[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52276-52320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18583]



[[Page 52275]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 151

August 5, 2016

Part VII





 Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 18





Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 52276]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0060; FF07CAMM00FXFR133707REG01167]
RIN 1018-BA99


Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 
as amended, and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, finalize incidental take regulations (ITR) that 
authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small 
numbers of Pacific walruses and polar bears during oil and gas industry 
activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 
Industry operations include similar types of activities covered by the 
previous 5-year Beaufort Sea ITRs effective from August 3, 2011, 
through August 3, 2016. This rule is also effective for 5 years from 
the date of issuance.

DATES: This rule is effective August 5, 2016, and remains effective 
through August 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may view this rule, the associated environmental 
assessment, biological opinion, comments received, and other supporting 
material at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-
0060.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Putnam, Marine Mammals 
Management Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor 
Road, MS-341, Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3844, or Email: 
[email protected]. 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

    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), finalize incidental take regulations 
(ITR) 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) 
activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 
Industry operations include similar types of activities covered by the 
previous 5-year Beaufort Sea ITRs effective from August 3, 2011, 
through August 3, 2016, and found in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) in part 18, subpart J. This rule will be effective 
for 5 years from the date of issuance.
    This rule sets forth permissible methods of incidental nonlethal 
taking, mitigation measures designed to ensure the least practicable 
adverse impacts upon these species and their habitats, and requirements 
for monitoring and reporting. This rule is based on our findings that 
the total takings of Pacific walruses (walruses) and polar bears during 
Industry activities will impact only 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. We base our findings on data from 
monitoring the encounters and interactions between these species and 
Industry; research on these species; oil spill risk assessments; 
potential and documented Industry effects on these species; information 
regarding the natural history and conservation status of walruses and 
polar bears; and data reported from Alaska Native subsistence hunters. 
Compliance with the rule is not expected to result in additional costs 
to Industry that it has not already been subjected to during all 
previous ITRs for this area. These costs are minimal in comparison to 
those related to actual Industry operations. We also prepared an 
environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA requirements for 
this rulemaking and made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

Effective Date

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find that we have good 
cause to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication 
(see DATES). Making this rule effective immediately upon publication 
will ensure that Industry implements mitigation measures and monitoring 
programs in the geographic region that reduce the risk of lethal and 
nonlethal effects to polar bears and Pacific walruses by Industry 
activities.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing these final regulations for the Pacific walrus and 
polar bear, we reviewed and considered comments and information from 
the public on our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 
June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36664). We also reviewed and considered comments 
and information from the public for our EA. Based on those 
considerations we are finalizing these regulations with the following 
changes from our proposed rule:
    In this final rule, we have:
    1. Revised text throughout the document referring to Industry 
activity as ``proposed'' or ``lawful'' to simply state Industry 
activity.
    2. Revised text in the ``Background'' section clarifying the 
meaning of the term ``least practicable adverse impacts.''
    3. Revised text clarifying when a Plan of Cooperation will be 
required in the ``Description of Plans of Cooperation (POCs)'' section.
    4. Revised text clarifying Caelus Energy Alaska, LLC's Oooguruk 
production activities, Nuna development activities, and Tulimaniq 
exploration activities in the ``Description of Activities'' section.
    5. Revised text citing recent scientific findings in the ``Climate 
Change'' section.
    6. Revised text in the ``Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and 
Polar Bears'' section clarifying how we addressed the least practicable 
adverse impacts requirement by adding a subsection titled ``Least 
Practicable Adverse Impacts Determination.''
    7. Revised text in the ``Findings'' section clarifying how we 
addressed the least practicable adverse impacts requirement by adding a 
subsection titled ``Least Practicable Adverse Impacts.''
    8. Revised text clarifying the meaning of the term ``small 
numbers'' in section 18.121 of the regulation.
    9. Revised text in section 18.128(c)(4) clarifying that the 
mitigation measure described is relevant for vessels transiting through 
the Chukchi Sea bound for the Beaufort Sea.

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 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. The Secretary has delegated 
authority for implementation of the MMPA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service). According to the MMPA, the Service

[[Page 52277]]

shall allow this incidental taking if we make findings that the total 
of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period:
    (1) Will affect only small numbers of individuals of these species;
    (2) will have no more than a negligible impact on these species;
    (3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability 
of these species for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives; and
    (4) we issue regulations that set forth:
    (a) Permissible methods of taking,
    (b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
species, their habitat, and the availability of the species for 
subsistence uses, and
    (c) requirements for monitoring and reporting.

If regulations allowing such incidental taking are issued, we may then 
subsequently issue Letters of Authorization (LOAs), upon request, to 
authorize incidental take during the specified activities.
    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).
    The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact'' 
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small takes of 
marine mammals incidental to specified activities) as follows. 
``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.
    Also defined in 50 CFR 18.27 is the term ``small numbers,'' 
however, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small 
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers'' 
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements 
for promulgating ITRs under the MMPA. Instead, for our small numbers 
determination, we estimate the likely number of takes of marine 
mammals, and evaluate if that take is small relative to the size of the 
population or stock.
    The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the 
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For these ITRs, we ensure the least 
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are 
effective in reducing the impact of Industry activities, but are not so 
restrictive as to make Industry activities unduly burdensome or 
impossible to undertake and complete.
    In these ITRs, the term ``Industry'' includes individuals, 
companies, and organizations involved in exploration, development, 
production, extraction, processing, transportation, marketing, 
research, monitoring, and support services of petroleum products, and 
other substantially similar activities. Industry activities may result 
in the taking of walruses and polar bears. The MMPA does not require 
that Industry must obtain incidental take authorization; however, any 
taking that occurs without authorization is a violation of the MMPA. 
Since 1993, the oil and gas industry operating in the Beaufort Sea and 
the adjacent northern coast of Alaska has requested, and we have 
issued, ITRs for the incidental take of walruses and polar bears in 
specified areas during specified activities. For a detailed history of 
our recent Beaufort Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal Register at, 76 FR 
47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006; and 68 FR 66744, 
November 28, 2003. These regulations are at 50 CFR part 18, subpart J 
(Sec. Sec.  18.121 to 18.129).

Summary of Current Request

    On May 5, 2014, the Service received a petition from the Alaska Oil 
and Gas Association (AOGA) on behalf of its members and other 
participating companies to promulgate regulations for nonlethal 
incidental take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears in the 
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska for a period of 5 
years (2016-2021). The anticipated incidental takes would be limited to 
Level B harassment. We received an amendment to the petition on July 1, 
2015. The petition and previous regulations are available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/itr_beaufort.htm. The petition is also 
available at www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0060.
    The AOGA application requests regulations that will be applicable 
to any company conducting oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production activities as described within the application. This 
includes AOGA members and other non-member companies planning to 
conduct oil and gas operations in the specified geographic region. 
Members of AOGA represented in the petition include Alyeska Pipeline 
Service Company, Apache Corporation, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 
(BPXA), Caelus Energy Alaska, LLC, Chevron USA, Inc., Eni Petroleum; 
ExxonMobil Production Company, Flint Hills Resources, Inc., Hilcorp 
Alaska, LLC, Petro Star Inc., Repsol, Shell Exploration & Production 
Company (Shell), Statoil, Tesoro Alaska Company, and XTO Energy, Inc.
    Non-AOGA companies include ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), 
Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation (BRPC), and Arctic Slope Regional 
Corporation (ASRC) Energy Services. The activities and geographic 
region specified in AOGA's request, and considered in these 
regulations, are described in the following sections titled Description 
of Activities and Description of Geographic Region.
    In response to this request, prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 18 subpart J, we have evaluated the level of Industry activities, 
their associated potential effects upon walruses and polar bears, and 
their effects on the availability of these species for subsistence use. 
The information provided by the petitioners indicates that projected 
oil and gas activities over this period will encompass onshore and 
offshore exploration, development, and production activities. The 
Service analyzed the impacts that Industry activities will have on 
walruses and polar bears. In addition, we evaluated the potential for 
oil spills and associated impacts on walruses and polar bears.

Description of the Regulations

    These regulations do not authorize, or ``permit,'' Industry 
activities. Rather, they authorize the nonlethal incidental, 
unintentional take of small numbers of walruses and polar bears 
associated with those activities based on standards set forth in the 
MMPA. The Bureau of

[[Page 52278]]

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement (BSEE), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) are responsible for permitting activities 
associated with Industry activities in Federal waters and on Federal 
lands. The State of Alaska is responsible for permitting Industry 
activities on State lands and in State waters. The regulations include:
     Permissible methods of nonlethal taking;
     Measures designed to ensure the least practicable adverse 
impact on walruses and polar bears and the availability of these 
species for subsistence uses; and
     Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

Description of LOAs

    Under these ITRs, companies, groups, or individuals conducting an 
Industry, or other substantially similar, activity within the specified 
geographic region may request an LOA for the authorized nonlethal, 
incidental, Level B take of walruses and polar bears. We must receive 
requests for LOAs in writing at least 90 days before the activity is to 
begin. Requests must include an operations plan for the activity, a 
walrus and polar bear interaction plan, and a site-specific marine 
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies the procedures to 
monitor and mitigate the effects of the activities on walruses and 
polar bears. We will evaluate each request for an LOA, including plans 
of operation and interaction plans, based on the activity and location. 
We will condition each LOA depending on specific circumstances for the 
activity and location to ensure the activity and level of take are 
consistent with our findings in these ITRs. We will issue an LOA if the 
activity and the level of take caused by the activity are consistent 
with the findings of these ITRs. We must receive an after action report 
on the monitoring and mitigation activities within 90 days after the 
LOA expires.
    The monitoring and mitigation measures included in each LOA will be 
designed to ensure that the effects of Industry activity are both 
negligible and effect the least practicable adverse impacts from 
Industry activities. For example, conditions include, but are not 
limited to: (1) A reminder that LOAs do not authorize intentional 
taking of walruses or polar bears, nor lethal incidental take; (2) 
measures to protect pregnant polar bears during denning activities 
(e.g., den selection, birthing, nurturing of cubs, and departing the 
den site); and (3) the requirement of a site-specific plan of operation 
and a site-specific interaction plan. For more information on 
requesting and receiving an LOA, refer to 50 CFR 18.27.

Description of Plans of Cooperation (POCs)

    A POC is a documented plan with potentially affected subsistence 
hunting communities that describes measures to mitigate potential 
conflicts between Industry activities and subsistence hunting. To 
ensure that Industry activities do not adversely impact subsistence 
hunting opportunities, applicants requesting an LOA must provide the 
Service documentation of communication and coordination with 
potentially affected Alaska Native communities potentially affected by 
the Industry activity and, as appropriate, with representative 
subsistence hunting and co-management organizations, such as the North 
Slope Borough (NSB) and Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC), among others. A 
POC is not always needed, and in many cases communication and 
coordination is sufficient to document community concerns and mitigate 
conflicts whether voluntarily by Industry or through mitigation 
measures in an LOA. We will require a POC in cases where Alaska Native 
communities or representative subsistence hunting organizations express 
a desire for a more formal process and commitment from Industry. We may 
also require a POC in other cases if we are not satisfied with an LOA 
applicant's communication and coordination process, responsiveness to 
community concerns, or subsistence hunting conflict mitigation 
measures. As part of the POC process, Industry representatives engage 
with Native communities to provide information and respond to questions 
and concerns. Industry representatives inquire whether their activities 
will adversely affect the availability of walruses and polar bears for 
subsistence use. If community concerns suggest that Industry activities 
may have an impact on the subsistence uses of these species, the POC 
must document the procedures for how Industry will cooperate with the 
affected subsistence communities and what actions Industry will take to 
mitigate adverse impacts on the availability of walruses and polar 
bears for subsistence uses. We will review these plans and provide 
guidance to ensure compliance with the MMPA. We will not accept POCs if 
they fail to provide adequate measures to ensure that Industry 
activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of walruses and polar bears for subsistence uses.

Description of Geographic Region

    The geographic region covered by the requested ITRs (Beaufort Sea 
ITR region (Figure 1)) encompasses all Beaufort Sea waters east of a 
north-south line through Point Barrow, Alaska (71[deg]23'29'' N., -
156[deg]28'30'' W., BGN 1944), and extending approximately 322 
kilometers (km) (~200 miles (mi)) north, including all Alaska State 
waters and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) waters, and east of that line 
to the Canadian border. The offshore boundary of the Beaufort Sea ITR 
region matches the boundary of the BOEM Beaufort Sea Planning area, 
approximately 322 km (~200 mi) offshore. The onshore region is the same 
north/south line through Point Barrow, extending 40.2 km (25 mi) inland 
and east to the Canning River. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR) is not included in the Beaufort Sea ITR region. The geographical 
extent of the Beaufort Sea ITR region (approximately 29.8 million 
hectares (ha) (~73.6 million acres (ac))) is similar to the region 
covered in previous regulations (approximately 29.9 million ha (~68.9 
million ac)) (76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011). An increase in the 
geographic area of the Beaufort Sea ITR region versus the region set 
forth in previous ITRs (approximately 1.9 million ha (~4.7 million ac)) 
is the result of matching the offshore boundary with that of the BOEM 
Beaufort Sea Planning area boundary.

Description of Activities

    This section summarizes the type and scale of Industry activities 
in the Beaufort Sea ITR region from 2016 to 2021. Year-round onshore 
and offshore Industry activities are anticipated. Planned and potential 
activities considered in our analysis include activities described by 
the petitioners (AES Alaska 2015) and other potential activities 
identified by the Service and deemed substantially similar to the 
activities requested in the petition. During the 5 years that the ITRs 
will be in place, Industry activities are expected to be generally 
similar in type, timing, and effect to activities that have been 
evaluated under the prior ITRs. Due to the large number of variables 
affecting Industry activities, prediction of exact dates and locations 
of activities is not possible. However, operators must provide specific 
dates and locations of activities in their application for an LOA. 
Requests for LOAs for activities and impacts that exceed the scope of 
analysis and determinations for these ITRs will not be issued. 
Additional information is available in the AOGA petition for ITRs at: 
http://www.fws.gov/

[[Page 52279]]

alaska/fisheries/mmm/Beaufort_Sea/
Beaufort%20Sea%20ITR%20Petition_2015.pdf and at www.regulations.gov in 
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2016-0060.

Exploration Activities

    In the Beaufort Sea ITR region, oil and gas exploration occurs 
onshore, in coastal areas, and in the offshore environment. Exploration 
activities may include geological and geophysical surveys consisting 
of: Geotechnical site investigations, reflective seismic exploration, 
vibratory seismic data collection, airgun and water gun seismic data 
collection, explosive seismic data collection, vertical seismic 
profiling, and subsea sediment sampling. Exploratory drilling involves 
construction and use of drilling structures such as caisson-retained 
islands, ice islands, bottom-supported or bottom-founded structures 
such as the steel drilling caisson, or floating drill vessels. 
Exploratory drilling and associated support activities and features may 
include: Transportation to site; setup and relocation of lodging camps 
and support facilities (such as lights, generators, snow removal, water 
plants, wastewater plants, dining halls, sleeping quarters, mechanical 
shops, fuel storage, landing strips, aircraft support, health and 
safety facilities, data recording facilities, and communication 
equipment); building gravel pads; building gravel islands with sandbag 
and concrete block protection; construction of ice islands, pads, and 
ice roads; gravel hauling; gravel mining; road building; road 
maintenance; operating heavy equipment; digging trenches; burying and 
covering pipelines; security operations; dredging; moving floating 
drill units; helicopter support; and conducting ice, water, and flood 
management. Support facilities include pipelines, electrical lines, 
water lines, buildings and facilities, sea lifts, and large and small 
vessels. Exploration activities could also include the development of 
staging facilities; oil spill prevention, response, and cleanup 
activities; and site restoration and remediation. The level of 
exploration activities is similar to levels during past regulatory 
periods, although exploration projects may shift to different 
locations, particularly to the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-
A). During the 5-year regulatory period, exploration activities are 
anticipated to occur in the offshore environment and to continue in the 
existing oilfield units.
BOEM Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales
    BOEM manages oil and gas leases in the Alaska OCS region, which 
encompasses 242 million ha (600 million ac). Of that acreage, 
approximately 26 million ha (~65 million ac) are within the Beaufort 
Sea Planning Area and within the scope of the ITRs. Ten lease sales 
have been held in this area since 1979, resulting in 147 active leases, 
where 32 exploratory wells were drilled. Production has occurred on one 
joint Federal/State unit, with Federal oil production accounting for 
more than 28.7 million barrels (bbl) (1 bbl = 42 U.S. gallons or 159 
liters) of oil since 2001 (BOEM 2015). Details regarding availability 
of future leases, locations, and acreages are not yet available, but 
exploration of the OCS is expected to continue. Lease Sale 242 
previously planned in the Beaufort Sea during 2017 (BOEM 2012) was 
cancelled in 2015. A Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program is planned for 
public comment in 2016 and is expected to propose Beaufort Sea Lease 
Sale 255 for the year 2020 (BOEM 2015).
    Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell) is the majority 
lease holder of BOEM Alaska OCS leases. In 2015 Shell announced that it 
would cease exploration activities on its BOEM Alaska OCS leases for 
the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, it is possible that Shell may 
pursue some sort of exploration activities on its Beaufort Sea BOEM 
Alaska OCS leases or State of Alaska offshore leases during the 5-year 
period of these ITRs. Shell may conduct exploration and/or delineation 
drilling during the open-water Arctic drilling season from a floating 
drilling vessel along with attendant ice management and oil spill 
response (OSR) equipment. For the winter drilling season, Shell may 
conduct drilling from an ice island or bottom-founded structure, along 
with attendant OSR equipment. Shell will provide a detailed exploration 
plan prior to conducting any activities in the Beaufort Sea BOEM Alaska 
lease area.
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska
    The BLM manages the 9.2-million-ha (22.8-million-ac) NPR-A of which 
1.3 million ha (3.2 million ac) occur within the Beaufort Sea ITR 
region. Within this area, the BLM has offered approximately 4.7 million 
ha (~11.8 million ac) for oil and gas leasing (BLM 2013a). Between 1999 
and 2014, 2.1 million ha (5.1-million ac) were sold in 10 lease sales. 
As of January 2015, there were 205 leases amounting to over 0.6 million 
ha (1.7 million ac) leased (BLM 2015). From 2000 to 2013, Industry 
drilled 29 wells in federally managed portions of the NPR-A and 3 in 
adjacent Native lands (BLM 2013b). ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI) 
currently holds a majority of the leased acreage and is expected to 
continue exploratory efforts, especially seismic work and exploratory 
drilling, within the Greater Mooses Tooth and Bear Tooth Units of the 
NPR-A. Other operators, including Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC and NORDAQ 
Energy, Inc. also hold leases in the NPR-A. Caelus Energy Alaska, LLC 
(Caelus) has recently announced acquisition of leases and intentions to 
pursue exploratory drilling and possible development near Smith Bay in 
the Tulimaniq prospect. This exploration phase of the Tulimaniq project 
would include construction of ice pads, ice roads, temporary camps, and 
a temporary ice airstrip. The development phase would include 
construction of ice roads, gravel roads, gravel pads, and camps.
Area-Wide Lease Sales
    The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Oil and 
Gas Division, holds annual lease sales of State lands available for oil 
and gas development. Lease sales are organized by planning area. The 
approximately 0.8 million ha (~2 million ac) Beaufort Sea planning area 
occurs in coastal land and shallow waters along the shoreline of the 
North Slope between the NPR-A and the ANWR (State of Alaska 2015a). It 
is entirely within the boundary of the Beaufort Sea ITR region. The 
North Slope planning area includes tracts located to the south and 
inland from the Beaufort Sea planning area. Of the approximately 2.1 
million ha (~5.1 million ac), 0.8 million ha (2 million ac) occur 
within the Beaufort Sea ITR region. As of August 2015, there were 1,253 
active leases on the North Slope, encompassing 1.1 million ha (2.8 
million ac), and 261 active leases in the State waters of the Beaufort 
Sea, encompassing 284,677 ha (703,452 ac; State of Alaska 2015b). The 
number of acres leased has increased by 25 percent on the North Slope 
and 14 percent in the Beaufort Sea planning areas since 2013. Although 
most of the existing oil and gas development in the Southern Beaufort 
ITR region is concentrated in these State planning areas, the increase 
in leased acreage suggests that exploration on State lands and waters 
will continue during the 2016-2021 ITR period.

Development Activities

    Industry operations during oil and gas development may include 
construction of roads, pipelines, waterlines, gravel pads, work camps 
(personnel, dining, lodging, and maintenance facilities), water 
production and wastewater

[[Page 52280]]

treatment facilities, runways, and other support infrastructure. 
Activities associated with the development phase include transportation 
activities (automobile, airplane, and helicopter); installation of 
electronic equipment; well drilling; drill rig transport; personnel 
support; and demobilization, restoration, and remediation work. 
Industry development activities are often planned or coordinated by 
unit. A unit is composed of a group of leases covering all or part of 
an accumulation of oil or gas. Alaska's North Slope oil and gas field 
primary units include Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, Greater Point 
McIntyre, Milne Point, Endicott, Badami, the Alpine oilfields of the 
Colville River Unit, Greater Mooses Tooth (GMT), Northstar, Oooguruk, 
Nikaitchuq, Liberty, Beechey Point and Point Thomson. In addition, some 
of these fields are associated with satellite oilfields: Tarn, Palm, 
Tabasco, West Sak, Meltwater, West Beach, North Prudhoe Bay, Niakuk, 
Western Niakuk, Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, Sag River, Eider, Sag Delta 
North, Qannik, and others.
Alpine Satellites and Greater Mooses Tooth Units
    Continued expansion of the existing Alpine oilfield within the 
Colville River Unit is planned for the 2016-2021 ITR period. Three new 
drill sites, Colville Delta drill site 5 (CD5, also known as Alpine 
West), GMT-1 (Lookout prospect, formerly CD6), and GMT-2 (Rendezvous 
prospect, formerly CD7) are located in the Northeast NPR-A. The GMT-1 
project would facilitate the first production of oil from Federal lands 
in the NPR-A (although within NPR-A, CD5 is not on Federal land). These 
facilities will connect to existing infrastructure at Alpine via a 
gravel road and four bridges over the Colville River (BLM 2014). 
Development of CD5 is currently under way, and commercial oil 
production began in October 2015. The GMT-1 project has received 
permits, and road, pad, pipeline, and facilities construction is 
anticipated for 2017-2018, but due to permitting delays and low oil 
prices, CPAI has slowed construction plans that would have begun 
production by late 2017 (CPAI 2015). Permitting for GMT-2 has not yet 
been completed, but construction and first production is tentatively 
scheduled for 2019 and 2020. In addition to new drill site development 
in the NPR-A, expansion of existing drill sites in the Colville River 
Unit are also being considered. Additional development infrastructure 
in the area is planned with construction of the Nuiqsut spur road. 
Although the road is not specifically for Industry purposes, it will 
provide access to Alpine workers living in Nuiqsut.
The Colville-Kuparuk Fairway Units
    The region between the Alpine field and the Kuparuk Unit has been 
called the Colville-Kuparuk Fairway (NSB 2014). Within this region, 
Brooks Range Petroleum Corporation (BRPC) has proposed development of 3 
drill sites by 2020 as part of the 13-well Mustang development. An 
independent processing center is proposed at the hub of the Mustang 
Development, but production pipelines will tie into the Kuparuk 
facilities. Approximately 32.2 km (~20 mi) of gravel road and pipeline 
will need to be constructed to tie in the drill sites back to the 
Mustang development and provide year-round access. First production of 
oil is planned for 2016. BRPC has also proposed development within the 
Tofkat Unit southeast of the Alpine oilfield for the years 2020-2021. 
If constructed, the Tofkat gravel pad will cover approximately 6.07 ha 
(~15 ac) and will connect to Alpine infrastructure via an 8-km (5-mi) 
gravel road and pipeline.
    Caelus has begun development of the Nuna prospect within the 
fairway. This project is located at the northeast end, within the 
Oooguruk Unit. Development activities include seismic surveys, 
continued exploratory drilling, drilling production wells, and 
construction of drill pads, roads, and pipeline connections to Kuparuk 
infrastructure.
Kuparuk River Unit
    Spanish oil company, Repsol, has submitted plans for development of 
five potential well locations with a three-well exploration program 
just northwest of the Alpine field. If deemed commercial, a spine-and-
spur road system expanded from these drill sites to existing Kuparuk 
facilities is easily envisaged, along with multiple new drill sites, a 
centralized processing facility, and a network of flow lines tied into 
the Alpine Pipeline System.
    CPAI has pursued ongoing infield and peripheral development at the 
existing Kuparuk River Unit over the past decade and is likely to do so 
into the foreseeable future. Efforts have focused on improving 
technologies, expanding current production, and developing new drill 
sites. Technological advancements have included hydraulic fracturing, 
enhanced oil recovery, coil-tube drilling, and 4-D seismic surveys. Two 
new drill rigs are being brought online in 2016. As of 2015, a new 
drill site ``2S'' in the southwest ``Shark Tooth'' portion of the unit 
is under construction. It will require approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) of 
additional gravel road, pipelines, and power lines. Oil production from 
this well is planned for later in 2016. The ``Northeast West Sak'' 
expansion of the existing ``1H'' drill site is also under way. The 3.8-
ha (9.3-ac) project will accommodate additional wells and is planned to 
be complete in 2017. Oil from these facilities would be routed through 
the Kuparuk facilities to the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Other pad 
expansions and two additional drill sites in the eastern portion of the 
Kuparuk Unit may be developed later this decade to access additional 
oil resources.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
    New development within the Prudhoe Bay Unit is planned to help 
offset declining production from older wells. The newer wells employ 
horizontal and multilateral drilling, improved water and miscible gas 
injection techniques, multi-stage fracturing, and other technologies to 
access oil from sediments with low permeability at the periphery of the 
main oilfield. The BPXA has discussed the possibility of development of 
as many as 200 new wells within the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit area 
during the upcoming decade. Much of this expansion is planned to occur 
as part of the ``West End Development Program.'' Proposed activities in 
this program include drilling 16 new wells, improving capacity of 
existing facilities, adding 25 additional miles of pipeline, 
construction of the first new pad in more than a decade, adding 2 drill 
rigs to the fleet, and expanding 2 additional pads within the unit. 
This program of development has been under way since 2013 and is 
expected to be completed in 2017 or later.
Beechey Point/East Shore Units
    The Beechey Point Unit lies immediately north of the Prudhoe Bay 
Unit near the shore of Gwydyr Bay. The unit operator, BRPC, is planning 
to produce oil from several small hydrocarbon accumulations in and near 
this unit as part of the East Shore Development Project. Existing 
Prudhoe Bay infrastructure will be incorporated with new development to 
access the estimated 26 million bbl of recoverable reserves in the 
Central North Slope region. The East Shore pad will cover approximately 
6.07 ha (~15 ac). An 8.9-km (5.5-mi) gravel road will be constructed to 
provide year-round access to production facilities. Oil will be 
transported via a 1.6-km (1-mi) pipeline from the East Shore pad to

[[Page 52281]]

existing pipelines. Gravel construction is expected to begin in 2018 
with first oil planned for 2020.
Liberty Unit
    Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (Hilcorp) recently assumed operation of the 
Liberty Unit, located in nearshore Federal waters in Foggy Island Bay 
about 17 km (11 mi) west of the Prudhoe Bay Unit. Initial development 
of the Liberty Unit began in early 2009 but was suspended following 
changes in production strategy. The current project concept involves 
production from a gravel island over the reservoir with full on-island 
processing capacity. Support infrastructure would include a 12.9-km (8-
mi) subsea pipeline connecting to the existing Badami pipeline. Pending 
permit approvals, first oil production is expected by 2020 or later. 
This project concept supersedes the cancelled Liberty ultraextended-
reach drilling project.
Point Thomson Unit
    The Point Thomson Unit is located approximately 25 km (~20 mi) east 
of the Liberty Unit and 97 km (60 mi) east of Prudhoe Bay. The 
reservoir straddles the coastline of the Beaufort Sea. It consists of a 
gas condensate reservoir containing up to 8 trillion cubic feet (ft\3\) 
of gas and hundreds of millions of bbl of gas liquids and oil. This 
amount is an estimated 25 percent of the North Slope's natural gas 
reserves and is critical to any major gas commercialization project. 
Operator ExxonMobil is actively pursuing development of a processing 
facility capable of handling 10,000 bbl per day, a pipeline with a 
design capacity of 70,000 bbl per day, a camp, an airstrip, and other 
ancillary facilities. Production began in 2016. All proposed wells and 
supporting infrastructure are located onshore. No permanent roads 
connecting with Prudhoe Bay are currently proposed, but gravel roads 
will connect the infield facilities. Ice roads and barges are used 
seasonally to provide equipment and supplies. Potential full field 
development may include two satellite drill sites, additional liquids 
production, and sale of gas. The timing and nature of additional 
expansion will depend upon initial field performance and potential 
construction of a gas pipeline to export gas from the North Slope.
Natural Gas Pipeline
    Two proposals currently exist for construction of a natural gas 
pipeline to transport natural gas from the Point Thomson and Prudhoe 
Bay production fields. The Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project 
is an Industry-sponsored partnership whose members include BP Alaska 
LNG LLC; ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company; and ExxonMobil Alaska LNG 
LLC. The Alaska LNG project proposes to build a large-diameter (45-106 
centimeters (cm), 18-42 inch (in)) natural gas pipeline from the North 
Slope to Southcentral Alaska. In 2014, the State of Alaska joined in 
the project as a 25 percent co-investor. Since then, the project has 
begun the preliminary front end engineering and design phase, which has 
extended into 2016 with gross spending of more than $500 million. The 
routing of the Alaska LNG project pipeline is from Prudhoe Bay, 
generally paralleling the Dalton Highway corridor from the North Slope 
to Fairbanks. An approximately 56.3-km (~35-mi) lateral pipeline will 
take off from the main pipeline and end at Fairbanks. The main pipeline 
would continue south, terminating at a natural gas liquefaction plant 
near Nikiski. There the remaining hydrocarbons will be condensed for 
export to national and international markets.
    The second partnership, the Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline (ASAP) 
project, was originally planned as a 24-in diameter natural gas 
pipeline with a natural gas flow rate of 500 million ft\3\ per day at 
peak capacity, and is currently considered by many as a backup plan for 
the larger Alaska LNG project. The Alaska Gasline Development 
Corporation in partnership with TransCanada Corp. has led the planning 
effort for ASAP. Production from this pipeline would emphasize in-State 
distribution, although surplus gas would also likely be condensed and 
exported.
    Either project would include an underground pipeline with elevated 
bridge stream crossings, compressor stations, possible fault crossings, 
pigging facilities, and off-take valve locations. Both pipelines would 
be designed to transport a highly conditioned natural gas product, and 
would follow the same general route. As currently proposed, 
approximately 40 km (~25 mi) of pipeline would occur within the 
Beaufort ITR region. A gas conditioning facility would need to be 
constructed near Prudhoe Bay and will likely require one or more large 
equipment modules to be off-loaded at the West Dock loading facility. 
The West Dock facility is a gravel causeway stretching 4 km (2.5 mi) 
into Prudhoe Bay. Shipments to West Dock will likely require 
improvements to the dock facilities including installing breasting 
dolphins to facilitate berthing and mooring of vessels, and raising the 
height of the existing dockhead to accept the large shipments. Dredging 
will be needed to deepen the navigational channel to the dockhead. 
Continued preconstruction project engineering and design work involving 
site evaluations and environmental surveys on the North Slope is likely 
to occur in the 2016-2021 period. Additional early-phase construction 
work could occur during this time but would likely be limited to 
expansion of West Dock beginning in 2020, gravel extraction and 
placement for pads and roads near Prudhoe Bay beginning in 2019, and 
ice-road construction in 2018-2021.

Production Activities

    North Slope production facilities occur between the oilfields of 
the Alpine Unit in the west to Badami and Point Thomson in the east. 
Production activities include building operations, oil production, oil 
transport, facilities maintenance and upgrades, restoration, and 
remediation. Production activities are permanent, year-round 
activities, whereas exploration and development activities are usually 
temporary and seasonal. Alpine and Badami are not connected to the road 
system and must be accessed by airstrips, barges, and seasonal ice 
roads. Transportation on the North Slope is by automobile, airplanes, 
helicopters, boats, rolligons, tracked vehicles, and snowmobiles. 
Aircraft, both fixed wing and helicopters, are used for movement of 
personnel, mail, rush-cargo, and perishable items. Most equipment and 
materials are transported to the North Slope by truck or barge. Much of 
the barge traffic during the open water season unloads from West Dock. 
Maintenance dredging of up to 220,000 cubic yards per year of material 
is performed at West Dock to ensure continued operation.
    Oil pipelines extend from each developed oilfield to the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The 122-cm (48-in) diameter TAPS 
pipeline extends 1,287 km (800 mi) from the Prudhoe Bay oilfield to the 
Valdez Marine Terminal. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company conducts 
pipeline operations and maintenance. Access to the pipeline is 
primarily from established roads, such as the Spine Road and the Dalton 
Highway, or along the pipeline right-of-way.
Colville River Unit
    The Alpine oilfield within the Colville River Unit was discovered 
in 1994 and began production in 2000. CPAI maintains a majority 
interest and is the primary operator. Alpine is currently the 
westernmost production

[[Page 52282]]

oilfield on the North Slope, located 50 km (31 mi) west of the Kuparuk 
oilfield and 14 km (9 mi) northeast of the village of Nuiqsut. 
Facilities include a combined production pad/drill site and 3 
additional drill sites with a total of approximately 180 wells. Pads, 
gravel roads, an airstrip, and processing facilities cover a total 
surface area of 66.8 ha (165 ac). Crude oil from Alpine is transported 
34 mi through a 14-in pipeline to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. An 
ice road is constructed annually between Alpine and the Kuparuk 
oilfield to support major resupply activities. Small aircraft are used 
year-round to provide supplies and crew changeovers; camp facilities 
can support up to approximately 630 personnel.
Oooguruk Unit
    The Oooguruk Unit, operated by Caelus, is located at the north end 
of the Colville-Kuparuk fairway, adjacent to the Kuparuk Unit in 
shallow waters of Harrison Bay. The Oooguruk drillsite is located on a 
6 acre artificial island in the shallow waters of Harrison Bay. A 9.2 
kilometer (5.7 mile) system of subsea flowlines, power cables, and 
communications cables connects the island to onshore support 
facilities. Production began in 2008. Expansion of the drill site in 
the future would increase the working surface area from 2.4 hectare (6 
acres) to 3.8 hectare (9.5 acres). Drilling of additional production 
wells are planned and new injection well technology will be employed. 
Cumulative production was estimated to be 9.8 million bbl as of 2011 
(AOGCC 2013).
Kuparuk River Unit
    The Kuparuk oilfield, operated by CPAI, is Alaska's second-largest 
producing oilfield behind Prudhoe Bay. The gross volume of the oilfield 
has been estimated to be 6 billion bbl; more than 2.5 billion bbl have 
been produced as of 2014 (CPAI 2014). Nearly 900 wells have been 
drilled in the Greater Kuparuk Area, which includes the satellite 
oilfields of Tarn, Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and Meltwater. The total 
development area in the Greater Kuparuk Area is approximately 603 ha 
(~1,508 ac), including 167 km (104 mi) of gravel roads, 231 km (144 mi) 
of pipelines, 6 gravel mine sites, and over 50 gravel pads. The Kuparuk 
operations center and construction camp can accommodate up to 1,200 
personnel.
Nikaitchuq Unit
    The Nikaitchuq Unit, operated by Eni, is north of the Kuparuk River 
Unit. The offshore portion of Nikaitchuq, the Spy Island Development, 
is located south of the barrier islands of the Jones Island group and 
6.4 km (4 mi) north of Oliktok Point. In 2007, Eni became the operator 
in the area and subsequently constructed an offshore gravel pad and 
onshore production facilities at Spy Island and Oliktok Point. The 
offshore pad is located in shallow water (i.e., 3 meters (m) (10 feet 
(ft) deep)). A subsea flowline was constructed to transfer produced 
fluids from shore. The wells require an electrical submersible pump to 
produce oil because they are not capable of unassisted flow. The flow 
can be stopped by turning off the pump. Production began in 2011 at 
Oliktok Point and in 2012 at Spy Island. Cumulative production at the 
end of 2011 was approximately 2 million bbl. A program to expand 
production began in 2015 and is still underway, including drilling of 
20 or more new wells to recover oil from the nearby Schrader Bluff 
reservoirs.
Milne Point Unit
    The Milne Point Unit, operated by Hilcorp, is located approximately 
56 km (~35 mi) northwest of Prudhoe Bay and immediately east of the 
Nikaitchuq Unit. This field consists of more than 220 wells drilled 
from 12 gravel pads. Milne Point produces oil from three main fields: 
Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, and Sag River. Cumulative oil production as of 
the end of 2012 was 308 million barrrels of oil equivalent (BOE, the 
amount of hydrocarbon product containing the energy equivalent of a 
barrel of oil). Average daily production rate in 2012 was 17,539 BOE 
with 114 production wells online. The total gravel footprint of Milne 
Point and its satellites is 182 ha (450 ac). The Milne Point Operations 
Center has accommodations for up to 180 people. An expansion program is 
under way for the Milne Point Unit. It is likely to improve technology 
of existing wells and may also include building a new drill pad, roads, 
and associated wells.
Prudhoe Bay Unit
    The Prudhoe Bay Unit, operated by BPXA, is one of the largest 
oilfields by production in North America and ranks among the 20 largest 
oilfields worldwide. Over 12 billion bbl have been produced from a 
field originally estimated to have 25 billion bbl of oil in place. The 
Prudhoe Bay oilfield also contains an estimated 26 trillion ft\3\ of 
recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 wells are currently in 
operation in the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, approximately 830 of which are 
producing oil (others are for gas or water injection). Average daily 
production in 2012 was around 255,500 BOE.
    The Prudhoe Bay Unit encompasses several oilfields, including the 
Point McIntyre, Lisburne, Niakuk, Western Niakuk, West Beach, North 
Prudhoe Bay, Borealis, Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora, and Orion 
reservoirs. Of these, the largest field by production is the Point 
McIntyre oilfield, which lies about 11 km (7 mi) north of Prudhoe Bay. 
Cumulative oil production between 1993 and 2011 was 436 million bbl 
(AOGCC 2013). In 2014, production at Point McIntyre averaged about 
18,700 bbl of oil per day. The Lisburne field is largest by area. It 
covers about 80,000 ac just northwest of the main Prudhoe Bay field. 
Production was reported as 7,070 bbl per day in 2011, and cumulative 
production was approximately 182 million BOE as of 2014. The Niakuk 
fields have also reached high cumulative yields among the Greater 
Prudhoe Bay area oilfields. Between 1994 and 2011, these fields 
produced about 157 million bbl. In 2014, the combined Niakuk fields 
yielded about 1,200 bbl per day. Orion, Aurora, Polaris, Borealis and 
Midnight Sun are considered satellite fields and were producing more 
than 22,500 bbl per day combined in 2014 (BPXA 2015). In total, Prudhoe 
Bay satellite fields have produced more than 184 million BOE.
    The total development area in the Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately 
2,785 ha (~6,883 ac) within an area of about 86,418 ha (213,543 ac). On 
the east side of the field the main construction camp can accommodate 
up to 625 people, the Prudhoe Bay operations center houses up to 449 
people, and the Tarmac Camp houses 244 people. The base operations 
center on the western side of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can accommodate 
474 people. Additional personnel are housed at facilities in nearby 
Deadhorse industrial center or in temporary camps placed on existing 
gravel pads. Activities in the Prudhoe Bay Unit are likely to emphasize 
greater production of natural gas if a gas pipeline is approved during 
the 2016-2021 ITR period.
Northstar Unit
    The Northstar oilfield, currently operated by Hilcorp, is located 6 
km (4 mi) northwest of the Point McIntyre and 10 km (6 mi) north of the 
Prudhoe Bay Unit in approximately 10 m (~33 ft) of water. It was 
developed by BPXA in 1995, and began producing oil in 2001. The 15,360 
ha (38,400 ac) reservoir lies offshore in waters up to 40 ft deep. A 2-
ha (5-ac) artificial island supports 24 operating wells and all support 
facilities for this field. A subsea pipeline

[[Page 52283]]

connects facilities to the Prudhoe Bay oilfield. As of 2013, production 
had surpassed 158.26 million bbl. The onsite base operations center 
houses 50 people. Access to Northstar is via helicopter, hovercraft, 
boat, and seasonal ice road. Of the existing offshore facilities 
Northstar is located the farthest from shore.
Duck Island Unit
    The Endicott oilfield, operated by Hilcorp, is located in the Duck 
Island Unit approximately 16 km (~10 mi) northeast of Prudhoe Bay. In 
1986 it became the first continuously producing offshore field in the 
U.S. Arctic. The Endicott oilfield was developed from two man-made 
gravel islands connected to the mainland by a gravel causeway. The 
operations center and processing facilities are located on the 24-ha 
(58-ac) main production island approximately 4.8 km (~3 mi) offshore. 
As of August 2013, 501 million BOE have been produced from Endicott. 
Production is from the Endicott reservoir in the Kekiktuk formation and 
two satellite fields (Eider and Sag Delta North) in the Ivishak 
formation. All wells were drilled from Endicott's main production 
island. The total area of development is 210 ha (522 ac) of land 
(including the Liberty satellite drilling island) with 24 km (15 mi) of 
roads, 43 km (24 mi) of pipelines, and 1 gravel mine site. 
Approximately 85 people can be housed at Endicott's Liberty camp.
Badami and Point Thomson Units
    The Badami and Point Thomson units are located in the eastern 
portion of the North Slope and Beaufort Sea planning areas. Production 
from the Badami oilfield began in 1998 and from Point Thomson in 1983, 
but has not been continuous from either unit. The Badami field is 
located approximately 56 km (~35 mi) east of Prudhoe Bay and is the 
most easterly oilfield currently in production on the North Slope. 
Point Thomson, located 4 km (2.5 mi) east of Badami, was not in 
production as of 2016. The Badami development area is approximately 34 
ha (~85 ac) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi) of gravel roads, 56 km 
(35 mi) of pipeline, 1 gravel mine site, and 2 gravel pads with a total 
of eight wells. As of 2011, cumulative production had reached 5.7 
million bbl. There is no permanent road connection from Badami to 
Prudhoe Bay. A pipeline connecting the Badami oilfield to the common 
carrier pipeline system at Endicott was built from an ice road.

Other Activities

Gas Hydrate Exploration and Research
    Growing interest in the North Slope's methane gas hydrate resources 
is expected to continue in the upcoming 5 years. The U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) has estimated the volume of technically recoverable 
undiscovered methane gas hydrate on the North Slope is approximately 85 
trillion ft\3\ (with a range of 25-158 trillion ft\3\ (USGS 2013)). 
Recent gas hydrate test wells drilled on the North Slope have confirmed 
the presence of viable reservoirs and buoyed interest in long-term 
testing. International and Gulf of Mexico test well simulations have 
generated production-level gas yields. Gas hydrate research on the 
North Slope is supported by Federal funding and State initiatives. In 
2013, the State of Alaska temporarily set aside 11 tracts of unleased 
State lands on the North Slope for methane hydrate research. This 
support is expected to result in a continued interest in gas hydrate 
research and exploration, but development of this nonconventional 
hydrocarbon resource is yet unproven and uncertainties regarding 
economic feasibility, safety, and environmental impact remain 
unresolved. For these reasons, a relatively low, but increasing level 
of gas hydrate exploration and research is expected during the 
regulatory period.
Barrow Gas Fields
    The 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; of these, the Walakpa Gas Field and a portion of 
the South Gas Field are located within the boundaries of the Chukchi 
Sea geographical region and, therefore, not discussed here. The East 
Field and part of the South Field are included in the Beaufort Sea ITR 
region.
    The Barrow Gas Fields provide a source of heat and electricity for 
the Barrow community. Drilling and testing of the East Barrow Field 
began in 1974, and regular gas production from the pool began in 
December 1981. Production peaked at about 2.75 million ft\3\ of gas per 
day in 1983, and then began to decline. In 2011 and 2012, NSB increased 
production by drilling five new wells, upgrading pipelines, and 
installing modern wellhead housings. In the winter of 2013, production 
was about 350 million ft\3\ per day. Cumulatively, the field produced 
more than 8.8 billion ft\3\ through July 2013, surpassing the original 
estimate of 6.2 billion ft\3\ of gas in place.
    Although activities within the Barrow Gas Fields were not 
specifically identified by the Applicants, the petition did include 
this area as part of the request for ITRs. Additionally, a portion of 
the Barrow Gas Fields are similarly described in ITRs for the Chukchi 
Sea (78 FR 35364, June 12, 2013), while the remainder is located in the 
Beaufort Sea geographic region. Therefore, as part of this analysis, we 
have included the Barrow Gas Fields in the event that LOAs for 
activities on the Beaufort Sea side of the field are requested. Gas 
production is expected to continue at its current rate during the next 
5 years, and will be accompanied by maintenance and support activities, 
including possible access by air or over land, ice road construction, 
survey work, or on-pad construction.

Evaluation of the Nature and Level of Activities

    Based on the Industry request, we assume that the activities will 
increase the area of the industrial footprint with the addition of new 
facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines, and support facilities at a 
rate consistent with prior 5-year regulatory periods. However, oil 
production volume is expected to continue a long-term decline during 
this 5-year regulatory period despite new development. This prediction 
is due to declining production from currently producing fields. During 
the period covered by the regulations, we assume the annual level of 
activity at existing production facilities, as well as levels of new 
annual exploration and development activities, will be similar to that 
which occurred under the previous regulations, although exploration and 
development may shift to new locations and new production facilities 
will add to the overall Industry footprint. Additional onshore and 
offshore facilities are being considered within the timeframe of these 
regulations, potentially adding to the total permanent activities in 
the area. The rate of progress is similar to prior production 
schedules, but there is a potential increase in the accumulation of the 
industrial footprint, with an increase mainly in onshore facilities.

Biological Information

Pacific Walrus

    Pacific walruses constitute a single panmictic population 
inhabiting the shallow continental shelf waters of the Bering and 
Chukchi seas (Lingqvist et al. 2009, Berta and Churchill 2012). The 
distribution of walruses is largely influenced by the extent of the 
seasonal pack ice and prey densities. From April

[[Page 52284]]

to June, most of the walrus population migrates from the Bering Sea 
through the Bering Strait and into the Chukchi Sea. Walruses tend to 
migrate into the Chukchi Sea along lead systems that develop in the 
sea-ice. Walruses are closely associated with the edge of the seasonal 
pack ice during the open-water season. By July, thousands of animals 
can be found along the edge of the pack ice from Russian waters to 
areas west of Point Barrow, Alaska. The pack-ice usually advances 
rapidly southward in late fall, and most walruses return to the Bering 
Sea by mid- to late-November. During the winter breeding season 
walruses are found in three concentration areas of the Bering Sea where 
open leads, polynyas, or thin ice occur (Fay et al. 1984, Garlich-
Miller et al. 2011a). While the specific location of these groups 
varies annually and seasonally depending upon the extent of the sea-
ice, generally one group occurs near the Gulf of Anadyr, another south 
of St. Lawrence Island, and a third in the southeastern Bering Sea 
south of Nunivak Island into northwestern Bristol Bay.
    Although most walruses remain in the Chukchi Sea throughout the 
summer months, a few occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea in late 
summer. Industry monitoring reports have observed no more than 35 
walruses in the area of these ITRs between 1995 and 2016, with only a 
few instances of disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015, 
Kalxdorff and Bridges 2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Beginning in 2008, the 
USGS, and since 2013 the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), 
have fitted about 30-60 walruses with satellite transmitters each year 
during spring and summer. In 2014, a female tagged by ADF&G spent about 
3 weeks in Harrison Bay (ADF&G 2014). The USGS tracking data indicates 
that at least one instrumented walrus ventured into the Beaufort Sea 
for brief periods in all years except 2011. Most of these movements 
extend northeast of Barrow to the continental shelf edge north of Smith 
Bay (USGS 2015). All available information indicates that few walruses 
enter the Beaufort Sea and those that do spend little time there. The 
Service and USGS are conducting multiyear studies on the walrus 
population to investigate movements and habitat use patterns. It is 
possible that as sea-ice diminishes in the Chukchi Sea beyond the 5-
year period of this rule, walrus distribution and habitat use may 
change.
    Walruses are generally found in waters of 100 m (328 ft) or less 
although they are capable of diving to greater depths. They use sea-ice 
as a resting platform over feeding areas, as well as for giving birth, 
nursing, passive transportation and avoiding predators (Fay 1982, Ray 
et al. 2006). They feed almost exclusively on benthic invertebrates. 
Native hunters have also reported incidences of walruses preying on 
seals, and other items such as fish and birds are occasionally taken 
(Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009, Seymour et al. 2014). Foraging trips may 
last for several days with walruses diving to the bottom nearly 
continuously. Most foraging dives last between 5 and 10 minutes, with a 
1-2-minute surface interval. The activity of foraging walruses disturbs 
the sea floor releasing nutrients into the water column providing food 
for scavenger organisms, contributes to the diversity of the benthic 
community, and is thought to have a significant influence on the 
ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas (Ray et al. 2006).
    Walruses are social and gregarious animals. They travel and haul-
out onto ice or land in groups. Walruses spend approximately 20-30 
percent of their time out of the water. Hauled-out walruses tend to be 
in close physical contact. Young animals often lie on top of adults. 
The size of the hauled out groups can range from a few animals up to 
several thousand individuals. The largest aggregations occur at land 
haulouts. In recent years, the barrier islands north of Point Lay, 
Alaska, have held large aggregations of walruses (20,000-40,000) in 
late summer and fall (Monson et al. 2013).
    The size of the walrus population has never been known with 
certainty. Based on large sustained harvests in the 18th and 19th 
centuries, Fay (1957) speculated that the pre-exploitation population 
was represented by a minimum of 200,000 animals. Since that time, 
population size following European contact is believed to have 
fluctuated markedly in response to varying levels of human 
exploitation. Large-scale commercial harvests are believed to have 
reduced the population to 50,000-100,000 animals in the mid-1950s (Fay 
et al. 1989). The population increased rapidly in size during the 1960s 
and 1970s in response to harvest regulations that limited the take of 
females. The population likely reached or exceeded the food-based 
carrying capacity (K) of the region by 1980 (Fay et al. 1989, Fay et 
al. 1997, Garlich-Miller et al. 2006, MacCracken et al. 2014).
    Between 1975 and 1990, aerial surveys conducted jointly by the 
United States and Russia at 5-year intervals produced population 
estimates ranging from about 200,000 to 255,000 individuals, with large 
confidence intervals. Efforts to survey the walrus population were 
suspended by both countries after 1990 because problems with survey 
methods produced population estimates with unknown bias and unknown 
variances that severely limited their utility. In 2006, the United 
States and Russia conducted another joint aerial survey in the pack ice 
of the Bering Sea using thermal imaging systems to more accurately 
count walruses hauled out on sea-ice and apply satellite transmitters 
to account for walruses in the water. The number of walruses within the 
surveyed area was estimated at 129,000 with 95 percent confidence 
limits of 55,000 to 507,000 individuals. This estimate should be 
considered a minimum, as weather conditions forced termination of the 
survey before large areas of the Bering Sea were surveyed (Speckman et 
al. 2011).
    Taylor and Udevitz (2015) used both the aerial survey population 
estimates described above and ship-based age and sex composition counts 
that occurred in 1981-1984, 1998, and 1999 (Citta et al. 2014) in a 
Bayesian integrated population model to estimate population trend and 
vital rates from 1975-2006. They recalculated the 1975-1990 aerial 
survey estimates based on a lognormal distribution for inclusion in 
their model. Their results generally agreed with the large-scale 
population trends identified by the previous efforts, but with slightly 
different population estimates in some years along with more precise 
confidence intervals. They were careful to note that all of the 
demographic rates in their model were estimated based on age structure 
data from 1981 to 1999, when the population was in decline, and that 
projections outside those years are extrapolations of demographic 
functions that may not accurately reflect dynamics for different 
population trends. Ultimately, they concluded (i) that though their 
model provides improved clarity on past walrus population trends and 
vital rates, it cannot overcome the large uncertainties in the 
available population size data, and (ii) that the absolute size of the 
Pacific walrus population will continue to be speculative until 
accurate empirical estimation of the population size becomes feasible.
    A detailed description of the Pacific walrus stock can be found in 
the Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) Stock Assessment 
Report (announced at 79 FR 22154, April 21, 2014). A digital copy of 
the Stock Assessment Report is available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/Revised_April_2014_Pacific_Walrus_SAR.pdf.

[[Page 52285]]

    Polar bears are known to prey on walruses, particularly calves, and 
killer whales (Orcinus orca) have been known to take all age classes of 
walruses (Frost et al. 1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005). Predation 
rates are unknown but are thought to be highest near terrestrial 
haulout sites where large aggregations of walruses can be found. 
However, few observations exist of predation upon walruses farther 
offshore.
    Walruses have been hunted by coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka 
for thousands of years. Exploitation of the walrus population by 
Europeans has also occurred in varying degrees since beginning with the 
arrival of exploratory expeditions. Commercial harvest of walruses 
ceased in the United States in 1941 and sport hunting ceased in 1972 
with the passage of the MMPA. Commercial harvest of walruses in Russia 
ceased in 1990. Presently, walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka is 
restricted to subsistence use by aboriginal peoples. Harvest mortality 
from 2000-2014 for both the United States and Russian Federation 
averaged 3,207 (SE = 194) walruses per year. This mortality estimate 
includes corrections for under-reported harvest (U.S. only) and struck 
and lost animals. Harvests have been declining by about 3 percent per 
year since 2000 and were exceptionally low in the United States in 
2012-2014. Resource managers in Russia have concluded that the 
population has declined and reduced harvest quotas in recent years 
accordingly (Kochnev 2004; Kochnev 2005; Kochnev 2010; pers. comm.; 
Litovka 2015, pers. comm.), based in part on the lower abundance 
estimate generated from the 2006 survey. However, Russian hunters have 
never reached the quota (Litovka 2015, pers. comm.).
    Intra-specific trauma at coastal haulouts is also a known source of 
injury and mortality (USFWS 2015). Disturbance events can cause 
walruses to stampede into the water and have been known to result in 
injuries and mortalities. The risk of stampede-related injuries 
increases with the number of animals hauled out. Calves and young 
animals are particularly vulnerable to trampling injuries and 
mortality. Management and protection programs in both the United States 
and Russian Federation have been successful in reducing disturbances 
and large mortality events at coastal haulouts (USFWS 2015).
    The Service announced a 12-month petition finding to list the 
Pacific walrus as endangered or threatened and to designate critical 
habitat on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7634). The listing of walruses was 
found to be warranted, but precluded due to higher priority listing 
actions, and the Pacific walrus was added to the list of candidate 
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.). 
We will make a determination whether Pacific walruses shall be listed 
under the ESA by September 2017. If we determine that walruses should 
be listed under the ESA, we will publish a proposed listing in the 
Federal Register and solicit public comments. If walruses are listed 
under the ESA, then designation of critical habitat is required unless 
it is imprudent or indeterminable.

Polar Bear

    Polar bears are found throughout the ice-covered seas and adjacent 
coasts of the Arctic with a current population estimate of 
approximately 26,000 individuals (95 percent Confidence Interval (CI) = 
22,000-31,000) (Wiig et al. 2015). Polar bears live up to 30 years, 
have no natural predators, though cannibalism is known to occur, and 
they do not often die from diseases or parasites. Polar bears typically 
occur at low densities throughout their circumpolar range (DeMaster and 
Stirling 1981). They are generally found in areas where the sea is ice-
covered for much of the year; however, polar bears are not evenly 
distributed throughout their range. They are typically most abundant on 
sea-ice, near the ice edges or openings in the ice, over relatively 
shallow continental shelf waters with high marine productivity (Durner 
et al. 2004). Their primary prey is ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded 
(Erignathus barbatus) seals, although diet varies regionally with prey 
availability (Thiemann et al. 2008, Cherry et al. 2011). Polar bears 
use the sea-ice as a platform to hunt seals. Over most of their range, 
polar bears remain on the sea-ice year-round or spend only short 
periods on land. They may, however, be observed throughout the year in 
the onshore and nearshore environments, where they will 
opportunistically scavenge on beached marine mammal carcasses 
(Kalxdorff and Fischbach 1998). Their distribution in coastal habitats 
is often influenced by the movement of seasonal sea-ice.
    Females can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of age. Females 
without dependent cubs breed in the spring. Pregnant females enter 
maternity dens by late November, and the young are usually born in late 
December or early January. Only pregnant females den for an extended 
period during the winter; other polar bears may excavate temporary dens 
to escape harsh winter winds. On average two cubs are born per 
reproductive event, and, therefore, reproductive potential (intrinsic 
rate of increase) is low. The average reproductive interval for a polar 
bear is 3 to 4 years, and a female polar bear can produce 8-10 cubs in 
her lifetime, in healthy populations, and 50-60 percent of the cubs 
will survive.
    In late March or early April, the female and cubs emerge from the 
den. If the mother moves young cubs from the den before they can walk 
or withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs increases. Therefore, it 
is thought that successful denning, birthing, and rearing activities 
require a relatively undisturbed environment. Radio and satellite 
telemetry studies elsewhere indicate that denning can occur in 
multiyear pack ice and on land. In the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) 
population the proportion of dens on pack ice declined from 
approximately 60 percent from 1985 through 1994 to 40 percent from 1998 
through 2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007). This change is likely in response 
to reductions in stable old ice, increases in unconsolidated ice, and 
lengthening of the melt season (Fischbach et al. 2007). If sea-ice 
extent in the Arctic continues to decrease and the amount of unstable 
ice increases, a greater proportion of polar bears may seek to den on 
land (Durner et al. 2006, Fischbach et al. 2007).
    In Alaska, maternal polar bear dens appear to be less densely 
concentrated than those in Canada and Russia. In Alaska, certain areas, 
such as barrier islands (linear features of low-elevation land adjacent 
to the main coastline that are separated from the mainland by bodies of 
water), river bank drainages, much of the North Slope coastal plain, 
and coastal bluffs that occur at the interface of mainland and marine 
habitat, receive proportionally greater use for denning than other 
areas. Maternal denning occurs on tundra-bearing barrier islands along 
the Beaufort Sea and also in the large river deltas, such as those 
associated with the Colville and Canning rivers.
    During the late summer/fall period (August through October), polar 
bears are most likely to be encountered along the coast and barrier 
islands. They use these areas as travel corridors and hunting areas. 
Based on Industry observations, encounter rates are higher during the 
fall (August to October) than any other time period. The duration of 
time the bears spend in these coastal habitats depends on a variety of 
factors including storms, ice conditions, and the availability of food. 
In recent years, polar bears have been observed in larger numbers than 
previously recorded during the fall period. The remains of

[[Page 52286]]

subsistence-harvested bowhead whales at Cross and Barter islands 
provide a readily available food source for bears in these areas and 
appear to play a role in this increase (Schliebe et al. 2006). Based on 
Industry observations and coastal survey data acquired by the Service, 
up to 125 polar bears have been observed annually during the fall 
period between Barrow and the Alaska-Canada border.
    In 2008, the Service listed polar bears as threatened under the ESA 
due to the loss of sea-ice habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 
28212, May 15, 2008). The Service later published a final rule under 
section 4(d) of the ESA for the polar bear, which was vacated then 
reinstated when procedural requirements were satisfied (78 FR 11766, 
February 20, 2013). This special rule provides for measures that are 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of polar bears. 
Specifically, the 4(d) rule: (a) Adopts the conservation regulatory 
requirements of the MMPA and the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the polar bear 
as the appropriate regulatory provisions, in most instances; (b) 
provides that incidental, nonlethal take of polar bears resulting from 
activities outside the bear's current range is not prohibited under the 
ESA; (c) clarifies that the special rule does not alter the Section 7 
consultation requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies the standard ESA 
protections for threatened species when an activity is not covered by 
an MMPA or CITES authorization or exemption.
    The Service designated critical habitat for polar bear populations 
in the United States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086, December 
7, 2010). On January 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Alaska issued an order that vacated and remanded the polar bear 
critical habitat final rule to the Service (Alaska Oil and Gas 
Association and American Petroleum Institute v. Salazar, Case No. 3:11-
cv-0025-RRB). On February 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the 9th Circuit reversed that order and remanded it back to the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska for entry of judgment in 
favor of FWS (Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell, Case No. 13-
35619).
    Critical habitat identifies geographic areas that contain features 
that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered 
species and that may require special management or protection. Under 
section 7 of the ESA, if there is a Federal action, we will analyze the 
potential impacts of the action upon polar bear critical habitat. Polar 
bear critical habitat units include: 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; it 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 km\2\ (~187,157 
mi\2\), and is entirely within the lands and waters of the United 
States. Polar bear critical habitat is described in detail in the final 
rule that designated polar bear critical habitat (75 FR 76086, December 
7, 2010). A digital copy of the final critical habitat rule is 
available at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/federal_register_notice.pdf.
    Management and conservation concerns for the SBS and Chukchi/Bering 
Seas (CS) polar bear populations include sea-ice loss due to climate 
change, bear-human conflict, oil and gas industry activity, oil spills 
and contaminants, increased marine shipping, increased disease, and the 
potential for overharvest. Research has linked declines in sea-ice to 
reduced physical condition, growth, and survival of polar bears 
(Bromaghin et al. 2015). Projections indicate continued climate warming 
at least through the end of this century (IPCC 2013). The associated 
reduction of summer Arctic sea-ice is expected to be a primary threat 
to polar bear populations (Amstrup et al. 2008, Stirling and Derocher 
2012).
Stock Definition, Range, and Status
    Polar bears are distributed throughout the circumpolar Arctic 
region. 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). A detailed description of the SBS and CS polar bear stocks 
can be found in the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Stock Assessment 
Reports (announced at 74 FR 69139, December 30, 2009). Digital copies 
of the Stock Assessment Reports are available at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/stock/final_sbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf and http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/;stock/final_cbs_polar_bear_sar.pdf. A 
summary of the Alaska polar bear stocks are described below.
Southern Beaufort Sea
    The SBS polar bear population is shared between Canada and Alaska. 
Radio-telemetry data, combined with eartag returns from harvested 
bears, suggest that the SBS population occupies a region with a western 
boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an eastern boundary near Pearce 
Point, Northwest Territories, Canada (USFWS 2010).
    Early estimates from the mid-1980s suggested the size of the SBS 
population was approximately 1,800 polar bears, although uneven 
sampling was known to compromise the accuracy of that estimate. A 
population analysis of the SBS stock was completed in June 2006 through 
joint research coordinated between the United States and Canada. That 
analysis indicated the population of the region between Icy Cape and 
Pearce Point was approximately 1,500 polar bears (95 percent confidence 
intervals approximately 1,000-2,000). Although the confidence intervals 
of the 2006 population estimate overlapped the previous population 
estimate of 1,800, other statistical and ecological evidence (e.g., 
high recapture rates encountered in the field) suggest that the current 
population is actually smaller than has been estimated for this area in 
the past. The most recent population estimate for the SBS population 
was produced by the USGS in 2015. Bromaghin et al. (2015) developed 
mark-recapture models to investigate the population dynamics of polar 
bears in the SBS from 2001 to 2010. They estimated that in 2010 there 
were approximately 900 polar bears (90 percent CI 606-1212) in the SBS 
population (Bromaghin et al. 2015). That study showed a 25 to 50 
percent decline in abundance of SBS bears due to low survival from 2004 
through 2006. Though survival of adults and cubs began to improve in 
2007, and abundance was comparatively stable from 2008 to 2010, 
survival of subadult bears declined throughout the entire period.
Chukchi/Bering Seas
    The CS polar bear population is shared between Russia and Alaska. 
The CS stock is widely distributed on the pack-ice in the Chukchi Sea, 
northern Bering Sea, and adjacent coastal areas in Alaska and Chukotka, 
Russia. Radio-telemetry data indicate that the northeastern boundary of 
the CS population is near the Colville Delta in the central Beaufort 
Sea and the western boundary is near the Kolyma River in

[[Page 52287]]

northeastern Siberia (Garner et al.1990; Amstrup 1995; Amstrup et al. 
2005). The population's southern boundary is determined by the extent 
of annual sea-ice in the Bering Sea. There is an extensive area of 
overlap between the SBS and CS populations roughly between Icy Cape, 
Alaska, and the Colville Delta (Garner et al. 1990; Garner et al. 1994; 
Amstrup et al. 2000; Amstrup et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2010; Wiig et 
al. 2015).
    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 the Russian Federation, and budget 
limitations (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988; Garner et al. 1992; Garner et 
al. 1998; Evans et al. 2003).
    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, those estimates have wide confidence 
intervals and are outdated. The most recent estimate of the CS stock 
was approximately 2,000 animals, based on extrapolation of aerial den 
surveys (Lunn et al. 2002; USFWS 2010; Wiig et al. 2015). However, 
accurate estimates of the size and trend of the CS stock are difficult 
to obtain and not currently available. Ongoing and planned research 
studies for the period 2016-2018 will result in improved information, 
although the wide distribution of polar bears on sea ice, the vast size 
of the region, and the lack of infrastructure to support research 
studies will continue to make it difficult to obtain up-to-date and 
accurate estimates of vital rates and population size. More information 
about polar bears can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm.

Climate Change

    As atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increase so will 
global temperatures (Pierrehumbert 2011). The Arctic has warmed at 
twice the global rate (IPCC 2007), and long-term data sets show that 
substantial reductions in both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea-
ice cover have occurred over the past 40 years (Meier et al. 2014, Frey 
et al. 2015). Stroeve et al. (2012) estimated that, since 1979, the 
minimum area of fall Arctic sea-ice declined by over 12 percent per 
decade through 2010. Record minimum areas of fall Arctic sea-ice extent 
were recorded in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2012 (lowest on record). The 
overall trend of continued decline of Arctic sea-ice is expected to 
continue for the foreseeable future (Stroeve et al. 2007, Amstrup et 
al. 2008, Hunter et al. 2010, Overland and Wang 2013, 73 FR 28212, May 
15, 2008).
    For walruses, climate-driven trends in the Chukchi Sea have 
resulted in seasonal fall sea-ice retreat beyond the continental shelf 
over deep Arctic Ocean waters. Reasonably foreseeable impacts to 
walruses as a result of diminishing sea-ice cover include potential 
shifts in range, habitat use, local abundance, increased frequency and 
duration at coastal haulouts, increased vulnerability to predation and 
disturbance, and localized declines in prey. It is unknown if walruses 
will utilize the Beaufort Sea more in the future due to climate change 
effects. Currently, and for the next 5 years, it appears that walruses 
will remain uncommon in the Beaufort Sea.
    For polar bears, sea-ice habitat loss due to climate change has 
been identified as the primary cause of conservation concern. Amstrup 
et al. (2007) projected a 42 percent loss of optimal summer polar bear 
habitat by 2050. They concluded that, if current Arctic sea-ice 
declines continue, polar bears may eventually be excluded from onshore 
denning habitat in the Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregion, where ice is 
formed and then drawn away from near-shore areas, especially during the 
summer minimum ice season. The SBS and CS polar bear populations 
inhabit this ecoregion, and Amstrup et al. (2008) projected that these 
populations may be extirpated within the next 45-75 years if sea-ice 
declines continue at current rates.
    Climate change is likely to have serious consequences for the 
worldwide population of polar bears and their prey (Amstrup et al. 
2007, Amstrup et al. 2008, Hunter et al. 2010). Climate change is 
expected to impact polar bears in a variety of ways including increased 
movements, changes in bear distributions, changes to the access and 
allocation of denning areas, increased energy expenditure from open-
water swimming, and possible decreased fitness. The timing of ice 
formation and breakup will impact seal distributions and abundance and, 
consequently, how efficiently polar bears can hunt seals. Reductions in 
sea-ice are expected to require polar bears to use more physiological 
energy, as moving through fragmented sea-ice and open water requires 
more energy than walking across consolidated sea-ice (Cherry et al. 
2009, Pagano et al. 2012, Rode et al. 2014).
    Decreased sea-ice extent may impact the reproductive success of 
denning polar bears. In the 1990s, approximately 50 percent of the 
maternal dens of the SBS polar bear population occurred annually on the 
pack-ice in contrast to terrestrial sites (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). 
The proportion of dens on sea-ice declined from 62 percent in 1985-1994 
to 37 percent in 1998-2004 (Fischbach et al. 2007) causing a 
corresponding increase in terrestrial dens. This trend in terrestrial 
denning appears to have continued. Polar bears require a stable 
substrate for denning. As sea-ice conditions deteriorate and become 
less stable, coastal dens become vulnerable to erosion from storm 
surges. Polar bear dens on land, especially on the North Slope of 
Alaska, are also at greater risk of conflict with human activities.
    Atwood et al. (2016) recently discussed how sea ice decline in the 
southern Beaufort Sea is related to the increased polar bear use of 
Beaufort Sea coastal areas of Alaska during the fall open-water period 
(June through October). They found that the percentage of radio-
collared adult females from the SBS stock utilizing terrestrial 
habitats has tripled over 15 years. They also found an overall trend of 
SBS polar bears seasonally arriving onshore earlier, staying longer, 
and leaving for the sea ice later. The Service anticipates that polar 
bear use of the Beaufort Sea coast will continue to increase during the 
open-water season. This change in polar bear distribution has been 
correlated with diminished sea ice and the distance of the pack-ice 
from the coast during the open water period (i.e., the less sea ice and 
the farther from shore the leading edge of the pack-ice, the more bears 
observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006; Atwood et al. 2016). The 
current trend for sea-ice in the region will result in increased 
distances between the ice edge and land, likely resulting in more bears 
coming ashore during the open-water period. More polar bears on land 
for a longer period of time may increase the exposure of polar bears to 
human activities and may lead to increased human-bear interactions 
during this time period.

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

Pacific Walrus

    Few walruses are harvested in the Beaufort Sea along the northern 
coast of Alaska since their primary range is in the Bering and Chukchi 
seas. Walruses constitute a small portion of the total marine mammal 
harvest for the village of Barrow. Hunters from Barrow harvested 451 
walruses in the past 20 years with 78 harvested since 2009.

[[Page 52288]]

Walrus harvest from Nuiqsut and Kaktovik is opportunistic. They have 
reported taking four walruses since 1993. Less than 1.5 percent of the 
total walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik from 2009 to 
2014 has occurred within the geographic range of the incidental take 
regulations.

Polar Bear

    Based on subsistence harvest reports, polar bear hunting is less 
prevalent in communities on the north coast of Alaska than it is in 
west coast communities. There are no quotas under the MMPA for Alaska 
Native polar bear harvest in the Southern Beaufort Sea; however, there 
is a Native-to-Native agreement between the Inuvialuit in Canada and 
the Inupiat in Alaska, created in 1988. This agreement, referred to as 
the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement, established 
quotas and recommendations concerning protection of denning females, 
family groups, and methods of take. In Canada, Native polar bear 
hunters are subject to provincial regulations consistent with the 
Agreement, while in Alaska implementation is on a voluntary basis by 
Native polar bear hunters. Commissioners for the Inuvialuit-Inupiat 
Agreement set the original quota at 76 bears in 1988, split evenly 
between the Inuvialuit in Canada and the Inupiat in the United States. 
In July 2010, the quota was reduced to 70 bears per year.
    The Alaska Native subsistence harvest of polar bears from the SBS 
population has remained relatively consistent since 1980 and averages 
36 bears annually. From 2005 through 2009, Alaska Natives harvested 117 
bears from the SBS population, an average of approximately 23 bears 
annually. From 2010 through 2014, Alaska Natives harvested 98 polar 
bears from the SBS population, an average of approximately 20 bears 
annually. The reason for the decline of harvested polar bears from the 
SBS population is unknown. Alaska Native subsistence hunters and 
harvest reports have not indicated a lack of opportunity to hunt polar 
bears or disruption by Industry activity.

Evaluation of Effects of Activities on Subsistence Uses of Pacific 
Walruses and Polar Bears

    Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to be affected to a lesser degree 
by Industry activities than Nuiqsut. Nuiqsut is located within 5 mi of 
ConocoPhillips' Alpine production field to the north and 
ConocoPhillips' Alpine Satellite development field to the west. 
However, Nuiqsut hunters typically harvest polar bears from Cross 
Island during the annual fall bowhead whaling. Cross Island is 
approximately 16 km (~10 mi) offshore from the coast of Prudhoe Bay. We 
have received no evidence or reports that bears are altering their 
habitat use patterns, avoiding certain areas, or being affected in 
other ways by the existing level of oil and gas activity near 
communities or traditional hunting areas that would diminish their 
availability for subsistence use.
    Changes in activity locations may trigger community concerns 
regarding the effect on subsistence uses. Industry will need to remain 
proactive to address potential impacts on the subsistence uses by 
affected communities through consultations, and where warranted, POCs. 
Open communication through venues such as public meetings, which allow 
communities to express feedback prior to the initiation of operations, 
will be required as part of an LOA application. If community 
subsistence use concerns arise from new activities, appropriate 
mitigation measures are available and will be applied, such as a 
cessation of certain activities at certain locations during specified 
times of the year, i.e., hunting seasons.
    No unmitigable concerns from the potentially affected communities 
regarding the availability of walruses or polar bears for subsistence 
uses have been identified through Industry consultations with the 
potentially affected communities of Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut. 
Based on Industry reports, aerial surveys, direct observations, 
community consultations, and personal communication with hunters, it 
appears that subsistence hunting opportunities for walruses and polar 
bears have not been affected by past Industry activities, and we do not 
anticipate that the activities for these ITRs will have different 
effects.

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

    Individual walruses and polar bears can be affected by Industry 
activities in numerous ways. These include (1) noise disturbance, (2) 
physical obstructions, (3) human encounters, and (4) effects on habitat 
and prey. In order to evaluate effects to walruses and polar bears, we 
analyzed both documented and potential effects, including those that 
could have more than negligible impacts. The effects analyzed included 
the loss or preclusion of habitat, harassment, lethal take, and 
exposure to oil spills.

Pacific Walrus

    Walruses do not utilize the Beaufort Sea frequently and the 
likelihood of encountering walruses during Industry operations is low. 
During the time period of these regulations, Industry operations may 
occasionally encounter small groups of walruses swimming in open water 
or hauled out onto ice floes or along the coast. Industry monitoring 
data have reported 35 walruses between 1995 and 2016, with only a few 
instances of disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015, USFWS 
unpublished data). From 2009 through 2014 no interactions between 
walrus and Industry were reported in the Beaufort Sea ITR region. We 
have no evidence of any physical effects or impacts to individual 
walruses due to Industry activity in the Beaufort Sea ITR region. If an 
interaction did occur, it could potentially result in some level of 
disturbance. The response of walruses to disturbance stimuli is highly 
variable. Anecdotal observations by walrus hunters and researchers 
suggest that males tend to be more tolerant of disturbances than 
females and individuals tend to be more tolerant than groups. Females 
with dependent calves are considered least tolerant of disturbances. In 
the Chukchi Sea, disturbance events are known to cause walrus groups to 
abandon land or ice haulouts and occasionally result in trampling 
injuries or cow-calf separations, both of which are potentially fatal. 
Calves and young animals at terrestrial haulouts are particularly 
vulnerable to trampling injuries.
Noise Disturbance
    Walruses hear sounds both in air and in water. Kastelein et al. 
(1996) tested the in-air hearing of a walrus from 125 hertz (Hz) to 8 
kilohertz (kHz) and determined the walrus could hear all frequency 
ranges tested but the best sensitivity was between 250 Hz and 2 kHz. 
Kastelein et al. (2002) tested underwater hearing and determined that 
range of hearing was between 1 kHz and 12 kHz with greatest sensitivity 
at 12 kHz. The small sample size warrants caution; other pinnipeds can 
hear up to 40 kHz. Many of the noise sources generated by Industry 
activities, other than the very high frequency seismic profiling, are 
likely to be audible to walruses.
    Seismic operations, pile driving, ice breaking, and various other 
Industry activities introduce substantial levels of noise into the 
marine environment. Greene et al. (2008) measured underwater and 
airborne noise from ice road construction, heavy equipment operations, 
auguring, and pile driving during construction of a gravel island at 
Northstar. Underwater sound levels

[[Page 52289]]

from construction ranged from 103 decibels (dB) at 100 m (328 ft) for 
auguring to 143 dB at 100 m (328 ft) for pile driving. Most of the 
energy of these sounds was below 100 Hz. Airborne sound levels from 
these activities ranged from 65 dB at 100 m (328 ft) for a bulldozer 
and 81 dB at 100 m (328 ft) for pile driving. Most of the energy for 
in-air levels was also below 100 Hz. Airborne sound levels and 
frequencies typically produced by Industry are unlikely to cause 
hearing damage unless marine mammals are very close to the sound 
source, but may cause disturbance.
    Typical source levels associated with underwater marine 3D and 2D 
seismic surveys are 230-240 dB. Airgun arrays produce broadband 
frequencies from 10 Hz to 2 kHz with most of the energy concentrated 
below 200 Hz. Frequencies used for high-resolution oil and gas 
exploration surveys are typically 200 Hz-900 kHz. Commercial sonar 
systems may also generate lower frequencies audible to marine mammals 
(Deng et al 2012). Some surveys use frequencies as low as 50 Hz or as 
high as 2 MHz. Broadband source levels for high-resolution surveys can 
range from 210 to 226 dB at 1 m. Sound attenuates in air more rapidly 
than in water, and underwater sound levels can be loud enough to cause 
hearing loss in nearby animals and disturbance of animals at greater 
distances.
    Noise generated by Industry activities, whether stationary or 
mobile, has the potential to disturb walruses. Marine mammals in 
general have variable reactions to noise sources, particularly mobile 
sources such as marine vessels. 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 source. Walruses are typically 
more sensitive to disturbance when hauled out on land or ice than when 
they are in the water. In addition, females and young are generally 
more sensitive to disturbance than adult males.
    Potential impacts of Industry-generated noise include displacement 
from preferred foraging areas, increased stress, energy expenditure, 
interference with feeding, and masking of communications. Any impact of 
Industry noise on walruses is likely to be limited to a few individuals 
due to their geographic range and seasonal distribution. Walruses 
typically inhabit the pack-ice of the Bering and Chukchi seas and do 
not often move into the Beaufort Sea.
    In the nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea, stationary offshore 
facilities could produce high levels of noise that has the potential to 
disturb walruses. These include Endicott, BPXA's Saltwater Treatment 
Plant (located on the West Dock Causeway), Oooguruk, and Northstar 
facilities. The Liberty project will also have this potential when it 
commences operations. From 2009 through 2014 there were no reports of 
walruses hauling out at Industry facilities in the Beaufort Sea ITR 
region. Previous observations have been reported of walruses hauled out 
on Northstar Island and swimming near the Saltwater Treatment Plant. In 
2007, a female and a subadult walrus were observed hauled-out on the 
Endicott Causeway. In instances where walruses have been seen near 
these facilities, they have appeared to be attracted to them, possibly 
as a resting area or haulout.
    In the open waters of the Beaufort Sea, seismic surveys and high-
resolution site-clearance surveys will be the primary source of high 
levels of underwater sound. Such surveys are typically carried out away 
from the edge of the seasonal pack-ice. This scenario will minimize 
potential interactions with large concentrations of walruses, which 
typically favor sea-ice habitats. The most likely response of walruses 
to acoustic disturbances in open water will be for animals to move away 
from the source of the disturbance. Displacement from a preferred 
feeding area may reduce foraging success, increase stress levels, and 
increase energy expenditures. Potential adverse effects of Industry 
noise on walruses can be reduced through the implementation of the 
monitoring and mitigation measures identified in these ITRs.
    Potential acoustic injuries from high levels of sound such as those 
produced during seismic surveys may manifest in the form of temporary 
or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity. The underwater hearing 
abilities of the Pacific walrus have not been studied sufficiently to 
develop species-specific criteria for preventing harmful exposure. 
Sound pressure level thresholds have been developed for other members 
of the pinniped taxonomic group, above which exposure is likely to 
cause behavioral responses and injuries (Finneran 2015). Otariid 
pinnipeds in particular, as a group, appear to have hearing 
characteristics most similar to Pacific walruses ((Kastelein et al. 
1996; Hemil[auml] et al. 2006; Finneran 2015). Therefore, the Service 
uses the data available for otariid pinnipeds in conjunction with that 
for walruses to evaluate acoustic disturbance and develop mitigation 
measures.
    Historically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service, or NMFS) has 
used 190 dBrms as a threshold for predicting injury to 
pinnipeds and 160 dBrms as a threshold for behavioral 
impacts from exposure to impulse noise (NMFS 1998, HESS 1999). The 
behavioral response threshold was developed based primarily on 
observations of marine mammal responses to airgun operations (e.g., 
Malme et al., 1983a, 1983b; Richardson et al., 1986, 1995). Southall et 
al. 2007 assessed relevant studies, found considerable variability 
among pinnipeds, and determined that exposures between ~90 and 140 dB 
generally do not appear to induce strong behavioral responses in 
pinnipeds in water, but an increasing probability of avoidance and 
other behavioral effects exists in the 120 to 160 dB range.
    The NMFS 190-dBrms injury threshold is an estimate of 
the sound level likely to cause a permanent shift in hearing threshold 
(permanent threshold shift or PTS). This value was modelled from 
temporary threshold shifts (TTS) observed in pinnipeds (NMFS 1998, HESS 
1999). More recently, Kastak et al. (2005) found exposures resulting in 
TTS in pinniped test subjects ranging from 152 to 174 dB (183 to 206 dB 
SEL). Southall et al. (2007) reviewed the literature and derived 
behavior and injury thresholds based on peak sound pressure levels of 
212 dB (peak) and 218 dB (peak) respectively. Because onset of TTS can 
vary in response to duration of exposure, Southall et al. (2007) also 
derived thresholds based on sound exposure levels (SEL). Sound exposure 
level can be thought of as a composite metric that represents both the 
magnitude of a sound and its duration. The study proposed threshold 
SELs weighted at frequencies of greatest sensitivities for pinnipeds of 
171 dB (SEL) and 186 dB (SEL) for behavioral impacts and injury 
respectively (Southall et al. 2007). Reichmuth et al. (2008) 
demonstrated a persistent TTS, if not a PTS, after 60 seconds of 184 dB 
SEL. Kastelein (2012) found small but statistically significant TTSs at 
approximately 170 dB SEL (136 dB, 60 min) and 178 dB SEL (148 dB, 15 
min).
    Based on these data, and applying a precautionary approach in the 
absence of empirical information, we assume it is possible that 
walruses exposed to 190-dB or greater sound levels from underwater 
activities (especially seismic surveys) could suffer injury from PTS. 
Walruses exposed to underwater sound pressure levels greater than 180 
dB

[[Page 52290]]

could suffer temporary shifts in hearing thresholds. Repeated or 
continuous exposure to sound levels between 160 and 180 dB may also 
result in TTS, and exposures above 160 dB are more likely to elicit 
behavioral responses than lower level exposures. The Service's 
underwater sound mitigation measures include employing protected 
species observers (PSOs) to monitor established and acoustically 
verified 160-dB, 180-dB, and 190-dB isopleth mitigation zones centered 
on any underwater sound source greater than 160 db. The 160-dB zone 
must be monitored; walruses in this zone will be assumed to experience 
Level B take. The 180-dB and 190-dB zones shall be free of marine 
mammals before the sound-producing activity can begin and must remain 
free of marine mammals during the activity. The ITRs incorporate slight 
changes in the mitigation zones when compared to previous ITRs for the 
region. Previous ITRs have required separate actions for groups of 
greater than 12 walruses. Industry activities are unlikely to encounter 
large aggregations of walruses in the Beaufort Sea. This stipulation 
was originally developed for and is more applicable to mitigation of 
impacts to walruses in the Chukchi Sea and is not likely to be 
applicable in the Beaufort Sea.
    The acoustic thresholds for marine mammals under NMFS' jurisdiction 
are currently being revised (NOAA 2015, NOAA 2016). New thresholds will 
estimate PTS onset levels for impulsive (e.g., airguns, impact pile 
drivers) and nonimpulsive (e.g., sonar, vibratory pile drivers) sound 
sources. Thresholds will be specific to marine mammal functional 
hearing groups; separate thresholds for otariid and phocid pinnipeds 
will be adopted. Auditory weighting functions will be incorporated into 
calculation of PTS threshold levels. The updated acoustic thresholds 
will also account for accumulation of injury due to repeated or ongoing 
exposure by adopting dual metrics of sound (cumulative sound exposure 
level and peak sound pressure level). The updated criteria will not 
provide specification for modeling sound exposures from various 
activities. They will not update thresholds for preventing behavioral 
responses, nor will they provide any new information regarding the 
Pacific walrus.
    Once NMFS' new criteria for preventing harm to marine mammals from 
sound exposure are finalized, the Service will evaluate the new 
thresholds for applicability to walruses. In many cases, the Service's 
existing thresholds for Pacific walrus will result in greater 
separation distances or shorter periods of exposure to Industry sound 
sources than would NMFS' draft pinniped thresholds. Assuming walrus 
hearing sensitivities are similar to other otariid pinnipeds, the 
Service's sound exposure thresholds are, in many situations, likely to 
be more conservative and therefore provide additional protection 
against potential injury from PTS and TTS. However, animals may be 
exposed to multiple stressors beyond acoustics during an activity, with 
the possibility of additive, cumulative, or synergistic effects (e.g., 
Crain et al. 2008). The Service's mitigation measures are intended to 
prevent acoustic injury as well as minimize impacts from noise 
exposures that may cause biologically significant behavioral reactions 
in walruses.
    To reduce the likelihood of Level B harassment, and prevent 
behavioral responses capable of causing Level A harassment, the Service 
has established an 805-m (0.5-mile) operational exclusion zone around 
groups of walruses feeding in water or any walrus observed on land or 
ice. As mentioned previously, walruses show variable reactions to noise 
sources. Relatively minor reactions, such as increased vigilance, are 
not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns and, 
therefore, do not reach the level of harassment, as defined by the 
MMPA. However, more significant reactions have been documented in 
response to noise. Industry monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea 
suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some walrus groups up 
to several kilometers away (Brueggeman et al. 1990). Approximately 25 
percent of walrus groups on pack-ice responded by diving into the 
water, and most reactions occurred within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the ship 
(Brueggeman et al. 1991). Reactions such as fleeing a haulout or 
departing a feeding area have the potential to disrupt biologically 
significant behavioral patterns, including nursing, feeding, and 
resting, and may result in decreased fitness for the affected animal. 
These reactions meet the criteria for Level B harassment under the 
MMPA. Industry activities producing high levels of noise or occurring 
in close proximity also have the potential to illicit extreme reactions 
(Level A harassment) including separation of mothers from young or 
instigation of stampedes. However, most groups of hauled out walruses 
showed little reaction to icebreaking activities beyond 805 m (0.5 mi; 
Brueggeman et al. 1990).
    Because some seismic survey activities are expected to occur in 
nearshore regions of the Beaufort Sea, impacts associated with support 
vessels and aircraft are likely to be locally concentrated, but 
distributed over time and space. Therefore, noise and disturbance from 
aircraft and vessel traffic associated with seismic surveys are 
expected to have relatively localized, short-term effects. The 
mitigation measures stipulated in these ITRs will require seismic 
survey vessels and associated support vessels to apply acoustic 
mitigation zones, maintain an 805-m (0.5-mile) distance from Pacific 
walrus groups, introduce noise gradually by implementing ramp-up 
procedures, and to maintain a 457-m (1,500-ft) minimum altitude above 
walruses. These measures are expected to reduce the intensity of 
disturbance events and to minimize the potential for injuries to 
animals.
    With the low occurrence of walruses in the Beaufort Sea and the 
adoption of the mitigation measures required by this ITR, the Service 
concludes that the only anticipated effects from Industry noise in the 
Beaufort Sea would be short-term behavioral alterations of small 
numbers of walruses.
Vessel Traffic
    Although seismic surveys and offshore drilling operations are 
expected to occur in areas of open water away from the pack ice, 
support vessels and aircraft servicing seismic and drill operations may 
encounter aggregations of walruses hauled out onto sea-ice. The sight, 
sound, or smell of humans and machines could potentially displace these 
animals from any ice haulouts. Walruses react variably to noise from 
vessel traffic; however, it appears that low-frequency diesel engines 
cause less of a disturbance than high-frequency outboard engines. In 
addition, walrus densities within their normal distribution are highest 
along the edge of the pack-ice, and Industry vessel traffic typically 
avoids these areas. The reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is 
dependent upon vessel type, distance, speed, and previous exposure to 
disturbances. Walruses in the water appear to be less readily disturbed 
by vessels than walruses hauled out on land or ice. Furthermore, barges 
and vessels associated with Industry activities travel in open water 
and avoid large ice floes or land where walruses are likely to be 
found. In addition, walruses can use a vessel as a haul-out platform. 
In 2009, during Industry activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult walrus 
was found hauled out on the stern of a vessel. It eventually left once 
confronted.
    Drilling operations are expected to involve drill ships attended by 
icebreaking vessels to manage

[[Page 52291]]

incursions of sea-ice. Ice management operations are expected to have 
the greatest potential for disturbances since walruses are more likely 
to be encountered in sea-ice habitats and ice management operations 
typically require the vessel to accelerate, reverse direction, and turn 
rapidly, thereby maximizing propeller cavitation and producing 
significant noise. Previous monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea 
suggest that icebreaking activities can displace some walrus groups up 
to several kilometers away; however, most groups of hauled-out walruses 
showed little reaction beyond 805 m (0.5 mi).
    Monitoring programs associated with exploratory drilling operations 
in the Chukchi Sea since 1990 noted that approximately 25 percent of 
walrus groups encountered in the pack-ice during icebreaking responded 
by diving into the water, with most reactions occurring within 1 km 
(0.6 mi) of the ship. The monitoring report noted that: (1) Walrus 
distributions were closely linked with pack-ice; (2) pack-ice was near 
active prospects for relatively short time periods; and (3) ice passing 
near active prospects contained relatively few animals. The report 
concluded that effects of the drilling operations on walruses were 
limited in time, geographical scale, and the proportion of population 
affected.
    When walruses are present, underwater noise from vessel traffic in 
the Beaufort Sea may ``mask'' ordinary communication between 
individuals by preventing them from locating one another. It may also 
prevent walruses from using potential habitats in the Beaufort Sea and 
may have the potential to impede movement. Vessel traffic will likely 
increase if offshore Industry expands and may increase if warming 
waters and seasonally reduced sea-ice cover alter northern shipping 
lanes.
    Because offshore exploration activities are expected to move 
throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts associated with support vessels 
and aircrafts are likely to be distributed in time and space. 
Therefore, the only effect anticipated would be short-term behavioral 
alterations impacting small numbers of walruses in the vicinity of 
active operations. Adoption of mitigation measures that include an 805-
m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for marine vessels around walrus groups 
observed on ice are expected to reduce the intensity of disturbance 
events and minimize the potential for injuries to animals.
Aircraft Traffic
    Aircraft overflights may disturb walruses. Reactions to aircraft 
vary with range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as well as walrus 
age, sex, and group size. Adult females, calves, and immature walruses 
tend to be more sensitive to aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged 
aircraft are less likely to elicit a response than helicopter 
overflights. Walruses are particularly sensitive to changes in engine 
noise and are more likely to stampede when planes turn or fly low 
overhead. Researchers conducting aerial surveys for walruses in sea-ice 
habitats have observed little reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above 
457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data). Although the intensity of the 
reaction to noise is variable, walruses are probably most susceptible 
to disturbance by fast-moving and low-flying aircraft (100 m (328 ft) 
above ground level) or aircraft that change or alter speed or 
direction. In the Chukchi Sea there are recent examples of walruses 
being disturbed by aircraft flying in the vicinity of haulouts. It 
appears that walruses are more sensitive to disturbance when hauled out 
on land versus sea-ice.
Physical Obstructions
    Based on known walrus distribution and the very low numbers found 
in the Beaufort Sea, it is unlikely that walrus movements would be 
displaced by offshore stationary facilities, such as the Northstar 
Island or causeway-linked Endicott complex, or by vessel traffic. There 
is no indication that the few walruses that used Northstar Island as a 
haulout in the past were displaced from their movements. Vessel traffic 
could temporarily interrupt the movement of walruses, or displace some 
animals when vessels pass through an area. This displacement would 
probably have minimal or no effect on animals and would last no more 
than a few hours.
Human Encounters
    Human encounters with walruses could occur in the course of 
Industry activities, although such encounters would be rare due to the 
limited distribution of walruses in the Beaufort Sea. These encounters 
may occur within certain cohorts of the population, such as calves or 
animals under stress. In 2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled-out on 
the armor of Northstar Island numerous times over a 48-hour period, 
causing Industry to cease certain activities and alter work patterns 
before it disappeared in stormy seas. Additionally, a walrus calf was 
observed for 15 minutes during an exploration program 60 ft from the 
dock at Cape Simpson in 2006. From 2009 through 2014, Industry reported 
no similar interactions with walruses.
Effect on Prey Species
    Walruses feed primarily on immobile benthic invertebrates. The 
effect of Industry activities on benthic invertebrates most likely 
would be from oil discharged into the environment. Oil has the 
potential to impact walrus prey species in a variety of ways including, 
but not limited to, mortality due to smothering or toxicity, 
perturbations in the composition of the benthic community, as well as 
altered metabolic and growth rates. Relatively few walruses are present 
in the central Beaufort Sea. It is important to note that, although the 
status of walrus prey species within the Beaufort Sea are poorly known, 
it is unclear to what extent, if any, prey abundance plays in limiting 
the use of the Beaufort Sea by walruses. Further study of the Beaufort 
Sea benthic community as it relates to walruses is warranted. The low 
likelihood of an oil spill large enough to affect prey populations (see 
the section titled Risk Assessment of Potential Effects Upon Polar 
Bears from a Large Oil Spill in the Beaufort Sea) combined with the 
fact that walruses are not present in the region during the ice-covered 
season and occur only infrequently during the open-water season 
indicates that Industry activities will likely have limited indirect 
effects on walruses through effects on prey species.

Polar Bear

Noise Disturbance
    Noise produced by Industry activities during the open-water and 
ice-covered seasons could disturb polar bears. The impact of noise 
disturbances may affect bears differently depending upon their 
reproductive status (e.g., denning versus non-denning bears). The best 
available scientific information indicates that female polar bears 
entering dens, or females in dens with cubs, are more sensitive than 
other age and sex groups to noises.
    Noise disturbance can originate from either stationary or mobile 
sources. Stationary sources include construction, maintenance, repair 
and remediation activities, operations at production facilities, gas 
flaring, and drilling operations from either onshore or offshore 
facilities. Mobile sources include vessel and aircraft traffic, open-
water seismic exploration, winter vibroseis programs, geotechnical 
surveys, ice road construction, vehicle traffic, tracked vehicles and 
snowmobiles, drilling, dredging, and ice-breaking vessels.
    Noise produced by stationary activities could elicit variable 
responses

[[Page 52292]]

from polar bears. The noise may act as a deterrent to bears entering 
the area, or the noise could potentially attract bears. Attracting 
bears to these facilities, especially exploration facilities in the 
coastal or nearshore environment, could result in human-bear 
encounters, unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or lethal 
take of the bear.
    Industry activities may potentially disturb polar bears at maternal 
den sites. The timing of potential Industry activity compared with the 
timing of the maternal denning period can have variable impacts on the 
female bear and her cubs. Disturbance, including noise, may negatively 
impact bears less during the early stages of denning when the pregnant 
female has less investment in a den site before giving birth. She may 
abandon the site in search of another one and still successfully den 
and give birth. Premature den site abandonment after the birth of cubs 
may also occur. If den site abandonment occurs before the cubs are able 
to survive outside of the den, or if the female abandons the cubs, the 
cubs will die.
    An example of a den abandonment in the early stages of denning 
occurred in January 1985, where a female polar bear appears to have 
abandoned her den in response to Rolligon traffic within 500 m (1,640 
ft) of the den site. In spring 2002, noise associated with a polar bear 
research camp in close proximity to a bear den is thought to have 
caused a female bear and her cub(s) to abandon their den and move to 
the ice prematurely. In spring 2006, a female with two cubs emerged 
from a den 400 m (1,312 ft) from an active river crossing construction 
site. The den site was abandoned within hours of cub emergence, and 3 
days after the female had emerged. In spring 2009, a female with two 
cubs emerged from a den within 100 m (328 ft) of an active ice road 
with heavy traffic and quickly abandoned the site. In January 2015 a 
freshly dug polar den was discovered in an active gravel pit adjacent 
to an active landfill and busy road. The bear abandoned the den after 
56 days. During the time the bear occupied the den, Industry activity 
in the area was restricted, and the den was constantly monitored. A 
subsequent investigation of the den found no evidence that the bear 
gave birth. It is unknown if or to what extent Industry activity 
contributed to the bear leaving the den. While such events may have 
occurred, information indicates they have been infrequent and isolated. 
It is important to note that the knowledge of these recent examples 
occurred because of the monitoring and reporting program established by 
the ITRs.
    Conversely, during the denning seasons of 2000-2002, two dens known 
to be active were located within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8 km (~0.25 
mi and ~0.5 mi) of remediation activities on Flaxman Island in the 
Beaufort Sea with no observed impact to the polar bears. This 
observation suggests that polar bears exposed to routine industrial 
noises may habituate to those noises and show less vigilance than bears 
not exposed to such stimuli. This observation came from a study that 
occurred in conjunction with industrial activities performed on Flaxman 
Island in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens in 2002 and 2003 (N = 8) 
(Smith et al. 2007). Researchers assessed vigilant behavior with two 
potential measures of disturbance: (1) The proportion of time scanning 
their surroundings; and (2) the frequency of observable vigilant 
behaviors. The two bears exposed to the industrial activity spent less 
time scanning their surroundings than bears in undisturbed areas and 
engaged in vigilant behavior significantly less often.
    The potential for disturbance increases once the female emerges 
from the den. She is more vigilant against perceived threats and easier 
to disturb. As noted earlier, in some cases, while the female is in the 
den, Industry activities have progressed near den site with no observed 
disturbance. In the 2006 denning example previously discussed, it was 
believed that Industry activity commenced in the area after the den had 
been established. Industry activities occurred within 50 m (164 ft) of 
the den site with no apparent disturbance while the female was in the 
den. Ongoing activity most likely had been occurring for approximately 
3 months in the vicinity of the den.
    Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were located along an active ice 
road. The bear at one den site appeared to establish her site prior to 
ice road activity and was exposed to approximately 3 months of activity 
100 m (328 ft) away and emerged at the appropriate time. The other den 
site was discovered after ice road construction commenced. This site 
was exposed to ice road activity, 100 m (328 ft) away, for 
approximately 1 month. Known instances of polar bears establishing dens 
prior to the onset of Industry activity within 500 m (1,640 ft) or less 
of the den site, but remaining in the den through the normal denning 
cycle and later leaving with her cubs, apparently undisturbed despite 
the proximity of sometimes ongoing Industry activity, occurred in 2006, 
2009, 2010, and 2011.
    Industry observation data suggests that, with proper mitigation 
measures in place, some activities can continue in the vicinity of dens 
until the emergence by the female bear. Mitigation measures such as 
activity shutdowns near the den and 24-hour monitoring of the den site 
can minimize impacts to the animals and allow the female bear to 
naturally abandon the den when she chooses. For example, in the spring 
of 2010, an active den site was observed approximately 60 m (197 ft) 
from a heavily used ice road. A 1.6-km (1-mi) exclusion zone was 
established around the den, closing a 3.2 km (2-mi) section of the 
road. Monitors were assigned to observe bear activity and monitor human 
activity to minimize any other impacts to the bear group. These 
mitigation measures minimized disturbance to the bears and allowed them 
to abandon the den site naturally.
    Mobile sources of sound, e.g., vessel-based exploration activities, 
seismic surveys, or geophysical surveys, may disturb polar bears. In 
the open-water season, Industry activities are generally limited to 
relatively ice-free, open water. During this time in the Beaufort Sea, 
polar bears are typically found either on land or on the pack ice, 
which limits the chances of the interaction of polar bears with 
offshore Industry activities. Though polar bears have been observed in 
open water, miles from the ice edge or ice floes, the encounters are 
relatively rare. However, if bears come in contact with Industry 
operations in open water, the effects of such encounters may include 
short-term behavioral disturbance. Bears in the water could be affected 
by sound in the water, but received sound in the water would be 
attenuated near the surface due to the pressure release effect of 
airgun sounds near the water's surface (Greene and Richardson 1988, 
Richardson et al. 1995). Because polar bears generally do not dive far 
or for long below the surface and they normally swim with their heads 
above the surface, it is likely that they would be exposed to very 
little sound in the water. Exposure to sound in the water would also be 
short term and temporary for only the time a bear's head was below the 
surface. It is likely that offshore seismic exploration activities or 
other geophysical surveys during the open-water season would result in 
no more than short-term and temporary behavioral disturbance to polar 
bears, similar to that discussed earlier.
    In 2012, during the open-water season, Shell vessels encountered a 
few polar bears swimming in ice-free water more than 70 mi (112.6 km) 
offshore in the Chukchi Sea. In those instances the bears were observed 
to either swim away from or approach the Shell vessels. Sometimes a 
polar bear would

[[Page 52293]]

swim around a stationary vessel before leaving. In at least one 
instance a polar bear approached, touched, and investigated a 
stationary vessel from the water before swimming away.
    Polar bears are more likely to be affected by on-ice or in-ice 
Industry activities versus open-water activities. From 2009 through 
2014 there were a few Industry observation reports of polar bears 
during on-ice activities. Those observations were primarily of bears 
moving through an area during winter seismic surveys on near-shore ice. 
The disturbance to bears, if any, was minimal, short-term, and 
temporary due to the mobility of such projects and limited to small-
scale alterations to bear movements.
Vessel Traffic
    During the open-water season, most polar bears remain offshore 
associated with the multiyear pack ice and are not typically present in 
the ice-free areas where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and vessels 
associated with Industry activities travel in open water and avoid 
large ice floes. As demonstrated in the 2012 Shell example previously, 
encounters between vessels and polar bears would most likely result in 
short-term and temporary behavioral disturbance only.
Aircraft Traffic
    Routine Industry aircraft traffic should have little to no effect 
on polar bears, though frequent and chronic aircraft activity may cause 
more significant disturbance. Observations of polar bears during fall 
coastal surveys, which flew at much lower altitudes than is required of 
Industry aircraft (see mitigation measures), indicate that the 
reactions of non-denning polar bears should be limited to short-term 
changes in behavior ranging from no reaction to running away. Such 
disturbance should have no more than short-term, temporary, and minor 
impacts on individuals and no discernible impacts on the polar bear 
population, unless it was chronic and long-term. In contrast, denning 
bears could prematurely abandon their dens in response to repeated 
aircraft overflight noise. Mitigation measures, such as minimum flight 
elevations over polar bears, habitat areas of concern, and flight 
restrictions around known polar bear dens, will be required, as 
appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by 
aircraft.
Physical Obstructions
    Industry facilities may act as physical barriers to movements of 
polar bears. Most facilities are located onshore and inland where polar 
bears are less frequently found. The offshore and coastal facilities 
are more likely to be approached by polar bears. The majority of 
Industry bear observations occur within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the coastline 
as bears use this area as travel corridors. As bears encounter these 
facilities, the chances for human-bear interactions increase. The 
Endicott and West Dock causeways, as well as the facilities supporting 
them, have the potential to act as barriers to movements of polar bears 
because they extend continuously from the coastline to the offshore 
facility. However, polar bears have frequently been observed crossing 
existing roads and causeways and appear to traverse the human-developed 
areas as easily as the undeveloped areas. Offshore production 
facilities, such as Northstar, Spy Island, and Oooguruk, have 
frequently been approached by polar bears, but appear to present only a 
small-scale, local obstruction to the bears' movement. Of greater 
concern is the increased potential for polar bear-human interaction at 
these facilities.
Human Encounters
    Historically, polar bear observations are seasonally common, but 
close encounters with Industry personnel are uncommon. These encounters 
can be dangerous for both polar bears and humans.
    Encounters are more likely to occur during the fall at facilities 
on or near the coast. Polar bear interaction plans, training, and 
monitoring required by the ITRs have proven effective at reducing polar 
bear-human encounters and the risks to bears and humans when encounters 
occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the policies and procedures 
that Industry facilities and personnel will implement to avoid 
attracting and interacting with polar bears as well as minimizing 
impacts to the bears. Interaction plans also detail how to respond to 
the presence of polar bears, the chain of command and communication, 
and required training for personnel.
    Industry has also developed and uses technology to aid in detecting 
polar bears, including bear monitors, closed-circuit television (CCTV), 
video cameras, thermal cameras, radar devices, and motion-detection 
systems. In addition, some companies take steps to actively prevent 
bears from accessing facilities using safety gates and fences.
    Known polar bear dens around the oilfield, discovered 
opportunistically, or as a result of planned surveys, such as tracking 
marked bears or den detection surveys, are monitored by the Service. 
However, these sites are only a small percentage of the total active 
polar bear dens for the SBS stock in any given year. Each year Industry 
coordinates with the Service to conduct surveys to determine the 
location of Industry's activities relative to known dens and denning 
habitat. Industry activities are required to avoid known polar bear 
dens by 1 mi. There is the possibility that an unknown den may be 
encountered during Industry activities. When a previously unknown den 
is discovered in proximity to Industry activity, the Service implements 
mitigation measures such as the 1.6-km (1-mi) activity exclusion zone 
around the den and 24-hour monitoring of the site.
Effect on Prey Species
    The effects of Industry activity upon polar bear prey, primarily 
ringed seals, will be similar to that of effects upon walruses, and 
primarily through noise disturbance or exposure to an oil spill. Seals 
may be displaced by disturbance from habitat areas such as pupping 
lairs or haulouts and abandon breathing holes near Industry activity. 
However, these disturbances appear to have minor, short-term, and 
temporary effects (NMFS 2013). Effects of contamination from oil 
discharges for seals are described in the following section.

Evaluation of Effects of Oil and Gas Industry Activity on Pacific 
Walruses and Polar Bears

Pacific Walrus

    Industry activities may result in some incremental cumulative 
effects to the relatively few walruses exposed to these activities 
through the potential exclusion or avoidance of walruses from resting 
areas and disruption of associated biological behaviors. However, based 
on the habitat use patterns of walruses and their close association 
with seasonal pack-ice, relatively few animals are likely to be 
encountered during the open-water season when marine activities are 
expected to occur. Required monitoring and mitigation measures designed 
to minimize interactions between Industry activities and walruses are 
also expected to limit these impacts. Hunting pressure, climate change, 
and the increase of other human activities in walrus habitat all have 
potential to impact walruses. But those activities and their impacts 
are mostly a concern in the Bering and Chukchi seas where large numbers 
of walruses are found. Therefore, we conclude that in the Beaufort Sea, 
Industry activities during the 5-year period covered by these 
regulations, as mitigated through the regulatory process, are not 
expected to

[[Page 52294]]

add significantly to the cumulative impacts on the walrus population.

Polar Bear

    The effects of Industry activity are evaluated, in part, through 
information gained in monitoring reports, which are required for each 
LOA issued. Information from these reports provides a history of past 
effects on polar bears from interactions with Industry activities. In 
addition, information used in our effects evaluation includes published 
and unpublished polar bear research and monitoring reports, information 
from the 2008 ESA polar bear listing, stock assessment reports, status 
reviews, conservation plans, Alaska Native traditional knowledge, 
anecdotal observations, and professional judgment.
    Since 1993, the documented impacts of incidental take by Industry 
activity in the Beaufort Sea ITR region affected only small numbers of 
bears, were primarily short-term changes to behavior, and had no long-
term impacts on individuals and no impacts on the SBS polar bear 
population, or the global population. Industry monitoring data has 
documented various types of interactions between polar bears and 
Industry. The most significant impacts to polar bears from Industry 
activity have been the result of close bear-human encounters, some of 
which have led to deterrence events.
    For the analysis of Industry take of polar bears, we included both 
incidental and intentional takes that occurred from 2010 through 2014. 
We included intentional takes to provide a transparent and complete 
analysis of Industry-related polar bear takes on the North Slope of 
Alaska. Intentional take of polar bears is a separate authorization 
under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and 112(c) of the MMPA and is 
distinct from the ITRs. Intentional take authorizations allow citizens 
conducting activities in polar bear habitat to take polar bears by 
nonlethal, non-injurious harassment for the protection of both human 
life and polar bears. The purpose of the intentional take authorization 
is to deter polar bears prior to a bear-human encounter escalating to 
the use of deadly force against a polar bear. The Service provides 
guidance and training as to the appropriate harassment response 
necessary for polar bears. The MMPA-specific authorizations have proven 
to be successful in preventing injury and death to humans and polar 
bears.
    From 2010 through 2014, a total of 107 LOAs were issued to 
Industry, and polar bear observations were recorded for 36.4 percent 
(39) of those LOAs. Industry reported 1,234 observations of 1,911 polar 
bears. The highest number of bears was observed during the months of 
August and September. Industry polar bear observations have increased 
from previous regulatory time periods. The higher number of bear 
sightings was most likely the result of an increased number of bears 
using terrestrial habitat as a result of changes in sea-ice, multiple 
vessel-based projects occurring near barrier islands, and the increased 
compliance and improved monitoring of Industry projects. This trend in 
observations is consistent with the anticipation that polar bears will 
increase their use of coastal habitats during the months when sea-ice 
is far from shore and over deep water. Because some of the reports were 
repeat observations of the same bears on different dates, the actual 
number of individual bears encountered is lower than reported. However, 
due to the nature of the information in the Industry observation 
reports, we must accept the information ``as is'' while acknowledging 
that it collectively over-reports bear numbers.
    When we compared the reported bear numbers to the SBS population 
(i.e., 900 bears), we found that 42 percent of the SBS polar bear 
population may have been observed by Industry personnel from 2010 to 
2014. When we evaluated the effects upon the 1,911 bears observed, we 
found that 81 percent (1,549) resulted in instances of non-taking. Of 
the remaining 362 encounters, 78 resulted in Level B takes by 
incidental disturbance, 260 Level B takes by deterrence, 23 instances 
of unknown effect, and 1 Level A take associated with Industry 
activity. Over those 5 years, 338 Level B takes of polar bears 
occurred, which is approximately 18 percent of the observed bears, or 
7.5 percent of the SBS population.
    For the 2011-2016 ITR, the Service estimated that takes of polar 
bears by all Level B harassment events would not exceed 150 per year. 
Our analysis of Industry polar bear observation reports shows that from 
2010 through 2014 an average of 68 Level B harassment events occurred 
per year, well below our estimated value. Industry activities that 
occur on or near the Beaufort Sea coast continue to have the greatest 
potential for encountering polar bears rather than Industry activities 
occurring inland or far offshore.
    From 2010 through 2014, intentional harassment by deterrence of 260 
polar bears (14 percent of the observed 1,911) resulted in Level B 
take. The percentage of polar bear deterrence events that result in 
Level B take has decreased over time from a high of 39 percent of 
observed bears in 2005. The Service attributes this long-term decrease 
in deterrence events to increased polar bear safety and awareness 
training of Industry personnel as well as our ongoing deterrence 
education, training, and monitoring programs. We have no indication 
that nonlethal, non-injurious harassment by deterrence, which 
temporarily alters the behavior and movement of some bears, has an 
effect on survival and recruitment in the SBS polar bear population.
    Lethal take of polar bears by Industry activity is very rare. Since 
1968, three documented cases of lethal take of polar bears associated 
with oil and gas activities have occurred. In winter 1968-1969, an 
Industry employee shot and killed a polar bear in defense of human 
life. In 1990, a female polar bear was killed at a drill site on the 
west side of Camden Bay, also in defense of human life. Since the 
beginning of the incidental take program in 1993, which includes 
measures that minimize impacts to the species, one polar bear has been 
killed due to encounters associated with current Industry activities on 
the North Slope. In August 2011, a female polar bear was accidentally 
killed on the Endicott causeway when an attempt to non-lethally deter 
the bear was not conducted properly. After the 2011 lethal take 
incident, the Service reviewed the circumstances that contributed to 
the death of the bear and implemented a series of corrective actions 
with Industry. The Service believes that the corrective actions 
significantly reduce the potential for a similar situation to arise in 
the future. Therefore, we do not anticipate any lethal take of polar 
bears during the 5-year period of these ITRs.
    Industry activities are likely to result in incremental cumulative 
effects to polar bears during the 5-year regulatory period. Based on 
Industry monitoring information, for example, deflection from travel 
routes along the coast appears to be a common occurrence, where bears 
move around coastal facilities rather than traveling through them. 
Incremental cumulative effects could also occur through the potential 
exclusion or temporary avoidance of polar bears from feeding, resting, 
or denning areas and disruption of associated biological behaviors. 
However, based on monitoring results acquired from past ITRs, the level 
of cumulative effects, including those of climate change, during the 5-
year regulatory period would result in negligible effects on the bear 
population.

[[Page 52295]]

    Mitigation measures required for all projects will include a polar 
bear interaction plan, training of personnel, a record of communication 
with potentially affected communities, and a POC when appropriate. 
Mitigation measures that may be used on a case-by-case basis include 
the use of trained marine mammal monitors associated with marine 
activities, the use of den habitat maps developed by the USGS, surveys 
to locate polar bear dens, timing of the activity to limit disturbance 
around dens, the 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer surrounding known dens, and 
suggested work actions around known dens. The Service implements 
certain mitigation measures based on need and effectiveness for 
specific activities based largely on timing and location. For example, 
the Service will implement different mitigation measures for a 2-month-
long exploration project 20 mi inland from the coast, than for an 
annual nearshore development project in shallow waters.
    An example of the application of this process would be in the case 
of Industry activities occurring around a known polar bear den. Each 
LOA requires a polar bear interaction plan and a minimum 1.6-km (1-mi) 
buffer between Industry activities and known denning sites. If a den is 
discovered after Industry activities have begun, we may require 
Industry to cease activities within the buffer zone until the bears 
have left the den and departed the area undisturbed. To further reduce 
the potential for disturbance to denning females we conduct surveys, in 
cooperation with Industry, to detect active polar bear dens using 
remote sensing techniques, such as thermal imagery (Forward Looking 
Infra-Red, FLIR, cameras), and maps of potential denning habitat along 
the Beaufort Sea coast.
    Thermal imagery, as a mitigation tool, is used in conjunction with 
polar bear denning habitat maps. Industry activity areas, such as 
coastal ice roads, are compared to polar bear denning habitat, and 
transects are then created to survey the specific habitat within the 
Industry area. FLIR heat signatures within a standardized den location 
protocol are noted, and further mitigation measures are placed around 
these locations. FLIR surveys are more effective at detecting polar 
bear dens than visual observations. The effectiveness increases when 
FLIR surveys are combined with site-specific, scent-trained dog 
surveys. These techniques will continue to be required as conditions of 
LOAs when appropriate.
    Industry has sponsored cooperative research evaluating how polar 
bears perceive and respond to various types of disturbance. This 
information has been useful to refine site-specific mitigation 
measures. Using current mitigation measures, Industry activities have 
had no known polar bear population-level effects during the period of 
previous regulations. We anticipate that, with continued mitigation 
measures, the impacts to denning and non-denning polar bears will be at 
the same low level as under previous regulations.
    The Service believes that the required mitigation measures will be 
effective in minimizing the impacts of Industry activity upon polar 
bears during the 5-year timeframe of these ITRs as they have in the 
past.
    For further information on the cumulative effects of oil and gas 
development on polar bears in Alaska, refer to the Service's 2008 
``Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus)'' at: 
http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_Assessment.pdf.

Potential Effects of Oil Spills on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

    Walrus and polar bear ranges overlap with many active and planned 
Industry activities. There is a risk of oil spills from facilities, 
ships, and pipelines in both offshore and onshore habitat. To date, no 
major offshore oil spills have occurred in the Alaska Beaufort Sea. 
Though numerous small onshore spills have occurred on the North Slope, 
there have been no documented effects to polar bears.
    Oil spills are unintentional releases of oil or petroleum products. 
In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Permit Program, all North Slope oil companies must submit an oil spill 
contingency plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the environment, 
and a reporting system requires operators to report spills. Between 
1977 and 1999, an average of 70 oil and 234 waste product spills 
occurred annually on the North Slope oilfields. Although most spills 
have been small by Industry standards (less than 50 bbl), larger spills 
(more than 500 bbl) accounted for much of the annual volume. Seven 
large spills occurred between 1985 and 2009 on the North Slope. The 
largest spill occurred in the spring of 2006 when approximately 6,190 
bbl leaked from flow lines near an oil gathering center. More recently, 
several large spills have occurred. In 2012, 1,000 bbl of drilling mud 
and 100 bbl of crude were spilled in separate incidents, in 2013, 
approximately 166 bbl of crude oil was spilled, and in 2014, 177 bbl of 
drilling mud was spilled. Those spills occurred primarily in the 
terrestrial environment in heavily industrialized areas not utilized by 
walruses or polar bears and posed little risk to the animals.
    Walruses and polar bears could encounter spilled oil from 
exploratory operations, existing offshore facilities, pipelines, or 
from marine vessels. The shipping of crude oil, oil products, or other 
toxic substances, as well as the fuel for the shipping vessels, 
increases the risk of a spill. Future reductions in Arctic sea-ice 
extent are expected to improve access to Arctic shipping lanes and 
extend the Arctic shipping season, also increasing the risk of a spill.
    Oil spills in the sea-ice environment, at the ice edge, in leads, 
polynyas, and similar areas of importance to walruses and polar bears, 
are of particular concern. Oil spilled in those areas presents an even 
greater challenge because of both the difficulties associated with 
cleaning oil in sea-ice, and the presence of wildlife in those areas. 
As additional offshore Industry projects are planned, the potential for 
large spills in the marine environment increases.
    Oiling of food sources, such as ringed seals, may result in 
indirect effects on polar bears, such as a local reduction in ringed 
seal numbers, or a change to the local distribution of seals and bears. 
More direct effects on polar bears could occur from: (1) Ingestion of 
oiled prey, potentially resulting in reduced survival of individual 
bears; (2) oiling of fur and subsequent ingestion of oil from grooming; 
(3) oiling and fouling of fur with subsequent loss of insulation, 
leading to hypothermia; and (4) disturbance, injury, or death from 
interactions with humans during oil spill response activities. Polar 
bears may be particularly vulnerable to disturbance when nutritionally 
stressed and during denning. Cleanup operations that disturb a den 
could result in death of cubs through abandonment, and perhaps death of 
the sow as well. In spring, females with cubs of the year that denned 
near or on land and migrate to contaminated offshore areas may 
encounter oil following a spill (Stirling in Geraci and St. Aubin 
1990).
    In the event of an oil spill, the Service follows oil spill 
response plans to respond to the spill, coordinate with partners, and 
reduce the impact of a spill on wildlife. Several factors will be 
considered when responding to an oil spill. They include the location 
of the spill, the magnitude of the spill, oil viscosity and thickness, 
accessibility to spill site, spill trajectory, time of year, weather 
conditions (i.e., wind, temperature, precipitation), environmental 
conditions (i.e., presence

[[Page 52296]]

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 human-bear 
interactions. Response efforts will be conducted under a three-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 vigorously applied. Tertiary response capability has 
been developed by the Service and partners, though such response 
efforts would most likely only be able to handle a few animals at a 
time. More information is available in the Service's oil spill response 
plans for walruses and polar bears in Alaska is located at: http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/contaminants/pdf/Polar%20Bear%20WRP%20final%20v8_Public%20website.pdf and https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/plans/uc/Annex%20G%20(Oct%202012).pdf.
    BOEM has acknowledged that there are difficulties in effective oil-
spill response in broken-ice conditions, and the National Academy of 
Sciences has determined that ``no current cleanup methods remove more 
than a small fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, especially in 
the presence of broken ice.'' BOEM advocates the use of nonmechanical 
methods of spill response, such as in-situ burning, during periods when 
broken-ice would hamper an effective mechanical response (MMS 2008b). 
An in-situ burn has the potential to rapidly remove large quantities of 
oil and can be employed when broken-ice conditions may preclude 
mechanical response. However, the resulting smoke plume may contain 
toxic chemicals and high levels of particulates that can pose health 
risks to marine mammals, birds and other wildlife, as well as to 
humans. Smoke trajectories must be considered before making the 
decision to burn spilled oil. Another potential nonmechanical response 
strategy is the use of chemical dispersants to speed dissipation of oil 
from the water surface and disperse it within the water column in small 
droplets. Dispersant use presents environmental trade-offs. While 
walruses and polar bears would likely benefit from reduced surface or 
shoreline oiling, dispersant use could have negative impacts on the 
aquatic food chain. Oil spill cleanup in the broken-ice and open-water 
conditions that characterize Arctic waters is problematic.

Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

    The MMPA does not authorize the incidental take of marine mammals 
as the result of illegal actions, such as oil spills. Any event that 
results in an injurious or lethal outcome to a marine mammal is not 
authorized under these ITRs. However, for the purpose of determining 
whether Industry activity would have a negligible effect on walruses 
and polar bears, the Service evaluated the potential impacts of oil 
spills within the Beaufort Sea ITR region.

Pacific Walrus

    As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is not within the primary range 
for walruses. Therefore, the probability of walruses encountering oil 
or waste products as a result of a spill from Industry activities is 
low. Onshore oil spills would not impact walruses unless oil moved into 
the offshore environment. In the event of a spill that occurs during 
the open-water season, oil in the water column could drift offshore and 
possibly encounter a small number of walruses. Oil spills from offshore 
platforms could also contact walruses under certain conditions. Spilled 
oil during the ice-covered season not cleaned up could become part of 
the ice substrate and be eventually released back into the environment 
during the following open-water season. During spring melt, oil would 
be collected by spill response activities, but it could eventually 
contact a limited number of walruses.
    Little is known about the effects of oil specifically on walruses 
as no studies have been conducted. Hypothetically, walruses may react 
to oil much like other pinnipeds. Walruses are not likely to ingest oil 
while grooming since walruses have very little hair and exhibit no 
grooming behavior. Adult walruses may not be severely affected by the 
oil spill through direct contact, but they will be extremely sensitive 
to any habitat disturbance by human noise and response activities. In 
addition, due to the gregarious nature of walruses, an oil spill would 
most likely affect multiple individuals in the area. Walruses may also 
expose themselves more often to the oil that has accumulated at the 
edge of a contaminated shore or ice lead if they repeatedly enter and 
exit the water.
    Walrus calves are most likely to suffer the effects of oil 
contamination. Female walruses with calves are very attentive, and the 
calf will stay close to its mother at all times, including when the 
female is foraging for food. Walrus calves can swim almost immediately 
after birth and will often join their mother in the water. It is 
possible that an oiled calf will be unrecognizable to its mother either 
by sight or by smell, and be abandoned. However, the greater threat may 
come from an oiled calf that is unable to swim away from the 
contamination and a devoted mother that would not leave without the 
calf, resulting in the potential mortality of both animals. Further, a 
nursing calf might ingest oil if the cow was oiled, also increasing the 
risk of injury or mortality.
    Walruses have thick skin and blubber layers for insulation. Heat 
loss is regulated by control of peripheral blood flow through the 
animal's skin and blubber. The peripheral blood flow is decreased in 
cold water and increased at warmer temperatures. Direct exposure of 
walruses to oil is not believed to have any effect on the insulating 
capacity of their skin and blubber, although it is unknown if oil could 
affect their peripheral blood flow.
    Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can occur from contact with oil 
because some of the oil penetrates into the skin, causing inflammation 
and death of some tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, leaving behind 
an ulcer. While these skin lesions have only rarely been found on oiled 
seals, the effects on walruses may be greater because of a lack of hair 
to protect the skin. Direct exposure to oil can also result in 
conjunctivitis. Like other pinnipeds, walruses are susceptible to oil 
contamination in their eyes. Continuous exposure to oil will quickly 
cause permanent eye damage.
    Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes presents another threat to marine 
mammals. In studies conducted on pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage, 
inflammation, congestion, and nerve damage resulted after exposure to 
concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a period of 24 hours. If the 
walruses were also under stress from molting, pregnancy, etc., the 
increased heart rate associated with the stress would circulate the 
hydrocarbons more quickly, lowering the tolerance threshold for 
ingestion or inhalation.
    Walruses are benthic feeders, and much of the benthic prey 
contaminated by an oil spill would be killed immediately. Others that 
survived would become contaminated from oil in bottom sediments, 
possibly resulting in slower growth and a decrease in

[[Page 52297]]

reproduction. Bivalve mollusks, a favorite prey species of the walrus, 
are not effective at processing hydrocarbon compounds, resulting in 
highly concentrated accumulations and long-term retention of the 
contamination within the organism. Specifically, bivalve mollusks 
bioconcentrate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a particularly 
toxic fraction of oil. PAHs may cause a variety of chronic toxic 
effects in exposed organisms, including enzyme induction, immune 
impairment, or cancer, among others. In addition, because walruses feed 
primarily on mollusks, they may be more vulnerable to a loss of this 
prey species than other pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety of 
prey. Furthermore, complete recovery of a bivalve mollusk population 
may take 10 years or more, forcing walruses to find other food 
resources or move to nontraditional areas.
    The relatively few walruses in the Beaufort Sea and the low 
potential for a large oil spill (1,000 bbl or more), which is discussed 
in the following Risk Assessment Analysis, limit potential impacts to 
walruses to only certain events (i.e., a large oil spill) and then only 
to a limited number of individuals. Fueling crews have personnel that 
are trained to handle operational spills and contain them. If a small 
offshore spill occurs, spill response vessels are stationed in close 
proximity and respond immediately. A detailed discussion of oil spill 
prevention and response for walruses can be found at: https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/plans/uc/Annex%20G%20(Oct%202012).pdf.

Polar Bear

    To date, large oil spills from Industry activities in the Beaufort 
Sea and coastal regions that would impact polar bears have not 
occurred, although the interest in, and the development of, offshore 
hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased the potential for large offshore 
oil spills. With limited background information available regarding oil 
spills in the Arctic environment, the outcome of such a spill is 
uncertain. For example, in the event of a large spill equal to a 
rupture in the Northstar pipeline and a complete drain of the subsea 
portion of the pipeline (approximately 5,900 bbl), oil would be 
influenced by seasonal weather and sea conditions including 
temperature, winds, wave action, and currents. Weather and sea 
conditions also affect the type of equipment needed for spill response 
and the effectiveness of spill cleanup. Based on the experiences of 
cleanup efforts following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where logistical 
support was readily available, spill response may be largely 
unsuccessful in open-water conditions. Indeed, spill response drills 
have been unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in broken-ice conditions.
    Small spills of oil or waste products throughout the year could 
potentially impact some 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, northeast of Oliktok Point. The 
cause of death was determined to be due to a mixture that included 
ethylene glycol and Rhodamine B dye (Amstrup et al. 1989). Again, in 
2012, two dead polar bears that had been exposed to Rhodamine B were 
found on Narwhal Island, northwest of Endicott. While those bears' 
deaths were clearly human-caused, investigations were unable to 
identify a source for the chemicals. Rhodamine B is commonly used on 
the North Slope of Alaska by many people for many uses, including 
Industry. Without identified sources of contamination, those bear 
deaths cannot be attributed to Industry activity.
    During the ice-covered season, mobile, non-denning bears would have 
a higher probability of encountering oil or other production wastes 
than non-mobile, denning females. Current management practices by 
Industry, such as requiring the proper use, storage, and disposal of 
hazardous materials, minimize the potential occurrence of such 
incidents. In the event of an oil spill, it is also likely that polar 
bears would be intentionally hazed to keep them away from the area, 
further reducing the likelihood of impacting the population.
    In 1980, Oritsland et al. (1981) performed experiments in Canada 
that studied the effects to polar bears of exposure to oil. Effects on 
experimentally oiled polar bears (where bears were forced to remain in 
oil for prolonged periods of time) included acute inflammation of the 
nasal passages, marked epidermal responses, anemia, anorexia, and 
biochemical changes indicative of stress, renal impairment, and death. 
Many effects did not become evident until several weeks after the 
experiment.
    Oiling of the pelt causes significant thermoregulatory problems by 
reducing the insulation value. Irritation or damage to the skin by oil 
may further contribute to impaired thermoregulation. Experiments on 
live polar bears and pelts showed that the thermal value of the fur 
decreased significantly after oiling, and oiled bears showed increased 
metabolic rates and elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears are also 
likely to ingest oil as they groom to restore the insulation value of 
the oiled fur.
    Oil ingestion by polar bears through consumption of contaminated 
prey, and by grooming or nursing, could have pathological effects, 
depending on the amount of oil ingested and the individual's 
physiological state. Death could occur if a large amount of oil were 
ingested or if volatile components of oil were aspirated into the 
lungs. Indeed, two of three bears died in the Canadian experiment, and 
it was suspected that the ingestion of oil was a contributing factor to 
the deaths. Experimentally oiled bears ingested much oil through 
grooming. Much of it was eliminated by vomiting and in the feces; some 
was absorbed and later found in body fluids and tissues.
    Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil can have various 
physiological effects on polar bears, 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 toxic, volatile organic compounds from petroleum vapors. Vapor 
inhalation by polar bears could result in damage to the respiratory and 
central nervous systems, depending on the amount of exposure.
    Oil may also affect food sources of polar bears. Seals that die as 
a result of an oil spill could be scavenged by polar bears. This food 
source would increase exposure of the bears to hydrocarbons and could 
result in lethal impacts or reduced survival to individual bears. A 
local reduction in ringed seal numbers as a result of direct or 
indirect effects of oil could temporarily affect the local distribution 
of polar bears. A reduction in density of seals as a direct result of 
mortality from contact with spilled oil could result in polar bears not 
using a particular area for hunting. Possible impacts from the loss of 
a food source could reduce recruitment and/or survival.
    Spilled oil can concentrate and accumulate in leads and openings 
that occur during spring breakup and autumn freeze-up periods. Such a 
concentration of spilled oil would increase the chance that polar bears 
and their principal prey would be oiled. To access ringed and bearded 
seals, polar bears in the SBS concentrate in shallow waters less than 
300 m (984 ft) deep over the continental shelf and in areas

[[Page 52298]]

with greater than 50 percent ice cover (Durner et al. 2004).
    Due to their seasonal use of nearshore habitat, the times of 
greatest impact from an oil spill to polar bears are likely the open-
water and broken-ice periods (summer and fall). This scenario is 
important because distributions of polar bears are not uniform through 
time. Nearshore and offshore polar bear densities are greatest in fall, 
and polar bear use of coastal areas during the fall open-water period 
has increased in recent years in the Beaufort Sea. An analysis of data 
collected from 2001-2005 during the fall open-water period concluded: 
(1) On average approximately 4 percent of the estimated polar bears in 
the Southern Beaufort population were observed onshore in the fall; (2) 
80 percent of bears onshore occurred within 15 km (9 mi) of 
subsistence-harvested bowhead whale carcasses, where large 
congregations of polar bears have been observed feeding; and (3) sea-
ice conditions affected the number of bears on land and the duration of 
time they spent there (Schliebe et al. 2006). Hence, bears concentrated 
in areas where beach-cast marine mammal carcasses occur during the fall 
would likely be more susceptible to oiling.
    The persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even 
at sublethal levels, can have long-term effects on wildlife (Peterson 
et al. 2003). Exposure to PAHs can have chronic effects because some 
effects are sublethal (e.g., enzyme induction or immune impairment) or 
delayed (e.g., cancer). Although it is true that some bears may be 
directly affected by spilled oil initially, the long-term impact could 
be much greater. Long-term effects could be substantial through complex 
environmental interactions and compromised health of exposed animals. 
For example, PAHs can impact the food web by concentrating in filter-
feeding organisms, thus affecting fish that feed on those organisms, 
and the predators of those fish, such as the ringed seals that polar 
bears prey upon. How these complex interactions would affect polar 
bears is not well understood, but sublethal, chronic effects of an oil 
spill may affect the polar bear population due to reduced fitness of 
surviving animals.
    Polar bears are biological sinks for some pollutants, such as 
polychlorinated biphenyls or organochlorine pesticides, because they 
are an apex predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are also opportunistic 
scavengers of other marine mammals. Additionally, their diet is 
composed mostly of high-fat sealskin and blubber (Norstrom et al. 
1988). The highest concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in 
Arctic marine mammals have been found in seal-eating walruses and polar 
bears 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, which could affect their 
reproduction, survival, and immune systems.
    In addition, subadult polar bears are more vulnerable than adults 
to environmental effects (Taylor et al. 1987). Subadult polar bears 
would be most prone to the lethal and sublethal effects of an oil spill 
due to their proclivity for scavenging (thus increasing their exposure 
to oiled marine mammals) and their inexperience in hunting. Because of 
the greater maternal investment a weaned subadult represents, reduced 
survival rates of subadult polar bears have a greater impact on 
population growth rate and sustainable harvest than reduced litter 
production rates (Taylor et al. 1987).
    Evaluation of the potential impacts of spilled Industry waste 
products and oil suggest that individual bears could be adversely 
impacted by exposure to these substances (Oritsland et al. 1981). The 
major concern regarding a large oil spill is the impact such a spill 
would have on the rates of recruitment and survival of the SBS polar 
bear population. If an oil spill killed a small number of bears, the 
SBS population may be able to survive and continue to sustain the 
current level of subsistence harvest. However, if a large oil spill 
killed large numbers of polar bears, the SBS population may experience 
reduced rates of recruitment and survival and subsistence harvest could 
become unsustainable. Polar bear deaths from an oil spill could be 
caused by direct exposure to the oil. However, indirect effects, such 
as a reduction of prey or scavenging contaminated carcasses, could also 
cause health effects, death, or otherwise affect rates of recruitment 
and survival. Depending on the type and amount of oil or wastes 
involved and the timing and location of a spill, impacts could be 
acute, chronic, temporary, or lethal. In order for the rates of polar 
bear reproduction, recruitment, or survival to be impacted, a large-
volume oil spill would have to take place. The following section 
analyzes the likelihood and potential effects of such a large-volume 
oil spill.

Risk Assessment of Potential Effects Upon Polar Bears From a Large Oil 
Spill in the Beaufort Sea

    In this section, we qualitatively assess the likelihood that polar 
bears may be oiled by a large oil spill. We considered: (1) The 
probability of a large oil spill occurring in the Beaufort Sea; (2) the 
probability of that oil spill impacting coastal polar bear habitat; (3) 
the probability of polar bears being in the area and coming into 
contact with that large oil spill; and (4) the number of polar bears 
that could potentially be impacted by the spill. Although the majority 
of the information in this evaluation is qualitative, the probability 
of all of these factors occurring sequentially in a manner that impacts 
polar bears in the Beaufort Sea is low. Since walruses are not often 
found in the Beaufort Sea, and there is little information available 
regarding the potential effects of an oil spill upon walruses, this 
analysis emphasizes polar bears.
    The analysis was based on polar bear distribution and habitat use 
using four sources of information that, when combined, allowed the 
Service to make conclusions on the risk of oil spills to polar bears. 
This information included: (1) The description of existing offshore oil 
and gas production facilities previously discussed in the Description 
of Activities section; (2) polar bear distribution information 
previously discussed in the Biological Information section; (3) BOEM 
Oil-Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) for the OCS, including polar bear 
environmental resource areas (ERAs) and land segments (LSs), which 
allowed us to qualitatively analyze the risk to polar bears and their 
habitat from a marine oil spill; and (4) the most recent polar bear 
risk assessment from the previous ITRs.
    Development of offshore production facilities with supporting 
pipelines increases the potential for large offshore spills. The 
probability of a large oil spill from offshore oil and gas facilities 
and the risk to polar bears is a scenario that has been considered in 
previous regulations (71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006 and 76 FR 47010, 
August 3, 2011). With the limited background information available 
regarding the effects of large oil spills on polar bears in the marine 
Arctic environment, the impact of a large oil spill is uncertain. As 
far as is known, polar bears have not been affected by oil spilled as a 
result of North Slope Industry activities.
    In order to effectively evaluate how a large oil spill may affect 
polar bears, we considered the following factors in developing our oil 
spill assessment for polar bears: The origin (location) of a large 
spill; the volume of a spill; oil viscosity; accessibility to spill 
site; spill trajectory; time of year; weather conditions (i.e., wind, 
temperature, precipitation); environmental

[[Page 52299]]

conditions (i.e., presence and thickness of ice); number, age, and sex 
of polar bears that are (or likely to be) affected; degree of contact; 
importance of affected habitat; and mitigation measures to prevent 
bears from encountering spilled oil.
    The oil-spill scenario for this analysis considers the potential 
impacts of a large oil spill (i.e., 1,000 bbl or more) from one of the 
offshore Industry facilities: Northstar, Spy Island, Oooguruk, 
Endicott, or the future Liberty. Estimating a large oil-spill 
occurrence is accomplished by examining a wide variety of 
probabilities. Uncertainty exists regarding the location, number, and 
size of a large oil spill and the wind, ice, and current conditions at 
the time of a spill, but we have made every effort to identify the most 
likely spill scenarios and sources of risk to polar bears. Conditional 
probabilities analysis assumes that a large spill has occurred and that 
no cleanup takes place. The probability of a spill occurring would be 
different for each site depending upon oil type, depth, oil flow rates, 
etc.

BOEM Oil Spill Risk Analysis

    Because the BOEM OSRA provides the most current and rigorous 
treatment of potential oil spills in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, 
our analysis of potential oil spill impacts applied BOEM's OSRA (MMS 
2008a) to help analyze potential impacts of a large oil spill 
originating in the Beaufort Sea ITR region to polar bears. The OSRA is 
a computer model that analyzes how and where large offshore spills will 
likely move (Smith et al. 1982). To estimate the likely trajectory of 
large oil spills, the OSRA model used information about the physical 
environment, including data on wind, sea-ice, and currents. As a 
conditional model, the OSRA is a hypothetical analysis of an oil spill.
    The BOEM OSRA model was developed for the Federal offshore waters 
and does not include analysis of oil spills in the State of Alaska-
controlled nearshore waters. Northstar, Oooguruk, Spy Island, and the 
Endicott/Liberty complex are located in nearshore State waters. 
Northstar has one Federal well, and Liberty is a Federal reservoir to 
be developed from State waters. Although the OSRA cannot calculate 
trajectories of oil spills originating from specific locations in the 
nearshore area, it can be used to help examine how habitat may be 
affected by a spill should one originate in the OCS. We can then 
compare the location of the affected habitat to habitat use by bears.
    The OSRA model predicted where the oil trajectory would go if the 
oil persisted as a slick at a particular time of year. Oil spills of 
less than 1,000 bbl are not expected to persist on the water long 
enough to warrant a trajectory analysis. For this reason, we only 
analyzed the effects of a large oil spill. Although no large spills 
from oil and gas activities have occurred on the Alaska OCS to date, 
the large spill volume assumptions used by BOEM were based on the 
reported spills from oil exploration and production in the Gulf of 
Mexico and Pacific OCS regions. BOEM used the median spill size in the 
Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS in the period 1985-1999 as the likely 
large spill size for analysis purposes. The median size of a large 
crude oil spill from a pipeline in the period 1985-1999 on the U.S. OCS 
was 4,600 bbl, and the average was 6,700 bbl (Anderson and LaBelle 
2000). The median large spill size for a platform on the OCS over the 
entire record in the period 1964-1999 is 1,500 bbl, and the average is 
3,300 bbl (Anderson and LaBelle 2000).
    The OSRA estimated that the statistical mean number of large spills 
is less than one over the 20-year life of past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable developments in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. In addition 
large spills are more likely to occur during development and production 
than during exploration in the Arctic (MMS 2008). Our oil spill 
assessment during a 5-year regulatory period was predicated on the same 
assumptions.
    Between 1971 and 2007, OCS operators have produced almost 15 
billion bbl of oil in the United States. During this period, 2,645 
spills totaled approximately 164,100 bbl spilled (~0.001 percent of bbl 
produced), or about 1 bbl spilled for every 91,400 bbl produced. 
Between 1993 and 2007, almost 7.5 billion bbl of oil were produced. 
During this period, 651 spills totaled approximately 47,800 bbl spilled 
(~0.0006 percent of bbl produced), or approximately 1 bbl spilled for 
every 156,900 bbl produced.
    Between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2014, the North Slope industrial 
area reported an average of 59,043 gallons of spilled substances 
annually, with a total of 138 crude oil spills. Statewide during this 
period, approximately 5.6 percent of the total volume of spilled 
material consisted of crude oil. The volume of spilled crude on the 
North Slope was, therefore, estimated to be approximately 79 bbl 
(~1,406 x 0.056 = ~79). Recent large spills of crude oil have included 
a subsurface release of 166 bbl from a well at Milne Point, and a 100 
bbl spill from a tank. Secondary containment retained the smaller of 
these spills.
    Two large onshore terrestrial oil spills have occurred as a result 
of pipeline failures. In the spring of 2006, approximately 6,200 bbl of 
crude oil spilled from a corroded pipeline operated by BP Exploration 
(Alaska). The spill impacted approximately 0.8 ha (~2 ac). In November 
2009, a spill of approximately 1,150 bbl from a ``common line'' 
carrying oil, water, and natural gas operated by BP occurred as well, 
impacting approximately 780 m\2\ (~8,400 ft\2\). None of these spills 
were known to impact polar bears, in part due to the locations and 
timing. Both sites were within or near Industry facilities not 
frequented by polar bears, and they are not typically observed in the 
affected areas during the time of the spills and subsequent cleanup.
    The BLM and BOEM modelled the likelihood of spills occurring during 
exploration and development in the NPR-A and in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Sea planning area (BLM 2012 and BOEM 2011, respectively). Large 
(>=1,000 bbl) or very large spills (>=120,000 bbl) were considered 
extremely unlikely to occur during oil and gas exploration. The two 
sources of potential large crude oil spills are from pipelines and 
long-duration blowout resulting from a well-control incident. The loss 
of the entire volume in an onshore pipeline between two valves would 
also result in a large spill of crude oil. The BLM estimated a 28 
percent chance that one or more large crude oil spills would occur 
during 50 years. Based on information on past spills, spill volumes 
close to the lower end of the ``large spill'' range (1,000 bbl) are 
much more likely than spill volumes in the upper end of the range 
(119,999 bbl). BOEM (2014) considered spill sizes of 1,700 and 5,100 
bbl to be the largest spill size likely to occur from a pipeline or 
facility, respectively. BOEM estimated that the occurrence and 
frequency of large and very large spills from OCS exploratory and 
delineation wells at 0.003 (mean spill frequency per 1,000 years) and 
2.39 x 10-5 (mean spill frequency per well), respectively 
(BOEM 2011). The approximate occurrence rates worldwide for very large 
oil spills are about one for every 270 billion bbl produced (BLM 2012). 
More locally (at Northstar), the statistical frequency of a blowout 
well leading to a very large oil spill was estimated at 9.4 x 
10-7 per well drilled (for volumes > 130,000 bbl (BLM 
2012)). Thus, while small spills (<50 bbl) are reasonably likely to 
occur, very large oil spills are extremely unlikely to occur, and none 
have occurred on Alaska's North Slope or in the Beaufort Sea to date.
    Across the United States, in the period 1971-2010, one well control

[[Page 52300]]

incident resulted in a spill volume estimated at 4.9 million bbl (210 
million gal) and that was the Deepwater Horizon event. The large oil 
spill estimates for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of 
the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas are still considered 
valid despite the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Geologic and other 
conditions in the Arctic OCS are substantially different from those in 
the Gulf of Mexico, including much shallower well depth and the 
resulting lower pressures, such that BOEM currently does not believe 
that the Deepwater horizon incident serves as a predictor for the 
likelihood or magnitude of a very large oil spill event in the Beaufort 
Sea. Considering the low number of exploratory wells (84) that have 
occurred in the Beaufort Sea Alaska OCS (BOEM 2011), the low rate of 
exploratory drilling blowouts per well drilled, and the low rate of 
well control incidents that spill fluids, it is reasonable to conclude 
that the chance of a large spill occurring during OCS exploration 
drilling in the Beaufort is small. In addition, it is important to note 
that Industry does not plan to conduct drilling operations at more than 
three exploration sites in the Beaufort Sea OCS for the duration of the 
5-year regulatory period.
Trajectory Estimates of Large Offshore Oil Spills
    Although it is reasonable to conclude that the chance of one or 
more large spills occurring during the period of these regulations on 
the Alaskan OCS from production activities is low, for analysis 
purposes, we assume that a large spill does occur in order to evaluate 
potential impacts to polar bears. The BOEM OSRA model analyzes the 
likely paths of more than two million simulated oil spills in relation 
to the shoreline and biological, physical, and sociocultural resource 
areas specific to the Beaufort Sea. The chance that a large oil spill 
will contact a specific ERA of concern within a given time of travel 
from a certain location (launch area or pipeline segment) is termed a 
``conditional probability.'' Conditional probabilities assume that no 
cleanup activities take place, and that there are no efforts to contain 
the spill. We used the BOEM OSRA analysis from the Arctic Multi-sale 
DEIS to estimate the conditional probabilities of a large spill 
contacting sensitive ERAs pertinent to polar bears.
Oil-Spill Persistence
    How long an oil spill persists on water or on the shoreline can 
vary, depending upon the size of the oil spill, the environmental 
conditions at the time of the spill, and the substrate of the 
shoreline. In its large oil spill analysis, BOEM assumed 1,500-bbl and 
4,600-bbl spills could last up to 30 days on the water as a coherent 
slick based on oil weathering properties and dispersal data specific to 
North Slope crude oils. Therefore, we assumed that winter spills 
(October-June) could last up to 180 days as a coherent slick (i.e., if 
a coherent slick were to freeze into ice over winter, it would melt out 
as a slick in spring).
    We used three BOEM launch areas (LAs), LA 8, LA 10, LA 12, and 
three pipeline segments (PLs), PL 10, PL 11, and PL 12, from Appendix A 
of the Arctic Multi-sale DEIS (Map A.1-4) to represent the oil spills 
moving from hypothetical offshore areas. These LAs and PLs were 
selected because of their close proximity to current offshore 
facilities.
Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model Assumptions
    For purposes of its oil spill trajectory simulation, BOEM made the 
following assumptions: All spills occur instantaneously; large oil 
spills occur in the hypothetical origin areas or along the hypothetical 
pipeline segments noted above; large spills do not weather for purposes 
of trajectory analysis; weathering is calculated separately; the model 
does not simulate cleanup scenarios; the oil spill trajectories move as 
though no oil spill response action is taken; and large oil spills stop 
when they contact the mainland coastline.
Analysis of the Conditional Probability Results
    As noted above, the chance that a large oil spill will contact a 
specific ERA of concern within a given time of travel from a certain 
location (LA or PL), assuming a large spill occurs and that no cleanup 
takes place, is termed a ``conditional probability.'' From the DEIS, 
Appendix A, we chose ERAs and LSs to represent areas of concern 
pertinent to polar bears (MMS 2008a). Those ERAs and LSs and the 
conditional probabilities that a large oil spill originating from the 
selected LAs or PLs could affect those ERAs and LSs are presented in 
Table 1. From Table 1, we noted the highest chance of contact and the 
range of chances of contact that could occur should a large spill occur 
from LAs or PLs.

[[Page 52301]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05AU16.038

    Polar bears are most vulnerable to a large oil spill during the 
open-water period when bears form aggregations onshore. In the Beaufort 
Sea these aggregations often form in the fall near subsistence-
harvested bowhead whale carcasses. Specific aggregation areas include 
Point Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik. In recent years, more than 60 
polar bears have been observed feeding on whale carcasses just outside 
of Kaktovik, and in the autumn of 2002, NSB and Service biologists 
documented more than 100 polar bears in and around Barrow. In order for 
significant

[[Page 52302]]

impacts to polar bears to occur, (1) a large oil spill would have to 
occur, (2) oil would have to contact an area where polar bears 
aggregate, and (3) the aggregation of polar bears would have to occur 
at the same time as the spill. The risk of all three of these events 
occurring simultaneously is low.
    We identified polar bear aggregations in environmental resource 
areas and non-grouped land segments (ERA 55, 93, 95, 96, 100; LS 85, 
107). Assuming a spill occurs during summer or winter, the OSRA 
estimates the chance of contacting these aggregations is less than 13 
percent (Table 1). The OSRA estimates for LA12 has the highest chance 
of a large spill contacting ERA 96 (Midway, Cross, and Bartlett 
islands). Some polar bears will aggregate at these islands during 
August-October (3 months). If a large oil spill occurred and contacted 
those aggregation sites outside of the timeframe of use by polar bears, 
potential impacts to polar bears would be reduced.
    Coastal areas provide important denning habitat for polar bears, 
such as the ANWR and nearshore barrier islands (containing tundra 
habitat) (Amstrup 1993, Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2006, 
USFWS unpubl. data). Considering that 65 percent of confirmed 
terrestrial dens found in Alaska in the period 1981-2005 were on 
coastal or island bluffs (Durner et al. 2006), oiling of such habitats 
could have negative effects on polar bears, although the specific 
nature and ramifications of such effects are unknown.
    Assuming a large oil spill occurs, and extrapolating the OSRA 
estimates to tundra relief barrier islands (ERA 92, 93, and 94, LS 97 
and 102), these areas have up to a 12 percent chance of a large spill 
contacting them (a range of less than 0.5 percent to 12 percent) from 
LA 12 (Table 1). The OSRA estimates suggest that there is an 11 percent 
chance that oil would contact the coastline of the ANWR (LS 138). The 
Kaktovik area (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107) has up to a 5 percent chance of 
a spill contacting the coastline, assuming spills occur during the 
summer season and contact the coastline within 60 days. The chance of a 
spill contacting the coast near Barrow (ERA 55, LS 85) would be as high 
as 5 percent (Table 1).
    All barrier islands are important resting and travel corridors for 
polar bears, and larger barrier islands that contain tundra relief are 
also important denning habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier islands within 
the geographic region and near oilfield development are the Jones 
Island group of Pingok, Bertoncini, Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, Foggy, 
Tigvariak, and Flaxman islands. In addition, Cross Island has gravel 
relief where polar bears have denned. The Jones Island group is located 
in ERA 92 and LS 97. If a spill were to originate from an LA 8 pipeline 
segment during the summer months, the probability that this spill would 
contact these land segments could be as great as 8 percent. The 
probability that a spill from LA 10 would contact the Jones Island 
group would range from 1 percent to as high as 11 percent. Likewise, 
for LA 12, PL 11 the range would be from 4 percent to as high as 12 
percent, and for LA 12, PL 12 the range would be from 3 percent to as 
high as 12 percent.

Risk Assessment From Prior ITRs

    In previous ITRs, we used a risk assessment method that considered 
oil spill probability estimates for two sites (Northstar and Liberty), 
oil spill trajectory models, and a polar bear distribution model based 
on location of satellite-collared females during September and October 
(68 FR 66744, November 28, 2003; 71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006; and 76 FR 
47010, August 3, 2011). To support the analysis for this action, we 
reviewed the previous analysis and used the data to compare the 
potential effects of a large oil spill in a nearshore production 
facility (less than 5 mi), such as Liberty, and a facility located 
further offshore, such as Northstar. Even though the risk assessment of 
2006 did not specifically model spills from the Oooguruk or Nikaitchuq 
sites, we believe it was reasonable to assume that the analysis for 
Liberty, and indirectly Northstar, adequately reflected the potential 
impacts likely to occur from an oil spill at either of these additional 
locations due to the similarity in the nearshore locations.
Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment
    The first step of the risk assessment analysis was to examine oil 
spill probabilities at offshore production sites for the summer (July-
October) and winter (November-June) seasons based on information 
developed for the original Northstar and Liberty EISs. We assumed that 
one large spill occurred during the 5-year period covered by the 
regulations. A detailed description of the methodology can be found at 
71 FR 43926 (August 2, 2006). The second step in the risk assessment 
was to estimate the number of polar bears that could be impacted by a 
large spill. All modeled polar bear grid cell locations that were 
intersected by one or more cells of a rasterized spill path (a modeled 
group of hundreds of oil particles forming a trajectory and pushed by 
winds and currents and impeded by ice) were considered ``oiled'' by a 
spill. For purposes of the analysis, if a bear contacted oil, the 
contact was assumed to be lethal. This analysis involved estimating the 
distribution of bears that could be in the area and overlapping polar 
bear distributions and seasonal aggregations with oil spill 
trajectories. The trajectories previously calculated for Northstar and 
Liberty sites were used. The trajectories for Northstar and Liberty 
were provided by the BOEM and reported in Amstrup et al. (2006). BOEM 
estimated probable sizes of oil spills from a pinhole leak to a rupture 
in the transportation pipeline. These spill sizes ranged from a minimum 
of 125 to a catastrophic release event of 5,912 bbl. Researchers set 
the size of the modeled spill at the scenario of 5,912 bbl, caused by a 
pinhole or small leak for 60 days under ice without detection.
    The second step of the risk assessment analysis incorporated polar 
bear densities overlapped with the oil spill trajectories. To 
accomplish this, in 2004, USGS completed an analysis investigating the 
potential effects of hypothetical oil spills on polar bears. Movement 
and distribution information was derived from radio and satellite 
locations of collared adult females. Density estimates were used to 
determine the distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea. 
Researchers then created a grid system centered over the Northstar 
production island and the Liberty site to estimate the number of bears 
expected to occur within each 1-km\2\ grid cell. Each of the simulated 
oil spills were overlaid with the polar bear distribution grid. 
Finally, the likelihood of occurrence of bears oiled during the 
duration of the 5-year incidental take regulations was estimated. This 
likelihood was calculated by multiplying the number of polar bears 
oiled by the spill by the percentage of time bears were at risk for 
each period of the year.
    In summary, the maximum numbers of bears potentially oiled by a 
5,912 bbl spill during the September open-water season from Northstar 
was 27, and the maximum from Liberty was 23, assuming a large oil spill 
occurred and no cleanup or mitigation measures take place. Potentially 
oiled polar bears ranged up to 74 bears with up to 55 bears during 
October in mixed-ice conditions for Northstar and Liberty, 
respectively. Median number of bears oiled by the 5,912 bbl spill from 
the Northstar simulation site in September and October were 3 and 11 
bears, respectively. Median numbers of bears oiled from the Liberty 
simulation site for September and October were 1 and

[[Page 52303]]

3 bears, respectively. Variation occurred among oil spill scenarios and 
was the result of differences in oil spill trajectories among those 
scenarios and not the result of variation in the estimated bear 
densities. For example, in October, 75 percent of trajectories from the 
5,912 bbl spill affected 20 or fewer polar bears from spills 
originating at the Northstar simulation site and 9 or fewer bears from 
spills originating at the Liberty simulation site.
    When calculating the probability that a 5,912 bbl spill would oil 5 
or more bears during the annual fall period, we found that oil spills 
and trajectories were more likely to affect fewer than 5 bears versus 
more than 5 bears. Thus, for Northstar, the chance that a 5,912 bbl oil 
spill affected (resulting in mortality) 5 or more bears was 1.0-3.4 
percent; 10 or more bears was 0.7-2.3 percent; and 20 or more bears was 
0.2-0.8 percent. For Liberty, the probability of a spill that would 
affect 5 or more bears was 0.3-7.4 percent; 10 or more bears, 0.1-0.4 
percent; and 20 or more bears, 0.1-0.2 percent.
Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment
    After reviewing the prior risk assessment, we have concluded that 
it remains a valid methodology and analysis for use in this rule. The 
key conditions and considerations used in the analysis remain valid 
today. For this reason, we find that it is appropriate to continue to 
rely on the results of the analysis as it was set forth in 71 FR 43926, 
August 2, 2006.
    The location of Industry sites within the marine environment is 
important when analyzing the potential for polar bears to contact a 
large oil spill. Simulations from the prior risk assessment suggested 
that bears have a higher probability of being oiled from facilities 
located further offshore, such as Northstar. Northstar Island is nearer 
the active ice zone and in deeper water than Endicott/Liberty, 
Oooguruk, and Nikaitchuq, areas where higher bear densities were 
calculated. Furthermore, Northstar is not sheltered by barrier islands. 
By comparison through modeling, the land-fast ice inside the shelter of 
the barrier islands appeared to dramatically restrict the extent of 
most oil spills in comparison to Northstar, which lies outside the 
barrier islands and in deeper water. However, it should be noted that 
while oil spreads more in deep water and breaks up faster in deeper 
waters where wind and wave action are higher, oil persists longer in 
shallow waters and along the shore.
    Based on the simulations, a nearshore island production site (less 
than 5 mi from shore) would potentially involve less risk of polar 
bears being oiled than a facility located further offshore (greater 
than 5 mi). For any spill event, seasonality of habitat use by bears 
will be an important variable in assessing risk to polar bears. During 
the fall season when a portion of the SBS bear population aggregate on 
terrestrial sites and use barrier islands for travel corridors, spill 
events from nearshore industrial facilities may pose more chance of 
exposing bears to oil due to its persistence in the nearshore 
environment. Conversely, during the ice-covered and summer seasons, 
Industry facilities located further offshore (greater than 5 mi) may 
increase the chance of bears being exposed to oil as bears will be 
associated with the ice habitat.

Conclusion of Risk Assessment

    In summary, to date documented oil spill-related impacts in the 
marine environment to polar bears in the Beaufort Sea by the oil and 
gas Industry are minimal. No large spills by Industry in the marine 
environment have occurred in Arctic Alaska. Nevertheless, the 
possibility of oil spills from Industry activities and the subsequent 
impacts on polar bears that contact oil remain a major concern.
    There has been much discussion about effective techniques for 
containing, recovering, and cleaning up oil spills in Arctic marine 
environments, particularly the concern that effective oil spill cleanup 
during poor weather and broken-ice conditions has not been proven. 
Given this uncertainty, limiting the likelihood of a large oil spill 
becomes an even more important consideration. Industry oil spill 
contingency plans describe methodologies in place to prevent a spill 
from occurring. For example, all current offshore production facilities 
have spill containment systems in place at the well heads. In the event 
an oil discharge should occur, containment systems are designed to 
collect the oil before it contacts the environment.
    With the limited background information available regarding oil 
spills in the Arctic environment, it is unknown what the outcome of 
such a spill event would be if one were to occur. Polar bears could 
encounter oil spills during the open-water and ice-covered seasons in 
offshore or onshore habitat. Although most polar bears in the SBS 
population spend a large amount of their time offshore on the pack-ice, 
it is likely that some bears would encounter oil from a large spill 
that persisted for 30 days or more.
    Although the extent of impacts from a large oil spill would depend 
on the size, location, and timing of spills relative to polar bear 
distributions and on the effectiveness of spill response and cleanup 
efforts, under some scenarios, population-level impacts could be 
expected. A large spill originating from a marine oil platform could 
have significant impacts on polar bears if an oil spill contacted an 
aggregation of polar bears. Likewise, a spill occurring during the 
broken-ice period could significantly impact the SBS polar bear 
population in part because polar bears may be more active during this 
season.
    In the event that an offshore oil spill contaminated numerous 
bears, a potentially significant impact to the SBS population could 
result. This effect would be magnified in and around areas of polar 
bear aggregations. Bears could also be affected indirectly either by 
food contamination or by chronic lasting effects caused by exposure to 
oil. During the 5-year period of these regulations, however, the chance 
of a large spill occurring is low.
    While there is uncertainty in the analysis, certain factors must 
align for polar bears to be impacted by a large oil spill occurring in 
the marine environment. First, a large spill must occur. Second, the 
large spill must contaminate areas where bears may be located. Third, 
polar bears must be seasonally distributed within the affected region 
when the oil is present. Assuming a large spill occurs, BOEM's OSRA 
estimated that there is up to a 13 percent chance that a large spill 
from the analyzed sites (LAs 8, 10, and 12 and PLs 10, 11, and 12) 
would contact Cross Island (ERA 96) within 60 days, as much as an 11 
percent chance that it would contact Barter Island and/or the coast of 
the ANWR (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107 and 138), and up to a 5 percent chance 
that an oil spill would contact the coast near Barrow (ERA 55, LS 85) 
during the summer time period. Data from polar bear coastal surveys 
indicate that polar bears are unevenly and seasonally distributed along 
the coastal areas of the Beaufort Sea ITR region. Seasonally only a 
portion of the SBS population utilizes the coastline between the 
Alaska/Canada border and Barrow and only a portion of those bears could 
be in the oil-spill-affected region.
    As a result of the information considered here, the Service 
concludes that the likelihood of an offshore spill from an offshore 
production facility in the next 5 years is low. Moreover, in the 
unlikely event of a large spill, the likelihood that spills would 
contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of bears is low. While 
individual bears could be negatively

[[Page 52304]]

affected by a spill, the potential for a population-level effect is low 
unless the spill contacted an area where large numbers of polar bears 
were gathered. Known polar bear aggregations tend to be seasonal during 
the fall, further minimizing the potential of a spill to impact the 
population. Therefore, we conclude that the likelihood of a large spill 
occurring is low, but if a large spill does occur, the likelihood that 
it would contaminate areas occupied by large numbers of polar bears is 
also low. If a large spill does occur, we conclude that only small 
numbers of polar bears are likely to be affected, though some bears may 
be killed, and there would be only a negligible impact to the SBS 
population.

Take Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears

Small Numbers Determination

    The following analysis concludes that only small numbers of 
walruses and polar bears are likely to be subjected to Level B take by 
harassment incidental to the described Industry activities relative to 
their respective populations.
    1. The number of walruses and polar bears that will be harassed by 
Industry activity is expected to be small relative to the number of 
animals in their populations.
    As stated previously, walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort Sea 
with nearly the entire walrus population found in the Chukchi and 
Bering seas. Industry monitoring reports have observed no more than 35 
walruses between 1995 and 2016, with only a few observed instances of 
disturbance to those walruses (AES Alaska 2015, USFWS unpublished 
data). Between those years, Industry walrus observations in the 
Beaufort Sea ITR region averaged approximately two walruses per year, 
although the actual observations were of a single or a few animals, 
often separated by several years. We do not anticipate that seasonal 
movements of a few walruses into the Beaufort Sea will increase. We 
conclude that over the 5-year period of these ITRs, Industry activities 
will potentially result in a small number of Level B takes of walruses.
    As we stated previously, from 2010 through 2014, Industry made 
1,234 reports of polar bears comprising 1,911 bears. We found that as 
much as 42 percent of the SBS polar bear population may have been 
observed by Industry personnel over that time period, though this is 
likely an overestimate due to the nature of the Industry observation 
data. When we evaluated the effects upon the 1,911 bears observed, we 
found that 81 percent (1,549) resulted in instances of non-taking. Over 
those 5 years, Level B takes of polar bears totaled 338, approximately 
18 percent of the observed bears, or 7.5 percent of the SBS population. 
We conclude that over the 5-year period of these ITRs, Industry 
activities will result in a similarly small number of Level B takes of 
polar bears.
    2. Within the specified geographical region, the area of Industry 
activity is expected to be small relative to the range of walruses and 
polar bears.
    Walruses and polar bears range well beyond the boundaries of the 
Beaufort Sea ITR region. The facts that walruses are extralimital in 
the Beaufort Sea and polar bears move through the areas of Industry 
activity seasonally suggest that Industry activities in the geographic 
area of this rule will have relatively few interactions with walruses 
and polar bears. As reported by AOGA, the total area of infrastructure 
on the North Slope as of 2012 was approximately 7,462 ha (~18,439 ac), 
or approximately 0.1 percent of the Arctic Coastal Plain between the 
Colville and Canning rivers. The 2012 estimated area of Industry 
activity was approximately 0.025 percent of the geographic region of 
this rule. This area is smaller when compared to the proportion of the 
range of walruses or the SBS polar bear population. Allowing for past 
Industry activity area growth, and anticipating the level of activity 
for the 5-year period of this rule, the Service concludes that the area 
of Industry activity will be relatively small compared to the range of 
walruses and polar bears.
    3. Monitoring requirements and adaptive mitigation measures are 
expected to significantly limit the number of incidental takes of 
animals.
    Holders of an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring requirements 
and mitigation measures designed to reduce potential impacts of their 
operations on walruses and polar bears. For Industry activities in 
terrestrial environments, where denning polar bears may be a factor, 
mitigation measures will require that den detection surveys be 
conducted at least a 1.6-km (1-mi) distance from any known polar bear 
den. A full description of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements associated with an LOA can be found in 50 CFR 18.128.
Conclusion
    We expect that only a small proportion of the Pacific walrus 
population or the SBS polar bear population are likely to be affected 
by Industry activities because: (1) Only a small proportion of the 
walrus or polar bear population will occur in the areas where Industry 
activities will occur; (2) only small numbers will be impacted because 
walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort Sea and SBS polar bears are 
widely distributed throughout their expansive range, which encompasses 
areas beyond the Beaufort Sea ITR region; and (3) the monitoring 
requirements and mitigation measures described below will further 
reduce potential impacts.

Negligible Impacts Determination

    Based upon our review of the nature, scope, and timing of Industry 
activities and required mitigation measures, and in consideration of 
the best available scientific information, we have determined that the 
activities will have a negligible impact on walruses and polar bears. 
Factors considered in our negligible effects determination include:
    1. The behavior and distribution of walruses and polar bears in 
areas that overlap with Industry activities are expected to limit 
interactions of walruses and polar bears with those activities.
    The distribution and habitat use patterns of walruses and polar 
bears indicates that relatively few animals will occur in the areas of 
Industry activity at any particular time, and, therefore, few animals 
are likely to be affected. As discussed previously, only small numbers 
of walruses are likely to be found in the Beaufort Sea where and when 
offshore Industry activities are proposed. Likewise, SBS polar bears 
are widely distributed, are most often closely associated with pack-
ice, and are unlikely to interact with open-water industrial 
activities, and their range is greater than the geographic region of 
the ITRs.
    2. The predicted effects of Industry activities on walruses and 
polar bears will be nonlethal, temporary takes of animals.
    The documented impacts of previous Industry activities on walruses 
and polar bears, taking into consideration cumulative effects, suggests 
that the types of activities analyzed for these ITRs will have minimal 
effects and will be short-term, temporary behavioral changes. The vast 
majority of reported polar bear observations have been of polar bears 
moving through the oilfields, undisturbed by the Industry activity.
    3. The footprint of the Industry activities is expected to be small 
relative to the range of the walrus and polar bear populations.
    The relatively small area of Industry activity compared to the 
range of walruses and polar bears will reduce the

[[Page 52305]]

potential of their exposure to and disturbance from Industry 
activities.
    4. Mitigation measures will limit potential effects of Industry 
activities.
    Holders of an LOA will be required to adopt monitoring requirements 
and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential impacts of 
their operations on walruses and polar bears. Seasonal restrictions, 
early detection monitoring programs, den detection surveys for polar 
bears, and adaptive mitigation and management responses based on real-
time monitoring information (described in these regulations) will be 
used to avoid or minimize interactions with walruses and polar bears 
and, therefore, limit potential Industry disturbance of these animals.
Conclusion
    We, therefore, conclude that any incidental take reasonably likely 
to or reasonably expected to occur in association with the Industry 
activities addressed under these regulations will have no more than a 
negligible impact on walruses and polar bears within the Beaufort Sea 
region. We do not expect any resulting disturbance to negatively impact 
the rates of recruitment or survival for the walrus and polar bear 
populations. These regulations do not authorize lethal take, and we do 
not anticipate that any lethal take will occur.

Least Practicable Adverse Impacts Determination

    We evaluated the practicality and effectiveness of mitigation 
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of Industry activities; 
the best available scientific information; and over 20 years of 
monitoring data during Industry activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi 
seas. We have determined that the mitigation measures in these ITRs 
will ensure the least practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses 
and polar bears from Industry activities. The mitigation measures 
discussed in these ITRs and specified in section ``18.128 Mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting requirements'' are generally intended to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and 
polar bears from Industry activities.
    Polar bear den surveys before activities begin during the denning 
season, and the resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone 
around all known polar bear dens and restrictions on the timing and 
types of activities in the vicinity of dens, ensures that impacts to 
denning female polar bears and their cubs are minimized during this 
critical time. The operational exclusion zone for vessels of 805-m 
(0.5-mi) around walruses and polar bears on land or ice and feeding 
walrus groups, the restrictions on vessels separating members of a 
group of walruses from other members of the group, and vessel speed 
reduction in low visibility ensures disturbance from vessels is 
minimized. The restriction that vessels bound for the Beaufort Sea ITR 
Region may not transit through the Chukchi Sea prior to July 1 is 
intended to allow walruses the opportunity to move through the Bering 
Strait and disperse from the confines of the spring lead system into 
the Chukchi Sea with minimal disturbance as well as minimize vessel 
impacts on the availability of walruses for Alaska Native subsistence 
hunters. We considered a variety of mitigation measures for vessels and 
aircraft, such as greater distances, increased altitudes, alternate 
timing, speed reductions, and others. Based on the information we 
currently have regarding vessels and aircraft disturbances and how 
walruses and polar bears may be impacted by them, we concluded that we 
practically and effectively minimize disturbance from these activities 
with the mitigation measures in these ITRs. We will continue to 
evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures as more 
information becomes available.
    Mitigation measures are required for sound-producing offshore 
activities that include monitoring and mitigation zones for activities 
expected to produce pulsed underwater sounds with received sound levels 
>=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. The acoustically verified zones surrounding a 
sound source include a walrus monitoring zone where the received pulsed 
sound level would be >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (walruses in this zone are 
assumed to experience Level B take), a walrus mitigation zone where the 
received pulsed sound level would be >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, and a 
walrus and polar bear mitigation zone where the received pulsed sound 
level would be >= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. We also require adaptive 
mitigation measures for these zones including sound source ramp-up 
procedures (e.g., after a power down or in low visibility conditions), 
power down procedures when walruses are observed in the >= 180 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa zone, and shut down procedures when walruses or polar bears are 
observed in the >= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa zone.
    We considered other acoustic thresholds for underwater sound. For 
example, NMFS adopts an interim 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa generic acoustic 
threshold criterion for MMPA Level B take for non-impulsive underwater 
sounds. Since the development of these thresholds in the late 1990s, 
the understanding of the effects of noise on marine mammal hearing has 
advanced. While NMFS has recognized the need for updated acoustic 
criteria, no final guidance is yet available. In this ITR, we examined 
the current information to determine the appropriate acoustic threshold 
levels for walruses exposed to underwater sounds from Industry 
activities.
    Only one study on one individual is available to evaluate walrus 
underwater hearing (Kastelein et al. 2002), no studies are available to 
evaluate walrus responses to underwater sounds, and no information is 
available on which to base walrus hearing thresholds relative to injury 
and disturbance. The NMFS 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa threshold was developed 
primarily from behavioral studies of gray whales and bowhead whales 
rather than pinnipeds (e.g., Malme et al. 1983, 1984, 1988; Richardson 
et al. 1985, 1986, 1990; Ljungblad et al. 1988; Richardson and Malme 
1993). As a proxy for walruses, we considered information on other 
marine mammals that may have similar hearing characteristics, such as 
otariid pinnipeds (Kastelein et al. 1996; Hemil[auml] et al. 2006). 
Among marine mammals, otariid pinnipeds appear to be less sensitive to 
underwater sound than phocid pinnipeds and many cetaceans (Southall et 
al. 2007; Finneran 2015). None of the available research indicates that 
a temporary shift in hearing threshold (TTS; a common approximation of 
Level B take) is likely to occur in otariid pinnipeds due to short term 
exposure to 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa non-impulsive underwater sounds sound 
(Kastak et al. 1999, 2005; Southall et al. 2007). Given the capacity of 
walruses for travel, extended exposures to high level of sound are 
unlikely. Pacific walruses may travel up to 30 km per day at rates that 
can typically range from 0.3-0.5 km/hr and may reach up to 1.3 km/hr or 
more (Jay et al. 2010, 2014). We determined that there is sufficient 
evidence to conclude that Pacific walruses are unlikely to experience 
Level B take from non-impulsive underwater sounds at 120 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa.
    There is even less information available to evaluate underwater 
polar bear hearing than for walruses. Polar bears could be affected by 
underwater sound, but underwater sound attenuates near the surface due 
to the pressure release effect near the surface (Greene and Richardson 
1988; Richardson et al. 1995). Because polar bears generally do not 
spend much time with their heads underwater it is likely that they 
would be exposed to very little underwater sound. It is likely that 
polar bears

[[Page 52306]]

exposed to underwater sounds would experience no more than short-term 
and temporary changes in behavior.
    We considered acoustic thresholds for underwater sound that would 
effectively minimize impacts to polar bears. Based on our understanding 
of polar bear biology and behavior we determined that a polar bear 
would have to be exposed to relatively loud underwater sound in order 
to experience disturbance, and even louder sound to risk potential 
injury. We determined that there is sufficient evidence to conclude 
that polar bears are unlikely to experience disturbance from underwater 
sounds at >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. We further determined that there is 
sufficient evidence to conclude that polar bears may experience Level B 
take from underwater sounds at >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and may risk TTS 
>= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. We developed the mitigation measures in this ITR 
accordingly.
Conclusion
    We, therefore, conclude that the mitigation measures required by 
these ITRs will effect the least practicable adverse impacts from any 
incidental take likely to occur in association with Industry 
activities.

Findings

    We make the following findings regarding this action:

Small Numbers

Pacific Walrus
    Walruses are extralimital in the Beaufort Sea, thus, the number of 
walruses exposed to the impacts of Industry activities will be 
inherently small. Between 1995 and 2016, Industry observed no more than 
35 walruses in the Beaufort Sea ITR region, with only a few instances 
of disturbance to some of those walruses. We do not anticipate the 
potential for any lethal take from Industry activities. We estimate 
that there will be no more than 10 Level B harassment takes of Pacific 
walruses by Industry activities during the 5-year period of these ITRs.
Polar Bear
    Industry observation reports from the period 2010-2014 indicate 
that on average 383 polar bears were observed annually during Industry 
activities. Some of these observations are sightings of the same bears 
on different occasions. While the majority of observations were 
sightings with no interaction between polar bears and Industry activity 
(~81 percent of observed bears), takes by harassment do occur. 
According to Industry monitoring data, the number of Level B takes has 
averaged 68 per year from 2010 through 2014.
    Based on this information, we estimate that there will be no more 
than 340 Level B harassment takes of polar bears during the 5-year 
period of these ITRs. All takes are anticipated to be nonlethal Level B 
harassment involving short-term and temporary changes in bear behavior. 
The required mitigation and monitoring measures described in the 
regulations are expected to prevent injurious Level A takes, and, 
therefore, the number of lethal takes is estimated to be zero.

Negligible Impact

    Based on the best scientific information available, the results of 
Industry monitoring data from the previous ITRs, 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, current 
information on Pacific walruses, the results of our modeling 
assessments, and the status of the populations, we find that any 
incidental take reasonably likely to result from Industry, or 
substantially similar, activities during the period of the ITRs, in the 
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska, will have no more 
than a negligible impact on walruses and polar bears. We do not expect 
that the total of these disturbances will affect rates of recruitment 
or survival for walruses or polar bears. In making this finding, we 
considered the following: The distribution of the species; the 
biological characteristics of the species; the nature of Industry 
activities; the potential effects of Industry activities and potential 
oil spills on the species; the probability of oil spills occurring; the 
documented impacts of Industry activities on the species, taking into 
consideration cumulative effects; the potential impacts of climate 
change, where both walruses and polar bears can potentially be 
displaced from preferred habitat; mitigation measures designed to 
minimize Industry impacts through adaptive management; and other data 
provided by Industry monitoring programs in the Beaufort and Chukchi 
seas.
    We also considered the specific Congressional direction in 
balancing the potential for a significant impact with the likelihood of 
that event occurring. The specific Congressional direction that 
justifies balancing probabilities with impacts follows:

    If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or 
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A 
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the 
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be 
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts 
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species 
or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this 
balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks 
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations. 
Such determination will be made based on the best available 
scientific information (53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S 
16305 (October. 15, 1986)).

    We reviewed the effects of the oil and gas Industry activities on 
walruses and polar bears, 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 walrus and polar bear, we conclude that any 
incidental take reasonably likely to or reasonably expected to occur as 
a result of projected activities will have a negligible impact on the 
walrus and polar bear populations. Furthermore, we do not expect these 
disturbances to affect the rates of recruitment or survival for the 
walrus and polar bear populations. These regulations do not authorize 
lethal take, and we do not anticipate any lethal take will occur.
    The probability of an oil spill that will cause significant impacts 
to walruses and polar bears appears extremely low. We have included 
information from both offshore and onshore projects in our oil spill 
analysis. We have analyzed the likelihood of a marine oil spill of the 
magnitude necessary to lethally take a significant number of polar 
bears for offshore projects and, through a risk assessment analysis, 
found that it is unlikely that there will be any lethal take associated 
with a release of oil. In the unlikely event of a catastrophic spill, 
we will take immediate action to minimize the impacts to these species 
and reconsider the appropriateness of authorizations for incidental 
taking through section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
    After considering the cumulative effects of existing and future 
development, production, and exploration activities, and the likelihood 
of any impacts, both onshore and offshore, we find that the total 
expected takings resulting from oil and gas Industry activities will 
affect no more than small numbers and will have no more than a 
negligible impact on the walrus and polar bear populations inhabiting 
the Beaufort Sea area on the North Slope coast of Alaska.
    Our finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take 
associated with Industry, or substantially similar, activities as 
mitigated through the

[[Page 52307]]

regulatory process. The regulations establish monitoring and reporting 
requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of authorized 
activities, as well as mitigation measures designed to minimize 
interactions with and impacts to walruses and polar bears. We will 
evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific activity and the 
specific geographic location where the 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.
    Within the described geographic region of this rule, Industry 
effects on walruses and polar bears are expected to occur at a level 
similar to what has taken place under previous regulations. We 
anticipate that there will be an increased use of terrestrial habitat 
in the fall period by polar bears. We also anticipate a continued 
increased use of terrestrial habitat by denning bears. Nevertheless, we 
expect no significant impact to these species as a result of these 
anticipated changes. The mitigation measures will be effective in 
minimizing any additional effects attributed to seasonal shifts in 
distribution or denning polar bears during the 5-year timeframe of the 
regulations. It is likely that, due to potential seasonal changes in 
abundance and distribution of polar bears during the fall, more 
frequent encounters may occur and Industry may have to implement 
mitigation measures more often, possibly increasing polar bear 
deterrence events. In addition, if additional polar bear den locations 
are detected within industrial activity areas, spatial and temporal 
mitigation measures, including cessation of activities, may be 
instituted more frequently during the 5-year period of the rule.
    We have evaluated climate change in regard to walruses and polar 
bears. Climate change is a global phenomenon and was considered as the 
overall driver of effects that could alter walrus and polar bear 
habitat and behavior. Though climate change is a pressing conservation 
issue for walruses and polar bears, we have concluded that the 
authorized taking of walruses and polar nears during Industry 
activities during this 5-year rule will not adversely impact the 
survival of these species and will have no more than negligible 
effects. The Service is currently involved in research to help us 
understand how climate change may affect walruses and polar bears. As 
we gain a better understanding of climate change effects, we will 
incorporate the information in future actions.

Least Practicable Adverse Impacts

    We find that the mitigation measures required by these ITRs will 
effect the least practicable adverse impacts from any incidental take 
likely to occur in association with Industry activities. In making this 
finding, we considered the biological characteristics of Pacific 
walruses and polar bears, the nature of Industry activities, the 
potential effects of Industry activities on walruses and polar bears, 
the documented impacts of Industry activities on walruses and polar 
bears, data provided by Industry monitoring programs in the Beaufort 
and Chukchi seas, and alternative mitigation measures.

Impacts on Subsistence Uses

    Based on community consultations, locations of hunting areas, the 
potential overlap of hunting areas and Industry projects, the best 
scientific information available, and the results of monitoring data, 
we find that take caused by oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast 
of Alaska will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of walruses and polar bears for taking for subsistence 
uses during the period of the rule. In making this finding, we 
considered the following: Records on subsistence harvest from the 
Service's Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program; community 
consultations; effectiveness of the POC process between Industry and 
affected Native communities; and anticipated 5-year effects of Industry 
activities on subsistence hunting.
    Walruses and polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the 
number of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the communities 
of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. However, the low numbers do not mean 
that the harvest of these species is not important to Alaska Natives. 
Prior to receipt of an LOA, Industry must provide evidence to us that 
community consultations have occurred or that an adequate POC has been 
presented to the subsistence communities. Industry will be required to 
contact subsistence communities that may be affected by its activities 
to discuss potential conflicts caused by location, timing, and methods 
of operations. Industry must make reasonable efforts to ensure that 
activities do not interfere with subsistence hunting and that adverse 
effects on the availability of walruses and polar bear are minimized. 
Although multiple meetings for multiple projects from numerous 
operators have already taken place, no official concerns have been 
voiced by the Native communities with regard to Industry activities 
limiting availability of walruses or polar bears for subsistence uses. 
However, should such a concern be voiced as Industry continues to reach 
out to the Native communities, development of POCs, which must identify 
measures to minimize any adverse effects, will be required. The POC 
will ensure that oil and gas activities will not have an unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for 
subsistence uses. This POC must provide the procedures addressing how 
Industry will work with the affected Native communities and what 
actions will be taken to avoid interference with subsistence hunting of 
walruses and polar bears, as warranted.
    The Service has not received any reports and is aware of no 
information that indicates that walruses or polar bears are being or 
will be deflected from hunting areas or impacted in any way that 
diminishes their availability for subsistence use by the expected level 
of oil and gas activity. If there is evidence during the 5-year period 
of the regulations that oil and gas activities are affecting the 
availability of walruses or polar bears for take for subsistence uses, 
we will reevaluate our findings regarding permissible limits of take 
and the measures required to ensure continued subsistence hunting 
opportunities.

Monitoring and Reporting

    The purpose of monitoring requirements is to document and provide 
data for the assessment the effects of industrial activities on 
walruses and polar bears and 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 include steps to 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 walrus and polar bear activity in the 
industrial areas (such as numbers and gender, activity, seasonal use) 
and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected by Industry. 
Monitoring plans are site-specific, dependent on the proximity of the 
activity to important habitat areas, such as den sites, travel 
corridors, and food sources; however, all activities are required to 
report all sightings of walruses and polar bears. To the extent 
possible, monitors will

[[Page 52308]]

record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration of interaction, and 
closest approach to Industry onshore. Activities within the geographic 
region may incorporate daily watch logs as well, which record 24-hour 
animal observations throughout the duration of the project. Polar bear 
monitors will be incorporated into the monitoring plan if bears are 
known to frequent the area or known polar bear dens are present in the 
area. At offshore Industry sites, systematic monitoring protocols will 
be implemented to statistically monitor observation trends of walruses 
or polar bears in the nearshore areas where they usually occur.
    Monitoring activities will be 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 the 
activity, and the applicant must submit a final monitoring report to us 
no later than 90 days after the expiration of the LOA. We base each 
year's monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring results.
    We require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the 
effects of oil and gas Industry exploration, development, and 
production activities on polar bear and walruses prior to issuance of 
an LOA. Since production activities are continuous and long-term, upon 
approval, LOAs and their required monitoring and reporting plans will 
be issued for the life of the activity or until the expiration of the 
regulations, whichever occurs first. Each year, prior to January 15, we 
require that the operator submit development and production activity 
monitoring results of the previous year's activity. We require approval 
of the monitoring results for continued operation under the LOA.

Required Determinations

Treaty Obligations

    The ITRs are consistent with the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation 
of Polar Bears, a multilateral treaty executed in Oslo, Norway among 
the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United 
States. Article II of this Polar Bear Agreement lists three obligations 
of the Parties in protecting polar bear habitat. Parties are obliged 
to: (1) Take appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of which polar 
bears are a part; (2) give special attention to habitat components such 
as denning and feeding sites and migration patterns; and (3) manage 
polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices 
based on the best available scientific data.
    This rule is also consistent with the Service's treaty obligations 
because it incorporates mitigation measures that ensure the protection 
of polar bear habitat. LOAs for industrial activities are conditioned 
to include area or seasonal timing limitations or prohibitions, such as 
placing 1.6-km (1-mi) 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.

Summary of and Responses to Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public in order to ensure 
that any final action be as accurate and as effective as possible. The 
comment period on the proposed ITRs opened on June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36664), and closed on July 7, 2016. During that time, we received nine 
comment submissions; these included comments on the proposed rule as 
well as the draft EA.
    The Service received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission, 
private companies, Industry organizations, environmental organizations, 
and the general public. We reviewed all comments received for 
substantive issues, new information, and recommendations regarding the 
ITRs and the EA. The comments on the proposed ITRs, aggregated by 
subject matter, summarized and addressed below, are incorporated into 
the final rule as appropriate. The Service has summarized and responded 
to comments pertaining to the draft EA in our final EA. A summary of 
the changes to these final ITRs from the proposed ITRs is found in the 
preamble section ``Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule.''

Response to Comments

General Comments
    Comment 1: Several commenters opposed the promulgation of the ITRs 
based on a general opposition to Industry activity while several 
commenters supported the promulgation of the ITRs based on a general 
support for Industry activity.
    Response: Language within section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA requires 
the Service to allow the incidental taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals provided the Service has made certain determinations regarding 
the specified activity. Once we make the required determinations we 
must promulgate the ITRs. It is not our role in this process to pass 
judgment on the proposed activities. Our mandate is to identify and 
assess the potential impact of those activities on marine mammals, and 
if our analysis concludes that such impacts are consistent with the 
required determinations, we must promulgate ITRs.
    Comment 2: The petitioner provided comments to clarify terminology 
in the ITRs regarding Industry activity, the purpose of the ITRs under 
the MMPA, the purpose of the EA under NEPA, and provided clarification 
for three Industry projects.
    Response: The Service revised text throughout the document 
referring to Industry activity as ``proposed'' or ``lawful'' to simply 
state Industry activity. We revised text clarifying Caelus Energy 
Alaska, LLC's Oooguruk production activities, Nuna development 
activities, and Tulimaniq exploration activities in the ``Description 
of Activities'' section. Within the EA we also revised text clarifying 
its purpose.
MMPA Requirements
    Comment 3: The description of activities considered for the ITRs 
and who would be eligible to request LOAs under the ITRs is ambiguous. 
The Service should address these ambiguities and ensure that the LOA 
process is not open-ended; and should identify, in section 18.121 of 
the ITR, the specific activities that we evaluated and what companies/
entities would be authorized under the final rule.
    Response: The Service believes we have described and evaluated the 
anticipated activities appropriately. Consistent with numerous previous 
ITRs, these ITRs provide an overall ``umbrella'' set of requirements 
which, when followed, allow the incidental take of small numbers of 
polar bears and Pacific walruses during certain Industry activities. 
The requirements ensure that

[[Page 52309]]

there is no more than a negligible impact on these species, effect the 
least practicable adverse impacts, and that there will not be 
unmitigable impacts on the availability of these species for 
subsistence use. To that end, the Service has described the types of 
activities to be authorized, the projected scale of each activity, the 
anticipated impacts that could occur during the 5-year period of the 
ITR, and included other activities the Service anticipates may occur. 
We acknowledge that in the planning phases, most projects contain some 
element of uncertainty. Consequently, in addition to requiring 
mitigation measures common to all projects, a separate LOA will be 
required for each project. This allows us to evaluate each LOA request 
for mitigation methods in addition to those required by the ITRs. The 
ITRs specify those mitigation measures required for all Industry 
activities, mitigation measures required for specific activities, and 
under what circumstances the various mitigation measures will be 
required. Section 101(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) of the MMPA requires that the 
ITRs set forth permissible methods of taking, means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact (on the species or stock and its 
habitat), the availability of such species or stock for subsistence 
uses, and the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Section 
101(a)(5)(A)(i) of the MMPA states that citizens of the United States 
may request the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine 
mammals. To request an LOA under these ITRs an applicant must be a U.S. 
citizen as defined in 50 CFR 18.27(c). The Service believes we have 
complied with both the letter and spirit of the MMPA with these ITRs.
    Comment 4: The Service should specify, in section 18.121 of the 
rule, the number of the various exploration, development, and 
production activities that would be authorized; revise its take 
estimates based on a more quantitative assessment of proposed 
activities (including geophysical and geological surveys, exploratory 
drilling, expanded leasing, and new construction activities, in 
addition to the development and production activities) and ensure its 
determinations regarding small numbers, negligible impact, and adverse 
impact on the availability of the species for subsistence use are 
valid; and specify, in section 18.121 of the final rule, the numbers of 
takes to be authorized for both polar bears and walruses (total and/or 
annual).
    Response: The level of quantitative specificity recommended by the 
commenters regarding the various Industry activities is not available 
and the petitioners were not able to provide such information. The 
Service has described the types of activities provided by the 
petitioner, as well as other activities the Service anticipates may 
occur, the projected scale of each activity, and the anticipated 
impacts from those activities. We reiterate that we do not permit or 
authorize Industry activities; we only authorize the incidental take 
associated with the activities. Therefore, we have estimated the number 
of takes likely to occur during the 5-year period of these ITRs. We 
acknowledge that in the planning phases most projects contain some 
element of uncertainty. If activities for an individual LOA are 
proposed that were not included or anticipated in this ITR, the Service 
will evaluate the potential impacts, and any associated takes of 
walruses and polar bears, to determine whether they are within the 
scope of these ITRs. We believe our take estimate and determinations 
are valid. Further, we do not believe there is a requirement, or even a 
need, to repeat the description of activities and take estimates again 
in section 18.121 of the ITRs.
    Comment 5: The Service conflates small numbers and negligible 
impacts and has disregarded the MMPA's prohibition on allowing the take 
of more than small numbers of marine mammals. The Service's definition 
of small numbers is flawed and the proposed determination does not meet 
the small numbers requirement. By defining small numbers to be relative 
to the overall population, the Service makes that finding the same as a 
negligible impact determination. The Service's estimate that 340 polar 
bears will be taken by harassment during the 5-year period of the ITRs 
is not a small number of polar bears. If each take was a unique bear, 
it would account for 38 percent of the population. The Service cannot 
rationally argue that this is a small number. Moreover, 340 polar bears 
is likely an underestimate because it assumes the same level of oil and 
gas activities as 2010 to 2014. The proposed rule anticipates but does 
not evaluate increased oil and gas development during the 5 years of 
the rule including GMT-1, GMT-2, new drill sites in the Colville-
Kuparuk Fairway Units, 200 new wells in Prudhoe Bay, Hilcorp's Liberty 
project, development of a processing unit, pipeline and airstrip at 
Point Thompson and the Alaska LNG or Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline. 
The assumption that the level of take will remain constant is also 
inconsistent with the increased terrestrial presence of polar bears, 
which the Service acknowledges will increase interactions.
    Response: The Service believes we have complied with the separate 
small numbers and negligible impacts determination requirements of the 
MMPA. As we explain in the preamble of this ITR, we do not rely upon 
the definition of ``small numbers'' found in 50 CFR 18.27 as it 
conflates ``small numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize 
``small numbers'' and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and 
distinct requirements under the MMPA. For our small numbers 
determination, we estimate the likely number of takes of marine 
mammals, and evaluate if that take is small relative to the size of the 
population or stock. For the sake of clarity we have revised language 
in section 18.121 explaining how the term ``small numbers'' is defined 
for these ITRs.
    The Service disagrees with the logic that ``If each take was a 
unique bear, it would account for 38 percent of the population.'' The 
comment is a fundamental mischaracterization of our analysis. The 
Service explained how we conducted our analysis of takes and arrived at 
our determination of small numbers in the preamble section ``Take 
Estimates for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears.'' Our analysis uses 
data gathered from Industry observation reports. Those data show that 
individual polar bears may experience multiple takes over time. The 
number 340 in our determination refers to polar bear takes, not the 
number of individual polar bears potentially taken. Further, the best 
available information shows that only a portion of the SBS polar bear 
stock encounters Industry activity, and only a portion of those bears 
experience harassment that is considered ``take'' as defined by the 
MMPA. The Service believes that based on the nature of the data used to 
conduct our analysis the results are likely an overestimate rather than 
an underestimate.
    The Service does not assume that the level of Industry activity 
during the 5-year period of these ITRs would be the same as the 
previous 5-year period as the commenters assert. During the 5 years 
that the ITRs will be in place, Industry activities are expected to be 
generally similar in type, timing, and effect to activities that have 
been evaluated under the prior ITRs. We assume the overall annual level 
of Industry activity will be similar to, but not the same as, that 
which occurred under the previous regulations, although exploration and 
development may shift to new locations and new facilities will add to 
the overall Industry footprint. The Service evaluated the

[[Page 52310]]

level of Industry activities for the 5-year period of these ITRs 
allowing for a rate of growth similar to previous ITR periods. Further, 
the Service did evaluate all of the projects and activities the 
commenters specified. A description of those projects, along with the 
others we evaluated, is found in the preamble section ``Description of 
Activities.''
    The Service does not assume that ``the level of take will remain 
constant'' as the commenters assert. The timing and nature of polar 
bear/Industry interactions in the Beaufort Sea ITR Region are seasonal 
and variable over time. Though overall polar bear observation reports 
from Industry are increasing, that does not automatically equate to an 
increase of takes. The Service believes this is largely due to the 
mitigation measures found in this and previous ITRs, as well the polar 
bear/human conflict management programs run by the Service.
    Comment 6: The rationale that the agency gives for its negligible 
impact conclusion is inadequate because it fails to analyze what impact 
the take of 340 bears by harassment will be on the whole population. 
The Service uses the size and location of activities as a proportion of 
the range of the marine mammals to make its negligible impact 
determination, and then it concludes that it will not affect 
recruitment or survival without any explanation. The range of a species 
is not determinative of the impact of take on a population. During the 
fall, polar bears congregate in the coastal areas near Industry 
operations and essential reproductive functions of denning occur in 
these areas. Despite the range of the bears, Industry activities harass 
polar bears during times they tend to congregate onshore and den with 
potentially significant impacts on the population. The Service fails to 
acknowledge that vessel interactions with polar bears may be 
significant and fails to adequately include an increase of polar bear 
deterrence events in its analysis.
    Response: The Service believes our negligible impacts analysis and 
determinations are thorough and based on the best available 
information. We used the results of Industry monitoring data from the 
previous ITRs, information from the listing of the polar bear as a 
threatened species under the ESA, information from the designation of 
polar bear critical habitat, current information about Pacific walruses 
and their habitat, the results of modeling assessments, and the status 
of the populations. For the risk of oil spills, we also considered 
Congressional direction in balancing the potential for a significant 
impact with the likelihood of that event occurring:

    If potential effects of a specified activity are conjectural or 
speculative, a finding of negligible impact may be appropriate. A 
finding of negligible impact may also be appropriate if the 
probability of occurrence is low but the potential effects may be 
significant. In this case, the probability of occurrence of impacts 
must be balanced with the potential severity of harm to the species 
or stock when determining negligible impact. In applying this 
balancing test, the Service will thoroughly evaluate the risks 
involved and the potential impacts on marine mammal populations. 
Such determination will be made based on the best available 
scientific information [53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 132 Cong. Rec. S 
16305 (October. 15, 1986)].

    We evaluated the effects of Industry activities on walruses and 
polar bears, including impacts from noise, physical obstructions, human 
encounters, and oil spills, including the cumulative effects of 
existing and future development, production, and exploration 
activities, and the likelihood of impacts, both onshore and offshore. 
The evaluation of the scale of Industry activities in comparison with 
the range of SBS polar bears was only one part of the complete 
analysis. The Service does not state that the range of a species alone 
is determinative of the impact of take on a population. Rather, we 
conclude that the relatively small area of Industry activity compared 
to the range of walruses and polar bears will reduce the potential of 
their exposure to and disturbance from Industry activities.
    The Service is not aware of any information that indicates 
harassment from Industry activities has significant impacts on the 
polar bear population. These ITRs, and previous ITRs, include specific 
mitigation measures to protect denning polar bears. These mitigation 
measures have proven very effective for protecting denning polar bears.
    The best available information indicates that encounters between 
vessels and polar bears will likely result in no more than short-term 
and temporary behavioral disturbance and likely have no significant 
effects. The Service considered deterrence events of polar bears in 
addition to incidental takes for a more thorough analysis, as well as 
for the sake of transparency. The Service believes we have thoroughly 
evaluated the anticipated number of takes of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses likely to occur during the 5-year period of these ITRs. Again 
as stated in the response to comment 5, 340 refers to the number of 
polar bear takes, not the number of individual polar bears. Likewise, 
the estimate of up to 10 Pacific walruses refers to the number of takes 
and not the number of individual Pacific walruses.
    Comment 7: Industry activities and incidental take authorization 
could have an adverse impact on Alaska Native subsistence use of marine 
mammals.
    Response: The Service thoroughly evaluated the potential effects of 
Industry activity upon the availability of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses for the subsistence use of Alaska Natives. Though we are aware 
that some Alaska Native communities have expressed general concerns 
regarding impacts of Industry activities on subsistence resources, such 
as caribou and fish, the issue addressed here is whether these ITRs 
might impact the availability of polar bears and walruses for 
subsistence uses. We are not aware of any concerns voiced by Alaska 
Native communities, hunter organizations, co-management organizations, 
or other representative groups that ITRs and the take associated with 
Industry activities would do so, or have in the past. One goal of 
Service management and conservation efforts is to ensure that polar 
bears and walruses remain available for subsistence harvest into the 
future. We work with Alaska Native partners and co-management 
organizations to achieve that goal.
    The LOA process described in these ITRs ensures the opportunity for 
communities to review Industry plans and make recommendations for 
additional mitigation measures. The process requires Industry to work 
with Alaska Native communities to address concerns and mitigate impacts 
to resource availability. Industry must provide the Service 
documentation of communication and coordination with Alaska Native 
communities during our consideration of each individual LOA. The 
Service offers guidance during the POC process, and must review and 
approve Industry POCs to ensure that the process and content are 
sufficient.
    The Service's finding is based on the best available information, 
such as the polar bear and walrus harvest data provided by Alaska 
Native subsistence hunters through the Service's Marking, Tagging, and 
Reporting Program. That information indicates that activities will not 
have an unmitigable, adverse impact on the availability of species for 
subsistence take. We also based our finding on: (1) The results of 
coastal aerial surveys; (2) direct observations of polar bears 
occurring near bowhead whale carcasses on Barter Island and on Cross 
Island during the annual fall bowhead whaling efforts; (3) community 
consultations; (4) locations of hunting areas; (5) the potential 
overlap of hunting areas and Industry projects; (6) results of 
monitoring data; and (7)

[[Page 52311]]

anecdotal reports of North Slope residents. The Service has not 
received any reports and is unaware of any information that indicates 
that polar bears or walruses are being affected by Industry activity in 
a way that diminishes their availability for Alaska Native subsistence 
use.
    Comment 8: The Service should analyze the corresponding impacts of 
climate change and sea ice decline on the polar bear population when 
assessing whether Industry activities will have a ``negligible'' impact 
on the population. The Service should consider the most recent science 
such as the recent study by Atwood, T.C., E. Peacock, M.A. McKinney, K. 
Lillie, R. Wilson, D.C. Douglas, S. Miller, P. Terletzky, Rapid 
Environmental Changes Drives Increased Land Use by an Arctic Marine 
Predator, available at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155932.
    Response: The study the commenters refer to was not publicly 
available during the development of the proposed ITRs. The Service 
reviewed the study and found the conclusions consistent with our 
understanding of SBS polar bear seasonal terrestrial habitat use, as 
well as confirming widely held views regarding how polar bears in the 
SBS respond to seasonally diminished sea ice. We find the conclusions 
of the study useful and consistent with our analysis and determinations 
for these ITRs. We revised text in the ``Climate Change'' section of 
the preamble citing this study.
    The Service recognizes the primary threat to the continued 
existence of polar bears is loss of sea ice habitat due to climate 
change and that sea ice habitat is also of concern for Pacific 
walruses. The Service addressed its position on greenhouse gas (GHG) in 
the Final Polar Bear Special Rule (78 FR 11766, February 20, 2013) and 
previous ITRs for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. The Service 
considered the effects of climate change upon polar bears, walruses, 
and their habitats (particularly the effects upon sea ice) while 
developing these ITRs. Broader questions about climate change and how 
it may cause additive stress on polar bear and walrus populations over 
the long term are beyond the scope of these ITRs analysis but are 
explored generally in the EA.
    Comment 9: The Service must consider the baseline conditions that 
face polar bears and Pacific walruses in determining to authorize 
incidental take of these species by Industry activities.
    Response: The Service used the best available information to 
conduct our analyses and make our determinations for these ITRs. We 
thoroughly evaluated the population status of each species, their 
range, distribution, habitat requirements, and the condition of habitat 
for each species, among other things. Collectively, that information 
constitutes what the commenter refers to as ``baseline conditions.'' We 
evaluated current and potential Industry activities, the known and 
potential impacts of those activities, and the risk and potential 
impacts of oil spills. As new information becomes available we will 
continue to evaluate how Industry activities affect polar bears and 
walruses.
Mitigation Measures
    Comment 10: The Service should clarify when it is appropriate for 
LOA applicants to submit a POC (e.g., geographic locations, timing of 
activities, etc.).
    Response: The Service agrees that we should clarify when we 
consider a POC appropriate. Accordingly, we have revised text in the 
preamble section ``Description of Plans of Cooperation (POCs).''
    Comment 11: In section 18.128(e)(1)(i) of the final rule the 
Service should: (1) Include monitoring measures for the 160 dB 
monitoring zone for polar bears as well as walruses; and (2) specify 
that any individual of either species would be considered taken if 
observed within the monitoring zone.
    Response: The Service believes that the monitoring and mitigation 
measures in section 18.128(e)(1)(i), and the ITRs as a whole, are 
appropriate. The underwater hearing characteristics of polar bears are 
poorly known and we are not aware of any information that indicates 
that underwater sound >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa may cause biologically 
significant changes in behavior to polar bears, much less an injury. 
Section 18.128(e)(1)(i) states that walruses observed in the >= 160 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa monitoring zone are assumed to experience Level B take. 
Based on the available information, biology, and behavior of polar 
bears, the Service does not believe polar bears within the >= 160 dB re 
1 [mu]Pa monitoring zone will experience Level B take.
    Comment 12: The acoustic thresholds established in the ITRs for 
Level A and Level B take, and for monitoring and mitigation measure 
implementation, are insufficient and do not use the best available 
science. The Service should reassess whether Level B harassment takes 
of both polar bears and walruses are expected to occur from drilling 
and ice-breaking activities based on the 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa threshold 
and include the requirement to monitor the 120-dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
monitoring zone for continuous sources under section 18.128(e)(1)(i) of 
the final rule.
    Response: The Service believes that the monitoring and mitigation 
measures in section 18.128(e)(1)(i), and the ITRs as a whole, are 
appropriate. The underwater hearing characteristics of polar bears and 
walruses are poorly known and we are not aware of any information that 
indicates that continuous underwater sound of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa may 
cause biologically significant changes in behavior to polar bears or 
walruses, much less an injury. The acoustic thresholds established in 
the ITRs are based upon the best available information for polar bears 
and walruses. There is some information for underwater hearing for 
certain otarriid pinnipeds that the Service uses as a proxy for 
walruses, however, there is not sufficient information to conclude that 
walruses are likely to experience harassment or injury due solely to 
exposures of 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa from continuous sound sources. Based on 
the available information, biology, and behavior of polar bears and 
walruses, the Service does not believe a 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa threshold 
and monitoring zone for continuous underwater sound from drilling 
activities, ice-breaking activities, or other sound sources is 
appropriate. As new information becomes available the Service will 
continue to evaluate how Industry activities affect polar bears and 
walruses and what mitigation measures are required to minimize the 
impacts of such activities. The Service may amend these ITRs if new 
information indicates changes are appropriate.
    Comment 13: The Service should coordinate with the NMFS on any 
questions it may have regarding the appropriateness of the Level B 
harassment thresholds.
    Response: The Service welcomes collaboration and coordination with 
NMFS, when appropriate, for the management of marine mammal species 
under the Service's jurisdiction. The Service and NMFS share some 
common conservation and management responsibilities. However, the 
Service and NMFS are distinct agencies with significantly unique 
missions, mandates, and procedures. While NMFS has responsibility for 
most marine mammals, the Service has responsibility for polar bears, 
Pacific walruses, sea and marine otters, three species of manatees, and 
dugongs. There are significant and fundamental differences in the 
biology, behavior, conservation, and management needs between these 
species and those under the jurisdiction

[[Page 52312]]

of NMFS, i.e., cetaceans and pinnipeds other than walruses. The Service 
relies on our own expertise regarding marine mammals under our 
jurisdiction and will continue to collaborate and coordinate with NMFS, 
when appropriate.
    Comment 14: The Service has failed to implement the least 
practicable impact by eliminating mitigation measures, by using 
mitigation measures that are known to be ineffective, and failing to 
adopt additional mitigation measures.
    Response: The Service thoroughly considered how to implement the 
least practicable adverse impacts as we developed these ITRs. We rely 
upon the best available information, which includes over 20 years of 
monitoring data from the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during Industry 
activities, to evaluate the impacts of those activities. The Service 
believes that these ITRs and the mitigation measures set forth herein 
are effective and proven to implement least practicable adverse impacts 
from Industry activities upon polar bears and walruses.
    The commenter suggests that we eliminated the mitigation measure 
regarding groups of 12 or more walruses from these ITRs because it was 
impractical. That was not the case. We eliminated it because it was 
irrelevant in the Beaufort Sea. Groups of 12 or more walruses have not 
been observed in the Beaufort Sea ITR Region for more than 20 years. If 
the Service becomes aware of information that walruses begin to occur 
in the Beaufort Sea in groups of 12 or more, we will re-evaluate the 
need for such a mitigation measure.
    As we point out in the preamble, we may require additional 
mitigation measures when we determine they would be needed to implement 
least practicable adverse impacts during an activity. We may also 
decline to issue an LOA if the impacts of an activity exceed the scope 
and determinations of these ITRs. As new evidence or specific 
information on the effectiveness of the mitigation, monitoring and 
reporting measures for these ITRs becomes available, we will consider 
it and make any appropriate changes.
    For the sake of clarity on how we addressed the least practicable 
adverse impacts requirement, we revised text in the ``Take Estimates 
for Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears'' section by adding a subsection 
titled ``Least Practicable Adverse Impacts Determination'' and we 
revised text in the ``Findings'' section by adding a subsection titled 
``Least Practicable Adverse Impacts.''
    Comment 15: The Service has not justified why the mitigation 
measure described in section 18.128(c)(4) of the ITRs is appropriate in 
the Beaufort Sea and should be removed. The mitigation measure 
contradicts the Service's findings that Pacific walruses are not 
commonly found in the Beaufort Sea. Section 18.128(c)(4) states that 
``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.''
    Response: The Service agrees that the mitigation measure described 
in section 18.128(c)(4) of the ITRs seems confusing and inconsistent 
with the findings for these ITRs. That mitigation measure is intended 
to be relevant for vessels transiting through the Chukchi Sea bound for 
the Beaufort Sea. We have revised the text of section 18.128(c)(4) 
accordingly.
    Comment 16: The Service should consider mitigation measures that 
would fund or promote the Service's implementation of the polar bear 
recovery plan.
    Response: The Service developed these ITRs to be compatible with 
the implementation of the Service's Polar Bear Conservation Management 
Plan (what the commenter referred to as the polar bear recovery plan). 
We do not believe that section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA provides the 
authority, nor is intended, to create a funding mechanism for 
conservation and management efforts. Rather, the mitigation measures 
set forth in these ITRs are intended to ensure the least practicable 
adverse impact upon polar bears and walruses from the Industry 
activities described and evaluated. We will continue to work with 
partners and collaborators on a variety of research and conservation 
projects as opportunities develop.
NEPA
    Comment 17: The draft environmental assessment is inadequate, and 
the Service must prepare a full environmental impact assessment.
    Response: Section 1501.4(b) of NEPA, found at 40 CFR Chapter V, 
notes that, in determining whether to prepare an EIS, a Federal agency 
may prepare an EA and, based on the EA document, make a determination 
whether to prepare an EIS. The Department of the Interior's policy and 
procedures for compliance with NEPA (69 FR 10866, March 8, 2004) 
further affirms that the purpose of an EA is to allow the responsible 
official to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a ``Finding of No 
Significant Impact'' (FONSI). The Service analyzed the proposed 
activity, i.e., issuance of implementing regulations, in accordance 
with the criteria of NEPA, and made a determination that it does not 
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. It should be noted that the Service does not 
authorize the actual Industry activities, as those activities are 
authorized by other State and Federal agencies. The Service merely 
authorizes the incidental take of polar bears and walruses incidental 
to those activities. We note that these ITRs provide the Service with a 
means of interacting with Industry through the mitigation, monitoring, 
and reporting requirements for individual projects to ensure that the 
impacts to polar bears and Pacific walruses are minimized. The ITRs 
will affect the nonlethal, incidental take of only small numbers of 
polar bears and Pacific walruses, will have only a negligible impact on 
the species or stocks, and will not cause an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of the species for subsistence use. As a result, we 
determined the regulations will not significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment and, therefore, a FONSI is appropriate. 
Accordingly, an EIS is not required under NEPA.
    Comment 18: The stated purpose of the action predetermines that the 
authorization will issue. ``The primary purpose of our Proposed 
Action--the issuance of ITRs for the Beaufort Sea--is to authorize the 
nonlethal incidental take by harassment of small numbers of polar bears 
and Pacific walruses.'' The purpose should instead be to limit the 
impacts of oil and gas activities on polar bears and walrus as required 
by the MMPA.
    Response: The Service believes the commenters misunderstand the 
requirements set forth in NEPA and the MMPA. The Service believes we 
are in full compliance of both the letter and spirit of both NEPA and 
the MMPA. We refer to our response to comment 14 for an explanation of 
NEPA requirements and we refer to the ``Background'' section of the 
preamble of these ITRs for an explanation of MMPA requirements.
    Comment 19: The analysis of the ``no action'' alternative is 
invalid and has

[[Page 52313]]

been rejected by the courts. The Service must consider additional 
alternatives.
    Response: The Service believes the ``no action'' alternative is 
valid and is in compliance with relevant court rulings (see, for 
example, Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 588 F.3d 701, 
9th Cir. 2009). The action being considered is the issuance of the 
ITRs. Therefore, the ``no action'' alternative would be not to issue 
ITRs. However, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA specifies that the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the Director of the 
Service, shall [emphasis added] allow the incidental, but not 
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals in response to 
requests by U.S. citizens engaged in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) in a specified geographic region if the Secretary 
finds that the total of such taking will have a negligible impact on 
the species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on 
the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses. 
Therefore, if a citizen petitions the Service to promulgate 
regulations, we are required to initiate the process and make the 
appropriate findings. If there is no request for ITRs because there are 
no industry activities, as suggested by the commenters, there would be 
no need for any analysis, including alternatives. Since Industry 
activities have occurred in the Beaufort Sea ITR Region for over 40 
years and are ongoing, we do not consider an alternative that excludes 
them as being a reasonable alternative.
    Comment 20: The EA fails to account for marine mammal take 
resulting from hydraulic fracturing.
    Response: Hydraulic fracturing is one of many standard Industry 
drilling practices in the oil fields of the north slope of Alaska, and 
has been for many years. The Service has described the types of 
activities to be authorized, as requested by the petitioner, as well as 
other activities the Service anticipates may occur, the projected scale 
of each activity, and the anticipated impacts that could occur during 
the 5-year period the ITRs will be in effect. See also our response to 
comments 2 and 3. We understand that the types of Industry activities 
described in these ITRs, such as drilling, involve many separate 
actions and activities that together constitute the types of 
activities. Since the Service does not authorize or regulate the actual 
Industry activity, only the incidental take associated with that 
activity, we do not consider it appropriate to sub-divide Industry 
activities into each separate component. Potential effects from a 
component part of an Industry activity are considered in our analysis.
    The commenters provided information regarding the potential impacts 
of hydraulic fracturing, most of which is not relevant for the type and 
scale of hydraulic fracturing conducted in the Beaufort Sea ITR Region. 
The Service is not aware of any information (and none was provided by 
the commenter) that indicates that polar bears or walruses have 
experienced take, as defined by the MMPA, or other negative effects, 
from hydraulic fracturing on the North Slope.
    The Service agrees that the release of toxic substances, from 
hydraulic fracturing or any other source, into the habitat of polar 
bears and Pacific walruses may have detrimental effects upon those 
animals exposed. The Service's analysis acknowledges there is a 
potential for spills to occur. The accidental release of toxic 
substances, such as in the case of an oil spill, is an illegal act. No 
part of this rule authorizes the release of toxic substances into the 
environment, or the exposure of wildlife to such toxins. For these 
ITRs, we evaluated the probability of an oil spill and the dynamics of 
how polar bears and walruses would interact with a potential spill 
through their behavior, physiology, and habitat use. Using this 
information the Service has developed mitigation measures and response 
plans to minimize impacts on these species in the event of a spill. The 
Service believes that the occurrence of such an event is minimized by 
adherence to the regulatory standards that are in place. This is 
supported by historical evidence, which shows that adherence to oil 
spill plans and best management practices has resulted in no major 
spills in the nearshore and offshore areas where Industry activities 
occur in the Beaufort Sea ITR Region. In the event of a spill, we would 
reassess the impacts to the polar bear and walrus populations and 
reconsider the appropriateness of authorizations for taking through 
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
    Comment 21: The Service's cumulative impacts analysis is deficient. 
The indirect and cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas pollution from 
operations and downstream consumption of fossil fuels must be analyzed.
    Response: The Service believes the cumulative impacts analysis is 
valid. We considered the best available information regarding potential 
impacts of climate change and analyzed all relevant direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects on polar bears and Pacific walruses, and their 
habitat, potentially caused by Industry activities in the Beaufort Sea 
ITR Region during the 5-year period of these ITRs. The level of 
analysis the commenters suggest is beyond the scope appropriate for 
these ITRs. We do consider broader questions about climate change and 
how it may cause additive stress on polar bear and walrus populations 
over the long term generally in the EA.
    While we recognize that the primary threat to the continued 
existence of the polar bear is loss of sea ice habitat due to climate 
change, and that loss of sea ice habitat is also of concern for the 
Pacific walrus. The Service addressed its position on GHG in the Final 
Polar Bear Special Rule (78 FR 11766, February 20, 2013) and previous 
ITRs for the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. The Service finds that while 
GHG emissions are clearly contributing to climate change, the 
comprehensive authority to regulate those emissions is not found in the 
statutes that govern the management of marine mammals. The challenge 
posed by climate change and its ultimate solution is much broader than 
the scope and scale of these ITRs.
    Comment 22: The Service should consider an alternative that only 
authorizes polar bear and walrus harassment by renewable energy 
development or those industrial projects that are consistent with the 
nation's climate goals of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C [Celsius] 
and conservation of threatened SBS polar bears.
    Response: The Service does not believe that an alternative that 
``only authorizes polar bear and walrus harassment by renewable energy 
development'' is reasonable. The commenter does not describe what 
``those industrial projects that are consistent with the nation's 
climate goals of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C and conservation of 
threatened SBS polar bears'' might be. Such alternatives are beyond our 
authority and are outside the scope, purpose, and needs of the action 
(i.e., the ITRs). Therefore, the Service did not consider the suggested 
alternatives.
ESA
    Comment 23: The Service must comply with the Endangered Species 
Act.
    Response: The Service completed intra-agency consultation under the 
ESA for polar bears and their critical habitat, and intra-agency 
conference for Pacific walruses prior to finalizing these ITRs. We 
believe we are in full compliance with the ESA.

[[Page 52314]]

Oil Spill Analysis
    Comment 24: The Service based its oil spill risk analysis on 
outdated science, information, and techniques for modeling oil spill 
risks. The Service should incorporate updated spill trajectory data for 
all sites (Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar, and Endicott/Liberty) and 
updated polar bear movement and distribution data to reassess the risk 
of oil spills to polar bears. The Service should further analyze that 
oil and gas activities increase the risk of an oil spill that is 
impossible to clean up. The Service should include more dynamic and 
updated oil spill trajectory modeling and better account for the long-
term risks to polar bear and walrus populations in the event of a large 
oil spill. The Service should utilize stochastic output models in 
addition to conditional impact probabilities to obtain a more complete 
oil spill trajectory analysis to better inform its decision-making 
process.
    Response: The Service analysis of Industry activities for these 
ITRs used the best available information and encapsulates all of the 
known and anticipated Industry activities that will occur in the 
Beaufort Sea ITR Region during the 5-year period of these ITRs. The 
Service considers spill probabilities alone insufficient to assess the 
risk to polar bears and walruses. To address this issue, our risk 
assessment incorporates the likelihood that a spill would occur as well 
as the potential impacts of such a spill. We understand that variables 
for risk assessment from various offshore sites will be different; 
however, our analysis was not intended to assess the risk of an oil 
spill from each individual site. The Service believes analysis of the 
Northstar and Liberty sites led to a valid representation of the types 
of risks polar bears would encounter if a large spill occurred in the 
nearshore areas of the Beaufort Sea. The rule contains a discussion of 
these quantified impacts as well as qualitative analysis of other 
potential sources, such as spills from pipelines, and sizes of oil 
spills. Although spill probabilities for other offshore facilities, and 
those in development, would provide the Service better insights into 
the impacts of oil spills on polar bears and walrus, oil spill 
trajectories were unavailable for these other sites. The analysis 
presented represents the best data and science available. The Service 
is currently working on an updated oil spill trajectory analysis, an 
updated oil spill impacts analysis, and an updated polar bear 
distribution analysis. However, those studies are not completed and not 
available for consideration for these ITRs. The Service will continue 
to evaluate the potential risk and impacts of oil spills as new 
information becomes available.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations

    We have prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in conjunction 
with this rulemaking, and have determined that this rulemaking is not 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-2016-0060 or contact the individual identified 
above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Endangered Species Act

    In 2008, the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species 
under the ESA (73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008) and later designated critical 
habitat for polar bear populations in the United States, effective 
January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086, December 7, 2010). Section 7(a)(1) and 
(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1) and (2)) directs the Service to 
review its programs and to utilize such programs in the furtherance of 
the purposes of the ESA and to ensure that an 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 Pacific 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 initiated an intra-Service section 7 
consultation regarding the effects of these regulations on the polar 
bear and its designated critical habitat with the Service's Fairbanks' 
Ecological Services Field Office. Consistent with established agency 
policy, we also conducted a conference regarding the effects of these 
ITRs on the Pacific walrus. In a biological opinion issued on July 27, 
2016, the Service concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of polar bears or Pacific walruses or adversely 
affect designated polar bear critical habitat.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. 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 uncertainty, 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.
    OIRA bases its determination upon the following four criteria: (a) 
Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, 
the environment, or other units of the government; (b) Whether the rule 
will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions; (c) 
Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients; 
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
    Expenses will 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 is not expected to result in 
additional costs to Industry that it has not already borne under all 
previous ITRs. 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 do 
not exceed $500,000 per year, short of the ``major rule'' threshold 
that would require preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. As is 
presently the case, profits will accrue to Industry; royalties and 
taxes will accrue to the Government; and the rule will have little or 
no impact

[[Page 52315]]

on decisions by Industry to relinquish tracts and write off bonus 
payments.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    We have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 
The rule is also not likely to result in a major increase in costs or 
prices for consumers, individual industries, or government agencies or 
have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or 
export markets.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also determined that this rule will not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Oil companies and 
their contractors conducting exploration, development, and production 
activities in Alaska have been identified as the only likely applicants 
under the regulations, and these potential applicants have not been 
identified as small businesses. Therefore, neither a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis nor a Small Entity Compliance Guide is required. 
The 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 authorizes the nonlethal, incidental, but not 
intentional, take of walruses and polar bears by oil and gas Industry 
companies and, thereby, exempts these companies from civil and criminal 
liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms of their 
LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not required.

Federalism Effects

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), this rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The 
Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million 
or more in any given year on local or State governments or private 
entities. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million 
or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Native American Tribal 
Governments

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175, 
Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3225 of January 19, 2001 
(Endangered Species Act and Subsistence Uses in Alaska (Supplement to 
Secretarial Order 3206)), Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 
3317 of December 1, 2011 (Tribal Consultation and Policy), Department 
of the Interior Memorandum of January 18, 2001 (Alaska Government-to-
Government Policy), the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 
2, and the Native American Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, January 20, 2016, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate and work directly on a Government-to-Government basis with 
federally recognized Tribes in developing programs for healthy 
ecosystems, to seek their full and meaningful participation in 
evaluating and addressing wildlife conservation concerns, to remain 
sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available 
to Alaska Natives. Furthermore, and in accordance with Department of 
the Interior Policy on Consultation with Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) Corporations, August 10, 2012, we 
likewise acknowledge our responsibility to communicate and work 
directly with ANCSA Corporations.
    Prior to publication of the proposed ITR, we sent letters to the 
Alaska Native communities and co-management organizations within the 
Beaufort Sea ITR Region to notify them of the AOGA petition for ITRs 
and invited them to contact us directly if they had comments, 
questions, or concerns. We received no replies to those letters.
    Furthermore, to facilitate co-management activities we continue to 
maintain cooperative agreements with subsistence hunting and co-
management organizations, such as the NSB, EWC, and the Qayassiq Walrus 
Commission (QWC). We previously maintained a cooperative agreement with 
the ANC and look forward to working with its successor organization. 
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, NSB, EWC, and QWC 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 this 
regulation does 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. OMB has reviewed and 
approved the information collection requirements included in this rule 
and assigned OMB control number 1018-0070, which expires March 31, 
2017. This control number covers the information collection, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J, 
which are associated with the development and issuance of specific 
regulations and LOAs.

Energy Effects

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain

[[Page 52316]]

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

References

    For a list of the references cited in this rule, see Docket No. 
FWS-R7-ES-2016-0060, available at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18

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

Final Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service amends part 
18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below.

PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS

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

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


0
2. Revise subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--Nonlethal Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas 
Exploration, Development, Production and Other Substantially Similar 
Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of Alaska
Sec.
18.121 Specified activities covered by this subpart.
18.122 Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.
18.123 Dates this subpart is in effect.
18.124 Procedure to obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA).
18.125 How the Service will evaluate a request for a Letter of 
Authorization (LOA).
18.126 Authorized take allowed under a Letter of Authorization (LOA)
18.127 Prohibited take under a Letter of Authorization (LOA).
18.128 Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
18.129 Information collection requirements.

Subpart J--Nonlethal Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Oil and 
Gas Exploration, Development, Production and Other Substantially 
Similar Activities in the Beaufort Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast 
of Alaska


Sec.  18.121  Specified activities covered by this subpart.

    Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but 
not intentional, take of small numbers of polar bear and Pacific walrus 
by U.S. citizens while engaged in oil and gas exploration, development, 
production, and/or other substantially similar activities in the 
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. ``U.S. citizens'' 
is defined in 50 CFR 18.27(c). The term ``small numbers'' is also 
defined in 50 CFR 18.27(c), however, we do not rely on that definition 
here as it conflates ``small numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' 
Regulations in this subpart rely on a small numbers determination where 
we estimated the likely number of takes of polar bears and Pacific 
walruses during the specified activities, and evaluated if that take is 
small relative to the size of the population or stock.


Sec.  18.122  Specified geographic region where this subpart applies.

    This subpart applies to the specified geographic region that 
encompasses all Beaufort Sea waters east of a north-south line through 
Point Barrow, Alaska (71[deg]23'29'' N., -156[deg]28'30'' W., BGN 
1944), and approximately 322 kilometers (km) (~200 miles (mi)) north of 
Point Barrow, including all Alaska State waters and Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) waters, and east of that line to the Canadian border.
    (a) The offshore boundary of the Beaufort Sea incidental take 
regulations (ITR) region will match the boundary of the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management (BOEM) Beaufort Sea Planning area, approximately 322 
km (~200 mi) offshore. The onshore region is the same north/south line 
at Barrow, 40.2 km (25 mi) inland and east to the Canning River.
    (b) The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not included in the 
Beaufort Sea ITR region. Figure 1 shows the area where this subpart 
applies.

[[Page 52317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05AU16.037

Sec.  18.123  Dates this subpart is in effect.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective from August 5, 2016, 
through August 5, 2021, for year-round oil and gas exploration, 
development, production and other substantially similar activities.


Sec.  18.124  Procedure to obtain a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

    (a) An applicant must be a U.S. citizen as defined in Sec.  
18.27(c).
    (b) If an applicant proposes to conduct oil and gas industry 
exploration, development, production, and/or other substantially 
similar activity in the Beaufort Sea ITR region described in Sec.  
18.122 that may cause the taking of Pacific walruses and/or polar bears 
and wants nonlethal incidental take authorization under the regulations 
in this subpart J, the applicant must apply for an LOA. The applicant 
must submit the request for authorization to the Service's Alaska 
Region Marine Mammals Management Office (see Sec.  2.2 for address) at 
least 90 days prior to the start of the activity.
    (c) The request for an LOA must include the following information 
and must comply with the requirements set forth in Sec.  18.128:
    (1) A plan of operations that describes in detail the activity 
(e.g., type of project, methods, and types and numbers of equipment and 
personnel, etc.), the dates and duration of the activity, and the 
specific locations of and areas affected by the activity.
    (2) A site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to 
monitor and mitigate the effects of the activity on Pacific walruses 
and polar bears.
    (3) A site-specific Pacific walrus and polar bear safety, 
awareness, and interaction plan. The plan for each activity and 
location will detail the policies and procedures that will provide for 
the safety and awareness of personnel, avoid interactions with Pacific 
walruses and polar bears, and minimize impacts to these animals.
    (4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to mitigate potential conflicts 
between the activity and subsistence hunting, where relevant. 
Applicants must provide documentation of communication with potentially 
affected subsistence communities along the Beaufort Sea coast (i.e., 
Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Barrow) and appropriate subsistence user 
organizations (i.e., the Eskimo Walrus Commission or North Slope 
Borough) to discuss the location, timing, and methods of activities and 
identify and mitigate any potential conflicts with subsistence walrus 
and polar bear hunting activities. Applicants must specifically inquire 
of relevant communities and organizations if the activity will 
interfere with the availability of Pacific walruses and/or polar bears 
for the subsistence use of those groups. Applications for Letters of 
Authorization must include documentation of all consultations with 
potentially affected user groups. Documentation must include a summary 
of any concerns identified by community members and hunter 
organizations, and the applicant's responses to identified concerns.

[[Page 52318]]

Sec.  18.125  How the Service will evaluate a request for a Letter of 
Authorization (LOA).

    (a) We will evaluate each request for an LOA based on the specific 
activity and the specific geographic location. We will determine 
whether the level of activity identified in the request exceeds that 
analyzed by us in considering the number of animals likely to be taken 
and evaluating whether there will be a negligible impact on the species 
or an adverse impact on the availability of the species for subsistence 
uses. If the level of activity is greater, we will reevaluate our 
findings to determine if those findings continue to be appropriate 
based on the greater level of activity that the applicant has 
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 an LOA, either on an individual or class 
basis, only after notice and opportunity for public comment.
    (c) The requirement for notice and public comment in paragraph (b) 
of this section will not apply should we determine that an emergency 
exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species 
or stocks of polar bears or Pacific walruses.


Sec.  18.126  Authorized take allowed under a Letter of Authorization 
(LOA).

    (a) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, non-injurious, incidental, but 
not intentional take by Level B harassment, as defined in Sec.  18.3 
and under section 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371 
et seq.), of Pacific walruses and/or polar bears while conducting oil 
and gas industry exploration, development, production, and/or other 
substantially similar activities within the Beaufort Sea ITR region 
described in Sec.  18.122.
    (b) Each LOA will identify terms and conditions for each activity 
and location.


Sec.  18.127  Prohibited take under a Letter of Authorization (LOA).

    Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, prohibited taking is 
described in Sec.  18.11 as well as:
    (a) Intentional take, Level A harassment, as defined in section 3 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), and 
lethal incidental take of polar bears or Pacific walruses; and
    (b) Any take that fails to comply with this subpart or with the 
terms and conditions of an LOA.


Sec.  18.128  Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Mitigation measures for all Letters of Authorization (LOAs). 
Holders of an LOA must implement policies and procedures to conduct 
activities in a manner that minimizes to the greatest extent 
practicable adverse impacts on Pacific walruses and/or polar bears, 
their habitat, and the availability of these marine mammals for 
subsistence uses. Adaptive management practices, such as temporal or 
spatial activity restrictions in response to the presence of marine 
mammals in a particular place or time or the occurrence of Pacific 
walruses and/or polar bears engaged in a biologically significant 
activity (e.g., resting, feeding, denning, or nursing, among others) 
must be used to avoid interactions with and minimize impacts to these 
animals and their availability for subsistence uses.
    (1) All holders of an LOA must:
    (i) Cooperate with the Service's Marine Mammals Management Office 
and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and 
mitigate the impacts of oil and gas industry activities on Pacific 
walruses and polar bears.
    (ii) Designate trained and qualified personnel to monitor for the 
presence of Pacific walruses and polar bears, initiate mitigation 
measures, and monitor, record, and report the effects of oil and gas 
industry activities on Pacific walruses and/or polar bears.
    (iii) Have an approved Pacific walrus and polar bear safety, 
awareness, and interaction plan on file with the Service's Marine 
Mammals Management Office and onsite, and provide polar bear awareness 
training to certain personnel. Interaction plans must include:
    (A) The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur 
(i.e., a summary of the plan of operation);
    (B) A food, waste, and other ``bear attractants'' management plan;
    (C) Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
    (D) Site-specific walrus and polar bear interaction risk evaluation 
and mitigation measures;
    (E) Walrus and polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
    (F) Walrus and polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
    (2) All applicants for an LOA must contact affected subsistence 
communities and hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts 
caused by the activities and provide the Service documentation of 
communications as described in Sec.  18.124.
    (b) Mitigation measures for onshore activities. Holders of an LOA 
must undertake the following activities to limit disturbance around 
known polar bear dens:
    (1) Attempt to locate polar bear dens. Holders of an LOA seeking to 
carry out onshore activities in known or suspected polar bear denning 
habitat during the denning season (November-April) must make efforts to 
locate occupied polar bear dens within and near areas of operation, 
utilizing appropriate tools, such as forward-looking infrared (FLIR) 
imagery and/or polar bear scent-trained dogs. All observed or suspected 
polar bear dens must be reported to the Service prior to the initiation 
of activities.
    (2) Observe the exclusion zone around known polar bear dens. 
Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone 
around all known polar bear dens during the denning season (November-
April, or until the female and cubs leave the areas). Should previously 
unknown occupied dens be discovered within 1 mi of activities, work 
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.
    (3) Use the den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of 
potential coastal polar bear denning habitat can be found at: http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/denning.html. This measure 
ensures that the location of potential polar bear dens is considered 
when conducting activities in the coastal areas of the Beaufort Sea.
    (4) Polar bear den restrictions. Restrict the timing of the 
activity to limit disturbance around dens.
    (c) Mitigation measures for operational and support vessels. (1) 
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.
    (2) 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 
land or ice.
    (3) Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid harassment 
of concentrations of feeding walruses when a vessel is operating near 
these animals. Vessels should reduce speed

[[Page 52319]]

and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5-mi) operational exclusion zone around 
feeding walrus groups. Vessels may not be operated in such a way as to 
separate members of a group of walruses from other members of the 
group. When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, 
vessels should adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of 
injury to walruses.
    (4) Vessels bound for the Beaufort Sea ITR Region may not transit 
through the Chukchi Sea prior to July 1. This operating condition is 
intended to allow walruses the opportunity to move through the Bering 
Strait and disperse from the confines of the spring lead system into 
the Chukchi Sea with minimal disturbance. It is also intended to 
minimize vessel impacts upon the availability of walruses for Alaska 
Native subsistence 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.
    (5) All vessels must avoid areas of active or anticipated walrus or 
polar bear subsistence hunting activity as determined through community 
consultations.
    (6) In association with marine activities, we may require trained 
marine mammal monitors on the site of the activity or on board drill 
ships, drill rigs, aircraft, icebreakers, or other support vessels or 
vehicles to monitor the impacts of Industry's activity on polar bear 
and Pacific walruses.
    (d) Mitigation measures for aircraft. (1) Operators of support 
aircraft should, at all times, conduct their activities at the maximum 
distance possible from concentrations of walruses or polar bears.
    (2) 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 walruses or polar bears observed on ice or land. 
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m 
(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather conditions do not allow a 457-m 
(1,500-ft) flying altitude, such as during severe storms or when cloud 
cover is low, aircraft may be operated below this altitude. However, 
when weather conditions necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes 
below 457 m (1,500 ft), 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.
    (3) Plan all aircraft routes to minimize any potential conflict 
with active or anticipated walrus or polar bear hunting activity as 
determined through community consultations.
    (e) Mitigation measures for sound-producing offshore activities. 
Any offshore activity expected to produce pulsed underwater sounds with 
received sound levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa will be required to 
establish and monitor acoustically verified mitigation zones 
surrounding the sound source and implement adaptive mitigation measures 
as follows:
    (1) Mitigation zones. (i) A walrus monitoring zone is required 
where the received pulsed sound level would be >= 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa. 
Walruses in this zone are assumed to experience Level B take.
    (ii) A walrus mitigation zone is required where the received pulsed 
sound level would be >= 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
    (iii) A walrus or polar bear mitigation zone is required where the 
received pulsed sound level would be >= 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa.
    (2) Adaptive mitigation measures.
    (i) Ramp-up procedures. For all sound sources, including sound 
source testing, the following sound ramp-up procedures must be used to 
allow walruses and polar bears to depart the mitigation zones:
    (A) Visually monitor the >=180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa and >=190 dB re 1 
[mu]Pa mitigation zones and adjacent waters for walruses and polar 
bears for at least 30 minutes before initiating ramp-up procedures. If 
no walruses or polar bears are detected, ramp-up procedures may begin. 
Do not initiate ramp-up procedures when mitigation zones are not 
observable (e.g., at night, in fog, during storms or high sea states, 
etc.).
    (B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by activating a single, or least 
powerful, sound source, in terms of energy output and/or volume 
capacity.
    (C) Continue ramp-up by gradually increasing sound output over a 
period of at least 20 minutes, but no longer than 40 minutes, until the 
desired operating level of the sound source is obtained.
    (ii) Power down. Immediately power down a sound source when:
    (A) One or more walruses is observed or detected within the area 
delineated by the pulsed sound >=180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa walrus mitigation 
zone; and
    (B) One or more walruses or polar bears are observed or detected 
within the area delineated by the pulsed sound >=190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa 
walrus or polar bear mitigation zone.
    (iii) Shut down. (A) If the power down operation cannot reduce the 
received pulsed sound level to <180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (walrus) or <190 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (walrus or polar bear), the operator must immediately shut 
down the sound source.
    (B) If observations are made or credible reports are received that 
one or more walruses or polar bears within the area of the sound source 
activity are believed to be in an injured or mortal state, or are 
indicating acute distress due to received sound, the sound source must 
be immediately shut down and the Service contacted. The sound source 
will not be restarted until review and approval has been given by the 
Service. The ramp-up procedures must be followed when restarting.
    (f) 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.
    (1) Community consultation. Prior to receipt of an LOA, applicants 
must consult with potentially affected communities and appropriate 
subsistence user organizations to discuss potential conflicts with 
subsistence walrus and polar bear hunting caused by the location, 
timing, and methods of operations and support activities (see Sec.  
18.124 for details). If community concerns suggest that the activities 
may have an adverse impact on the subsistence uses of these species, 
the applicant must address conflict avoidance issues through a POC as 
described in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (2) Plan of Cooperation (POC). When appropriate, a holder of an LOA 
will be required to develop and implement a Service-approved POC. The 
POC must include:
    (i) A description of the procedures by which the holder of the LOA 
will work and consult with potentially affected subsistence hunters; 
and
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) 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.
    (g) Monitoring requirements. Holders of an LOA will be required to:

[[Page 52320]]

    (1) Develop and implement a site-specific, Service-approved marine 
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate the 
effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of activities on 
walruses, polar bears, and the subsistence use of these species.
    (2) Provide trained, qualified, and Service-approved onsite 
observers to carry out monitoring and mitigation activities identified 
in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.
    (3) For offshore activities, provide trained, qualified, and 
Service-approved observers on board all operational and support vessels 
to carry out monitoring and mitigation activities identified in the 
marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan. Offshore observers may be 
required to complete a marine mammal observer training course approved 
by the Service.
    (4) Cooperate with the Service and other designated Federal, State, 
and local agencies to monitor the impacts of oil and gas activities on 
walruses and polar bears. Where information is insufficient to evaluate 
the potential effects of activities on walruses, polar bears, and the 
subsistence use of these species, holders of an LOA may be required to 
participate in joint monitoring and/or research efforts to address 
these information needs and ensure the least practicable impact to 
these resources.
    (h) Reporting requirements. Holders of an LOA must report the 
results of monitoring and mitigation activities to the Service's Marine 
Mammals Management Office via email at: [email protected].
    (1) In-season monitoring reports--(i) Activity progress reports. 
Holders of an LOA must:
    (A) Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of 
activities;
    (B) Provide the Service weekly progress reports of any significant 
changes in activities and/or locations; and
    (C) Notify the Service within 48 hours after ending of activities.
    (ii) Walrus observation reports. Holders of an LOA must report, on 
a weekly basis, all observations of walruses during any Industry 
activity. Upon request, monitoring report data must be provided in a 
common electronic format (to be specified by the Service). Information 
in the observation report must include, but is not limited to:
    (A) Date, time, and location of each walrus sighting;
    (B) Number of walruses;
    (C) Sex and age (if known);
    (D) Observer name and contact information;
    (E) Weather, visibility, sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the 
time of observation;
    (F) Estimated range at closest approach;
    (G) Industry activity at time of sighting;
    (H) Behavior of animals sighted;
    (I) Description of the encounter;
    (J) Duration of the encounter; and
    (K) Mitigation actions taken.
    (iii) Polar bear observation reports. Holders of an LOA must 
report, within 48 hours, all observations of polar bears and potential 
polar bear dens, during any Industry activity. Upon request, monitoring 
report data must be provided in a common electronic format (to be 
specified by the Service). Information in the observation report must 
include, but is not limited to:
    (A) Date, time, and location of observation;
    (B) Number of bears;
    (C) Sex and age (if known);
    (D) Observer name and contact information;
    (E) Weather, visibility, sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the 
time of observation;
    (F) Estimated closest distance of bears from personnel and 
facilities;
    (G) Industry activity at time of sighting;
    (H) Possible attractants present;
    (I) Bear behavior;
    (J) Description of the encounter;
    (K) Duration of the encounter; and
    (L) Mitigation actions taken.
    (2) Notification of LOA incident report. Holders of an LOA must 
report, as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, all LOA incidents 
during any Industry activity. An LOA incident is any situation when 
specified activities exceed the authority of an LOA, when a mitigation 
measure was required but not enacted, or when injury or death of a 
walrus or polar bear occurs. Reports must include:
    (i) All information specified for an observation report;
    (ii) A complete detailed description of the incident; and
    (iii) Any other actions taken.
    (3) Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts 
identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must be 
submitted to the Service for review within 90 days of the expiration of 
an LOA, or for production LOAs, an annual report by January 15th of 
each calendar year. Upon request, final report data must be provided in 
a common electronic format (to be specified by the Service). 
Information in the final (or annual) report must include, but is not 
limited to:
    (i) Copies of all observation reports submitted under the LOA;
    (ii) A summary of the observation reports;
    (iii) A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including 
areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
    (iv) Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability 
of walruses and polar bears during monitoring;
    (v) Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
    (vi) Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of 
walruses and/or polar bears observed; and
    (vii) Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.


Sec.  18.129  Information collection requirements.

    (a) We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. OMB has 
approved the collection of information contained in this subpart and 
assigned OMB control number 1018-0070. You must respond to this 
information collection request to obtain a benefit pursuant to section 
101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We will use the 
information to:
    (1) Evaluate the application and determine whether or not to issue 
specific Letters of Authorization; and
    (2) Monitor impacts of activities and effectiveness of mitigation 
measures conducted under the Letters of Authorization.
    (b) Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this requirement must be submitted to the Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the address 
listed in 50 CFR 2.1.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-18583 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P