CFR part 18 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
2. Amend part 18 by adding a new subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears 
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea and 
Adjacent Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.111 What specified activities does this subpart cover?
18.112 In what specified geographic region does this subpart apply?
18.113 When is this subpart effective?
18.114 How do I obtain a Letter of Authorization?
18.115 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate Letter of 
Authorization requests?
18.116 What does a Letter of Authorization allow?
18.117 What activities are prohibited?
18.118 What are the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements?
18.119 What are the information collection requirements?

Subpart I--Nonlethal Taking of Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears 
Incidental to Oil and Gas Exploration Activities in the Chukchi Sea 
and Adjacent Coast of Alaska


Sec.  18.111  What specified activities does this subpart cover?

    Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but 
not intentional, take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and polar 
bears by you (U.S. citizens as defined in Sec.  18.27(c)) while engaged 
in oil and gas exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea and adjacent 
western coast of Alaska.


Sec.  18.112  In what specified geographic region does this subpart 
apply?

    This subpart applies to the specified geographic region defined as 
the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean adjacent to western Alaska. 
This area

[[Page 1984]]

includes the waters (State of Alaska and Outer Continental Shelf 
waters) and seabed of the Chukchi Sea, which encompasses all waters 
north and west of Point Hope (68[deg]20'20'' N, -166[deg]50'40 W, BGN 
1947) to the U.S.-Russia Convention Line of 1867, west 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. The region also 
includes the terrestrial coastal land 25 miles inland between the 
western boundary of the south National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) 
near Icy Cape (70[deg]20'00'' N, -148[deg]12'00 W) and the north-south 
line from Point Barrow. This terrestrial region encompasses a portion 
of the Northwest and South Planning Areas of the NPR-A. Figure 1 shows 
the area where this subpart applies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA13.000

Sec.  18.113  When is this subpart effective?

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


Sec.  18.114  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 activity in 
the specified geographic region described in Sec.  18.112 that may 
cause the taking of Pacific walruses (walruses) or polar bears and you 
want nonlethal incidental take authorization under this rule, you must 
apply for a Letter of Authorization for each exploration activity. You 
must submit the application for authorization to our Alaska Regional 
Director (see 50 CFR 2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to the 
start of the proposed activity.
    (c) Your application for a Letter of Authorization must include the 
following information:
    (1) A description of the activity, the dates and duration of the 
activity, the specific location, and the estimated area affected by 
that activity, i.e., a plan of operation.
    (2) A site-specific plan to monitor and mitigate the effects of the 
activity on 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

[[Page 1985]]

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. An interaction plan for each operation will outline 
the steps the applicant will take to limit animal-human interactions, 
increase site safety, and minimize impacts to marine mammals.
    (4) A record of community consultation or a Plan of Cooperation 
(POC) to mitigate potential conflicts between the proposed activity and 
subsistence hunting, when necessary. Applicants must consult with 
potentially affected subsistence communities along the Chukchi Sea 
coast (Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow) and appropriate 
subsistence user organizations (the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the 
Alaska Nanuuq Commission) to discuss the location, timing, and methods 
of proposed operations and support activities and to 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 and a record of community 
consultation. Documentation must include a summary of any concerns 
identified by community members and hunter organizations, and the 
applicant's responses to identified concerns. Mitigation measures are 
described in Sec.  18.118.


Sec.  18.115  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 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 if we determine that an emergency exists 
that poses a significant risk to the well-being of species or stocks of 
Pacific walruses or polar bears.


Sec.  18.116  What does a Letter of Authorization allow?

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


Sec.  18.117  What activities are prohibited?

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


Sec.  18.118  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 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 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.  18.114(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) 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 an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of walruses or polar bears observed on 
ice. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, should any vessel 
approach within 1,610 m (1 mi) of groups of walruses observed on land 
or within an 805-m (0.5-mi) radius of polar bears observed on land.
    (iii) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid 
harassment of concentrations of feeding walruses

[[Page 1986]]

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 groups of 12 or more walruses encountered in the water. 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 must avoid areas of active or anticipated 
subsistence hunting for walrus or polar bear as determined through 
community consultations.
    (vi) We may require a monitor on the site of the activity or on 
board drillships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support 
vessels or vehicles to monitor the impacts of Industry's activity on 
polar bear and Pacific walruses.
    (3) 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 fixed 
wing aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 
805 m (0.5 mi) of walrus groups observed on ice, or within 1,610 m (1 
mi) of walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other 
than an emergency, should rotary winged aircraft (helicopters) operate 
at an altitude lower than 914 m (3,000 ft) within 1,610 m (1 mi) of 
walrus groups observed on land. Under no circumstances, other than an 
emergency, should aircraft operate at an altitude lower than 457 m 
(1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of 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 
457-m (1,500-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when 
cloud cover is low, aircraft may be operated below the required 
altitudes stipulated above. However, when aircraft are operated at 
altitudes below 457 m (1,500 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.
    (4) Additional mitigation measures for offshore exploration 
activities.
    (i) Offshore exploration activities will be authorized only during 
the open water season, defined as the period July 1 to November 30. 
Exemption waivers to the specified open water season 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.
    (ii) To avoid significant additive and synergistic effects from 
multiple oil and gas exploration activities on foraging or migrating 
walruses, operators must maintain a minimum spacing of 24 km (15 mi) 
between all active seismic source vessels and/or exploratory drilling 
operations. No more than two simultaneous seismic operations and three 
offshore exploratory drilling operations will be authorized in the 
Chukchi Sea region at any time.
    (iii) No offshore exploration activities will be authorized within 
a 64-km (40-mi) radius of the communities of Barrow, Wainwright, Point 
Lay, or Point Hope, unless provided for in a Service-approved, site-
specific Plan of Cooperation as described in paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section.
    (iv) Aerial monitoring surveys or an equivalent monitoring program 
acceptable to the Service will be required to estimate the number of 
walruses and polar bears in a proposed project area.
    (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/Shutdown. Immediately power down or shutdown 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 shutdown the seismic airgun array and/or other acoustic 
sources.
    (iv) Emergency shutdown. 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 shutdown 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

[[Page 1987]]

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) Additional mitigation measures for onshore exploration 
activities.
    (i) Polar bear monitors. 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.
    (ii) Efforts to minimize disturbance around known polar bear dens. 
As part of potential terrestrial activities during the winter season, 
holders of a Letter of Authorization must take efforts to limit 
disturbance around known polar bear dens.
    (A) 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 to 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 exploration 
activities.
    (B) 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 to 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.
    (7) 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 hunting of walrus and polar bear 
caused by the location, timing, and methods of proposed operations and 
support activities (see Sec.  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 Plan of Cooperation 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.
    (A) The POC must include:
    (1) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the 
Letter of Authorization will work and consult with potentially affected 
subsistence hunters; and
    (2) 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.
    (B) 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 siting, 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) 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 concerning 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.
    (i) The marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must enumerate 
the number of walruses and polar bears encountered during specified 
exploration activities, estimate the number of incidental takes that 
occurred during specified exploration activities (i.e., document 
immediate behavioral responses as well as longer term when possible), 
and evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed mitigation measures. The 
Service needs comprehensive observations to determine if encounters 
with Industry activities have a negligible impact. This not only 
includes the type of behavioral response, but also the duration of the 
response until previous behaviors are resumed. Ideally, this will 
involve a random sampling of individuals and observations of those 
individuals prior to, during, and following an encounter. This may 
require the use of additional vessels or aircraft or telemetry 
equipment to track animals encountered for extended periods of time. 
For example, resting walruses flushed from an ice floe would need to be 
tracked until they subsequently hauled out on the ice to rest. In 
addition, such a project could involve both opportunistic data 
collection (during the course of normal activities) and planned 
experimentation.
    (ii) Applicants must fund an independent peer review of proposed 
monitoring plans and draft reports of monitoring results. This peer 
review will consist of independent reviewers

[[Page 1988]]

who have knowledge and experience in statistics, marine mammal 
behavior, and the type and extent of the proposed operations. The 
applicant will provide the results of these peer reviews to the Service 
for consideration in final approval of monitoring plans and final 
reports. The Service will distribute copies of monitoring reports to 
appropriate resource management agencies and co-management 
organizations.
    (3) Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State, 
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas exploration 
activities in the Chukchi 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. These monitoring and research efforts must employ 
rigorous study designs (e.g., before-after, control-impact [BACI]) and 
sampling protocols (e.g., ground-truthed remote sensing) in order to 
provide useful information. Information needs in the Chukchi Sea 
include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Distribution, abundance, movements, and habitat use patterns of 
walruses and polar bears in offshore environments;
    (ii) Patterns of subsistence hunting activities by the Native 
Villages of Kivalina, Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, and Barrow for 
walruses and polar bears;
    (iii) Immediate and longer term (when possible) behavioral and 
other responses of walruses and polar bears to seismic airguns, 
drilling operations, vessel traffic, and fixed wing aircraft and 
helicopters;
    (iv) Contaminant levels in walruses, polar bears, and their prey;
    (v) Cumulative effects of multiple simultaneous operations on 
walruses and polar bears; and
    (vi) Oil spill risk assessment for the marine and shoreline 
environment of walruses, polar bears, their prey, and important habitat 
areas (e.g., coastal haulouts and den sites).
    (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) In-season monitoring reports.
    (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 hours 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, sex, and age of walruses (if determinable);
    (C) Observer name, company name, vessel name or aircraft number, 
LOA number, and contact information;
    (D) Weather, visibility, and ice conditions at the time of 
observation;
    (E) Estimated distance from the animal or group when initially 
sighted, at closest approach, and end of the encounter;
    (F) Industry activity at time of sighting and throughout the 
encounter. If a seismic survey, record the estimated radius of the zone 
of ensonification;
    (G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting, any change in behavior 
during the observation period, and distance from the observers 
associated with those behavioral changes;
    (H) Detailed description of the encounter;
    (I) Duration of the encounter;
    (J) Duration of any behavioral response (e.g., time and distance of 
a flight response) and;
    (K) 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, sex, and age of bears (if determinable);
    (C) Observer name, company name, vessel name, LOA number, 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/or vessel/facilities;
    (F) Industry activity at time of sighting, and possible attractants 
present;
    (G) Behavior of animals at initial sighting and after contact;
    (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 to the Service within 24 hours:
    (A) Any incidental lethal take or injury of a polar bear or walrus; 
and
    (B) Observations of walruses or polar bears within prescribed 
mitigation monitoring zones.
    (2) 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 of each vessel and 
aircraft;
    (ii) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability 
of walruses and polar bears by specified monitoring;
    (iii) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of 
walrus and polar bear sightings in relation to date, location, ice 
conditions, and operational state;
    (iv) Estimates of take based on the number of animals encountered/
kilometer of vessel and aircraft operations by behavioral response (no 
response, moved away, dove, etc.), and animals encountered per day by 
behavioral response for stationary drilling operations; and
    (v) Raw data in electronic format (i.e., Excel spreadsheet) as 
specified by the Service in consultation with Industry representatives.


Sec.  18.119  What are the information collection requirements?

    (a) 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.
    (2) Monitor impacts of activities conducted under the Letters of 
Authorization.
    (b) You should direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any

[[Page 1989]]

other aspect of this requirement to the Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 
Interior, Mail Stop 2042-PDM, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-31347 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P