[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6869-6886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02960]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2025-0539; FXES111607MRG01-267-FF07CAMM00]
Marine Mammals; Proposed Incidental Harassment Authorization for
the Southern Beaufort Sea Stock of Polar Bears During Legacy Well
Remediation Activities, North Slope of Alaska; Draft Environmental
Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; notice of availability of draft environmental
assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a
request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act from the Bureau of Land
Management, propose to authorize nonlethal incidental take by
harassment of small numbers of Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) for 1 year from the date of issuance of the
incidental harassment authorization (IHA). The applicant requested this
authorization for take by harassment that may result from activities
associated with oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow
trail, pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities in
the North Slope Borough of Alaska between western Smith Bay and
Oliktok. This proposed authorization, if finalized, will be for up to
10 takes of polar bears by Level B harassment. No Level A harassment or
lethal take is requested, expected, or proposed to be authorized. We
invite comments on the proposed IHA and accompanying draft
environmental assessment from the public, Tribes, and local, State, and
Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 16, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may view supplemental information
at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2025-0539.
Alternatively, you may request these documents from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on the proposed
authorization by one of the following methods:
Electronic submission: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R7-
ES-2025-0539, which is the docket number for this rulemaking action.
Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel
on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check
the Notice box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment.'' Comments must be submitted to https://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date
specified in DATES.
U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2025-0539, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments at https://www.regulations.gov. You
may request that we withhold personal identifying information from
public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we
[[Page 6870]]
will be able to do so. See Request for Public Comments for more
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, by email at
[email protected], by telephone at 907-786-3800, or by U.S. mail
at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but
not intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine
mammals in response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18, at 50 CFR
18.27(c)) engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing) in a specified geographic region during a period of not more
than 1 year. The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation
of the MMPA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or we).
According to the MMPA, the FWS shall allow this incidental taking by
harassment if we make findings that the total of such taking for the 1-
year period:
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that
sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or
stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by
harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the
independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research
proposals.
The term ``take'' means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or
attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, any marine mammal.
``Harassment'' 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 defines this as ``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 defines this as ``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.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27.
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
when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA)
under the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers
determination, we estimate the likely number of marine mammals to be
taken and evaluate if that number is small relative to the size of the
species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of specified activities, but not so
restrictive as to make specified activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which
may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods
of taking; (ii) other means of effecting the least practicable impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence
uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Natives (if applicable); and (iii)
requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
Summary of Request
On July 10, 2025, the FWS received a request from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for
authorization to take by nonlethal incidental harassment, small numbers
of Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during oil
well plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction; and summer cleanup activities in the North Slope
Borough of Alaska between western Smith Bay and Oliktok for a period of
1 year from the date of issuance, and beginning during the winter of
2025-2026. Their request also included a proposed Polar Bear Awareness
and Interaction Plan.
The FWS met with the BLM on July 22 and August 7, 2025, to discuss
the proposed project. The FWS received a revised request on August 18,
2025. The FWS deemed the revised request dated August 2025 (received
August 18, 2025; hereafter referred to as the ``Request'') adequate and
complete on August 21, 2025.
Description of Specified Activities and Specified Geographic Region
The specified activities described in the Request consist of oil
well plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and
airstrip construction; and summer cleanup activities associated with
one legacy well site, East Simpson #1, in the North Slope Borough of
Alaska between western Smith Bay and Oliktok (figure 1; BLM 2025). The
greater project area includes use of annually constructed public-use
trail systems such as the North Slope Borough Community Winter Access
Trail (CWAT) as a contingency plan if environmental conditions do not
allow use of the planned northern coastal route to access East Simpson
#1 (figure 1; BLM 2025). This public-use trail
[[Page 6871]]
system will also be utilized during demobilization operations after
polar bear denning season (see Mobilization, Resupply, and
Demobilization). However, the BLM is only requesting an authorization
for harassment of polar bears incidental to use of the northern coastal
route and the operations at East Simpson #1, highlighted in figure 1 as
areas included within the Aerial Infrared (AIR) Survey Routes. The BLM
is not requesting authorization for harassment incidental to travel on
publicly constructed trails. Therefore, these trail systems are not
considered as components of the specified activities or geographic
region and are excluded from our analyses and consideration in this
proposed IHA. Should harassment of polar bears occur in excluded areas
it would be considered unauthorized. The excluded areas and operations
are referenced in this proposed authorization only for context
purposes.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13FE26.001
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Figure 1--Specific geographic region of the proposed legacy well
plugging and reclamation in the North Slope Borough of Alaska
East Simpson #1 Legacy Well Reclamation
The East Simpson #1 well, located approximately 97 kilometers (km)
(60 miles [mi]) southeast of Utqia[gdot]vik, was drilled in 1979 by
Husky Oil for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (BLM 2025) (figure 1).
Structures associated with the well were removed in the spring of 1980.
At that time, pilings were also cut (not flush to ground surface) and
removed, and the pad was fertilized and seeded. No additional cleanup
of the East Simpson # 1 site has occurred since 1980 (BLM 2025). The
East Simpson # 1 well site includes a well head located in a 3.7 by 3.7
meter (m) (12 by 12 foot ([ft]) well cellar (constructed with wood
beams), as well as a reserve pit, flare pit, and camp/drilling pad. The
site also consists of a drilling/camp pad constructed from silt/clay
that had been excavated from the reserve and flare pits. The flare pit
walls have collapsed into the reserve pit. The reserve and flare pits
combined are approximately 1 hectare (ha) (2.5 acres [ac]). The site is
approximately 244 m (800 ft) from the Beaufort Sea coast and contains
little topographical relief.
In 2023, the FWS issued an IHA to the BLM for take of polar bears
during winter and summer operations of 2023 and 2024 at the East
Simpson #1 well site (88 FR 88943), which included soil sampling,
characterization, and delineation. This work was successfully completed
by the BLM during their previous operations and this current proposed
IHA would authorize take of polar bears for necessary follow-up
remediation activities.
Snow Trail, Pad, and Airstrip Construction
Most of the proposed winter access routes included in this project
have been previously used for various winter operations in the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPR-A). Although the proposed snow trails are
expected to follow or closely parallel previously used routes,
variations in snow depth and other environmental conditions may
necessitate adjustments to the routes or segments of the routes. The
exact location of all snow trails would be determined in the field
based on current conditions and would cross areas with the best snow
cover to protect tundra and to safely transport vehicles and equipment.
Exact locations may vary up to 1.6 km (1 mi) on either
[[Page 6872]]
side of the center lines of the snow trail routes depicted in figure 1
based on field conditions. Snow trail construction will begin in
January or February 2026, starting with ``prepacking'' base snow via
all-terrain smooth-tracked vehicles approved for off-road tundra
travel. Prepacking promotes lower tundra soil temperatures and
accelerates freezing of soils prior to use, thereby helping to protect
the tundra during snow trail and pad grooming, maintenance, and use.
Snow will also be packed around stream crossings to protect stream
banks and vegetation. The proposed activities will include up to
approximately 281 km (175 mi) of 9-m (30-ft) wide snow trails. All snow
trail usage will cease with the spring thaw.
A 610-m (2,000-ft) long by 30-m (100-ft) wide snow airstrip will be
constructed at the well site to allow winter resupply via fixed-wing
aircraft. No fuel will be stored at the airstrip. A 2.4-hectare (6-ac,
152-m-by-152 m, 500-ft-by-500-ft) snow pad will be constructed at East
Simpson #1 to support testing, cleanup, plugging, and other associated
activities. No water will be used for snow trail, pad, or airstrip
construction.
Mobilization, Resupply, and Demobilization
Large equipment, including mobile camp trailers, drill rigs, and
other support equipment and supplies, will be moved west to East
Simpson #1 well site from routes originating at either the 2P gravel
pad and/or existing pads at Oliktok (figure 1). Equipment will be
hauled along snow trails by appropriately sized tractors or other
similar equipment. In January or February 2026, eight to ten trips will
be required to haul camp trailers, vehicles, and drill rig equipment to
the well site, followed by eight to ten trips to return equipment
during demobilization in April 2026. During operations, up to 20
additional round trips will be required for resupply and/or backhaul
waste at both well sites. In total there will be up to 40 round trips
for mobilization, resupply, backhaul, and demobilization during
operations. Furthermore, up to 25 winter resupply flights via fixed-
wing aircraft will be required.
Following final well plugging, cleanup, inspections, and soil
sampling, all equipment will be demobilized to Wainwright,
Utqia[gdot]vik, or Atqasuk along routes shown in figure 1, which would
include the routes that the BLM is not seeking take authorization for.
The drill rig and waste generated from the well plugging and closure
would be transported along routes to 2P or Oliktok before final
transportation for appropriate disposal. The majority of snow trail and
camp cleanup, such as trash removal and stick-picking, will occur
during demobilization, but final inspections will occur during the
summer via helicopter (see Summer Cleanup and Inspections). Full scope
of waste material disposal procedures is available in the BLM's
application (BLM 2025).
Camp Setup
A mobile camp will be required to provide crew lodging during well
site activities. The camp set up at East Simpson #1 will consist of 20-
25 trailers to provide housing, restrooms, kitchen, office space, shop
spaces, and other required facilities for approximately 25 personnel.
The camp will be established within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the well site
based on initial field scouting and environmental conditions. The camp
site will also not be located on frozen lakes or require the
construction of an ice or snow pad. Generation of potable water from
snow and disposal of grey water will follow Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation guidance and regulations. Project-generated
waste such as household trash, rags, and other used disposable
materials will be stored on location in approved containers to prevent
wildlife access until being incinerated using appropriate equipment or
disposed of at a permitted landfill. Multiple generators would provide
power to the camp and facilities. A communication tower (dish for email
and satellite phones) will be located at the mobile camp.
Summer Cleanup and Inspections
The majority of snow trail and camp cleanup, such as trash removal
and stick-picking, will occur during demobilization in spring 2026
(April-May). However, a helicopter will be used for approximately 8-10
days in July and/or August 2026 to inspect and remove any debris left
on the snow trails, pads, airstrip, and well sites. The helicopter will
fly at low elevation (under 16 m [50 ft]) to conduct inspections. In
addition, the helicopter will land at the well site for soil sampling
(with hand tools) and final inspections, and to remove surface debris
that may have been missed during winter operations. Approximately 36
helicopter landings would be expected during summer cleanup,
inspections, and sampling activities.
Maternal Den Surveys
The BLM will conduct two aerial infrared (AIR) maternal polar bear
den surveys prior to beginning operations to attempt to identify any
active dens in project areas that will be utilized during the denning
period. The surveyors will use AIR cameras on fixed-wing aircraft, with
flights flown between 245-457 m (800-1,500 ft) above ground level at a
speed of <185 kilometers per hour (km/h) (<115 miles per hour [mph]).
These surveys will be concentrated on areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
project activities that would be suitable for polar bear denning
activity, such as drainages, banks, bluffs, or other areas of
topographic relief. The first survey will be conducted between December
1 and December 25, 2025, and the second survey will be conducted
between December 15, 2025, and January 10, 2026, with a minimum of 24
hours between surveys. Only sections of the project impact area that
have been surveyed via AIR will be used during denning season (figure
1).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Region
Polar bears are the only species of marine mammal managed by the
FWS likely to be found within the specified geographic region.
Information on range, stocks, biology, and climate change impacts on
polar bears can be found in appendix A of the supplemental information
(available as described above in ADDRESSES).
Potential Impacts of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals
Surface-Level Impacts on Polar Bears
Disturbance impacts on polar bears will be influenced by the type,
duration, intensity, timing, and location of the source of disturbance.
Disturbance from the specified activities would originate primarily
from aircraft overflights (helicopter and fixed wing), tundra travel,
well site plugging and reclamation, well site soil sampling,
mobilization and demobilization, and cleanup activities. The noises,
sights, and smells produced by these activities could elicit variable
responses from polar bears, ranging from avoidance to attraction. When
disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally by walking,
running, or swimming away from a noise source, or physiologically via
increased heart rates or hormonal stress responses (Harms et al. 1997;
Tempel and Gutierrez 2003). However, individual response to noise
disturbance can be influenced by previous interactions, sex, age, and
maternal status (Anderson and Aars 2008; Dyck and Baydack 2004). Noise
and odors could also attract polar bears to work areas. Attracting
polar bears to
[[Page 6873]]
these locations could result in human-polar bear interactions,
unintentional harassment, intentional hazing, or possible lethal take
in defense of human life. This proposed IHA, if finalized, would
authorize only the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of polar
bears that may result from the specified activities and would require
mitigation measures to manage attractants in work areas and reduce the
risk of human-polar bear interactions.
Human-Polar Bear Interactions
A larger percentage of polar bears are spending more time on land
during the open-water season, which may increase the risk for human-
polar bear interactions (Atwood et al. 2016; Rode et al. 2022). Polar
bear interaction plans, personnel training, attractants management, and
polar bear monitoring are mitigation measures used to reduce human-
polar bear interactions and minimize the risks to humans and polar
bears when interactions occur. Polar bear interaction plans detail the
policies and procedures that will be implemented by the BLM to avoid
attracting and interacting with polar bears, as well as minimizing
impacts to the polar 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. Efficient
management of attractants (e.g., human food, garbage) can prevent polar
bears from associating humans with food, which mitigates the risk of
human-polar bear interactions (Atwood and Wilder 2021). Information
gained from monitoring polar bears near industrial infrastructure can
be useful for better understanding polar bear distribution, behavior,
and interactions with humans. Technology that may be used to facilitate
detection and monitoring of polar bears includes bear monitors, closed-
circuit television, video cameras, thermal cameras, radar devices, and
motion-detection systems. It is possible that human-polar bear
interactions may occur during the specified activities, and mitigation
measures, as described in the applicant's Polar Bear Awareness and
Interaction Plan, will be implemented by the BLM to minimize the risk
of human-polar bear interactions during the specified activities.
From mid-July to mid-November, SBS stock polar bears can be found
in large numbers and high densities on barrier islands, along the
coastline, and in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort Sea,
particularly on and around Barter and Cross Islands (Wilson et al.
2017). This distribution leads to a significantly higher number of
human-polar bear interactions on land and at offshore structures during
the open-water season than other times of the year. Polar bears that
remain on the multi-year pack ice are not typically present in the ice-
free areas where vessel traffic occurs, as barges and vessels
associated with industrial activities travel in open water and avoid
large ice floes.
On land, polar bear monitoring reports indicate most polar bear
observations occur within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline. Facilities
within the offshore and coastal areas are more likely to be approached
by polar bears, and they may act as physical barriers to polar bear
movements. As polar bears encounter these facilities, the chances for
human-polar bear interactions increase. However, polar bears have
frequently been observed crossing existing roads and causeways, and
they appear to traverse the human-developed areas as easily as the
undeveloped areas based on monitoring reports.
Effects of Aircraft Overflights on Polar Bears
Polar bears experience increased noise and visual stimuli when
fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters fly above them, which may elicit a
biologically significant behavioral response. Sound frequencies
produced by aircraft will likely fall within the hearing range of polar
bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007) and will be audible to polar bears
during flyovers or when aircraft operate in proximity to polar bears.
Polar bears likely have acute hearing, with sensitivities previously
demonstrated at frequencies between 1.4 and 22.5 kilohertz (kHz) (tests
were limited to 22.5 kHz (Nachtigall et al. 2007)). Exposure to high-
energy sound may cause polar bears' hearing to become impaired
temporarily (called temporary threshold shift, or TTS) or permanently
(called permanent threshold shift, or PTS). Species-specific TTS and
PTS thresholds have not been established for polar bears at this time,
but TTS and PTS thresholds have been established for the general group
``other marine carnivores,'' which includes polar bears (Southall et
al. 2019). Through a series of systematic modeling procedures and
extrapolations, Southall et al. (2019) generated modified noise
exposure thresholds for both in-air and underwater sound (table 1).
Table 1--Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) Thresholds Established by Southall et al. (2019) Through Modeling and
Extrapolation for ``Other Marine Carnivores,'' Which Includes Polar Bears
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTS PTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive Impulsive Non-impulsive Impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL SELCUM SELCUM Peak SPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air................................................................ 157 146 170 177 161 176
Water.............................................................. 199 188 226 219 203 232
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Values are weighted for other marine carnivores' hearing thresholds and given in cumulative sound exposure level (SELCUM dB re 20[micro]Pa in air
and SELCUM dB re 1 [micro]Pa in water) for impulsive and nonimpulsive sounds, and unweighted peak sound pressure level in air (dB re 20[micro]Pa) and
water (dB 1[micro]Pa) (impulsive sounds only).
The Federal Aviation Administration has found that test aircraft
produced sound at all frequencies measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy
1974). At frequencies centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m (984 ft)
produced \1/3\ octave band noise levels of 84 to 124 dB, propeller-
driven aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB, and helicopters produced 60 to 70
dB (Richardson et al. 1995). Thus, level of airborne sounds typically
produced by aircraft are unlikely to cause TTS or PTS unless polar
bears are very close to the sound source.
Although neither TTS nor PTS is anticipated during the specified
activities, impacts from aircraft overflights have the potential to
elicit biologically significant behavioral responses from polar bears.
Exposure to aircraft overflights is expected to result in short-term
behavior changes, such as ceasing to rest, walking, or running, and,
therefore, has the potential to be
[[Page 6874]]
energetically costly. Polar bears observed during intentional aircraft
overflights conducted to study impacts of aircraft on polar bear
responses, with an average flight altitude of 143 m (469 ft), exhibited
biologically meaningful behavioral responses during 66.6 percent of
aircraft overflights. These behavioral responses were significantly
correlated with the aircraft's altitude, the bear's location (e.g.,
coastline, barrier island), and the bear's activity (Quigley 2022;
Quigley et al. 2024). Polar bears associated with dens exhibited
various responses when exposed to low-flying aircraft, ranging from
increasing their head movement and observing the aircraft to initiating
rapid movement and/or den abandonment (Larson et al. 2020). Aircraft
activities can impact polar bears across all seasons; however, aircraft
have a greater potential to disturb both individuals and groups of
polar bears on land during the summer and fall. These onshore polar
bears are primarily fasting or seeking alternative terrestrial foods
(Cherry et al. 2009; Griffen et al. 2022), and polar bear responses to
aircraft overflights may result in metabolic costs to limited energy
reserves. To reduce potential disturbance of polar bears during
aircraft activities, mitigation measures, such as minimum flight
altitudes over polar bears and their frequently used areas and flight
restrictions around known polar bear aggregations, will be implemented
when safe to do so.
Effects to Denning Polar Bears
Known or suspected polar bear dens around the oil fields and other
areas of the North Slope are monitored by the FWS. These dens may be
discovered opportunistically or during planned surveys for tracking
marked polar bears and detecting polar bear derns. 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, many entities conducting
operations on the North Slope coordinate with the FWS to conduct
surveys to attempt to locate polar bear dens that may be in close
proximity to any of the operator's planned activities for that denning
season. The BLM would conduct AIR surveys (see AIR Surveys below) prior
to on-ground site operations to locate polar bear dens within the
specified project area and avoid all known polar bear den by 1.6 km (1
mi). However, previously-unidentified polar bears dens may be
encountered during the BLM's activities. If this occurs, and a
previously-unidentified polar bear den is located within the project
area, the BLM would contact and collaborate with the FWS to develop
immediate mitigations such as a 1.6-km (1-mi) activity exclusion zone
around the den and 24-hours monitoring of the den site.
The responses of denning polar bears to disturbance and the
consequences of these responses can vary throughout the denning
process. We divide the denning period into four stages when considering
impacts of disturbance: den establishment, early denning, late denning,
and post-emergence; definitions and descriptions are provided by
Woodruff et al. (2022) and are also located in the 2021-2026 Beaufort
Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021). The stage at which harassment
occurs defines the level of disturbance response (Level B harassment,
Level A harassment, or Lethal) attributed to either the sow or cub(s),
along with the probability of the specific response occurring (see
Denning Analysis).
Impacts of the Specified Activities on Polar Bear Prey Species
Information on the potential impacts of the specified activities on
polar bear prey species can be found in the supplemental information to
this document (available as described in ADDRESSES).
Estimated Take
Definitions of Incidental Take Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
Below we provide definitions of three types of take of polar bears.
The FWS does not anticipate and is not authorizing either Level A
harassment or lethal take as a part of this proposed IHA; however, the
definitions of these take types are provided for context and
background.
Lethal Take
Human activity may result in biologically significant impacts to
polar bears. In the most serious interactions (e.g., vehicle collision,
running over an unknown den causing its collapse), human actions can
result in the mortality of polar bears. We also note that, while not
considered incidental, in situations where there is an imminent threat
to human life, polar bears may be killed. Additionally, though not
considered incidental, polar bears have been accidentally killed during
efforts to deter polar bears from a work area for safety and from
direct chemical exposure (81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016). Unintentional
disturbance of a female polar bear by human activity during the denning
season may cause the female either to abandon her den prematurely with
cubs or abandon her cubs in the den before the cubs can survive on
their own. Either scenario may result in the incidental lethal take of
the cubs.
Level A Harassment
Human activity may result in the injury of polar bears. Level A
harassment, for nonmilitary readiness activities, is defined as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.
Numerous actions can cause take by Level A harassment of polar bear
cubs during the denning period, such as creating a disturbance that
separates mothers from dependent cubs (Amstrup 2003), inducing early
den emergence during the late denning period (Amstrup and Gardner 1994;
Rode et al. 2018), instigating early departure from the den site during
the post-emergence period (Andersen et al. 2024), or repeatedly
interrupting the nursing or resting of cubs to the extent that it
impacts the cubs' body condition.
Level B Harassment
Level B harassment for nonmilitary readiness activities means any
act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance that 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, feeding, or sheltering. Changes in
behavior that disrupt biologically significant behaviors or activities
for the affected animal are indicative of take by Level B harassment
under the MMPA. Such reactions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Fleeing (running or swimming away from a human or a human
activity);
Displaying a stress-related behavior such as jaw or lip-
popping, front leg stomping, vocalizations, circling, intense staring,
or salivating;
Abandoning or avoiding preferred movement corridors such
as ice floes, leads, polynyas, a segment of coastline, or barrier
islands;
Using a longer or more difficult route of travel instead
of the intended path;
Interrupting breeding, sheltering, or feeding;
Moving away at a fast pace (adult) and cubs struggling to
keep up;
Temporary, short-term cessation of nursing or resting
(cubs);
Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a prolonged period
(adults);
Loss of hunting opportunity due to disturbance of prey; or
Any interruption in normal denning behavior that does not
cause injury, den abandonment, or early departure of the female with
cubs from the den site.
[[Page 6875]]
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other
behavioral responses may be indicative of take by Level B harassment.
In some circumstances, eliciting behavioral responses that equate to
take by Level B harassment repeatedly may result in Level A harassment.
Relatively minor changes in behavior such as the animal raising its
head or temporarily changing its direction of travel are not likely to
disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does
not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by
Level B harassment.
Surface Interactions
We analyzed take by Level B harassment for polar bears that may
potentially be encountered and impacted during the BLM's oil well
plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail, pad, and airstrip
construction, and summer cleanup activities within the specified
geographic region.
Impact Area
To assess the area of potential impact from the project activities,
we calculate the area affected by project activities where harassment
is possible. We refer to this area as an impact area. Behavioral
response rates of polar bears to disturbances are highly variable, and
data to support the relationship between distance to polar bears and
disturbance are limited. Dyck and Baydack (2004) found sex-based
differences in the frequencies of vigilance bouts, which involves an
animal raising its head to visually scan its surroundings, by polar
bears in the presence of vehicles on the tundra. However, in their
summary of polar bear behavioral response to ice-breaking vessels in
the Chukchi Sea, Smultea et al. (2016) found no difference between
reactions of males, females with cubs, or females without cubs. During
the FWS's coastal aerial surveys, 99 percent of polar bears that
responded in a way that indicated possible Level B harassment (polar
bears that were running when detected or began to run or swim in
response to the aircraft) did so within 1.6 km (1 mi), as measured from
the ninetieth percentile horizontal detection distance from the flight
line. Similarly, Andersen and Aars (2008) found that female polar bears
with cubs (the most conservative group observed) began to walk or run
away from approaching snowmobiles at a mean distance of 1,534 m (0.95
mi). Thus, while future research into the reaction of polar bears to
anthropogenic disturbance may indicate a different zone of potential
impact is appropriate, the current literature suggests that the 1.6-km
(1.0-mi) impact area will encompass most surface polar bear harassment
events.
Estimated Harassment
We estimated Level B harassment using the spatio-temporally
specific encounter rates and temporally specific harassment rates
derived in the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
in conjunction with the specified project activity information. Some
portion of SBS bears may occur within the Chukchi Sea at a given time.
However, the ITR rates do not explicitly account for this possibility,
and the project area for this proposed IHA occurs only within the
geographical boundary of the SBS subpopulation. Therefore, our analyses
account only for SBS bears located within the SBS subpopulation
boundary. Distribution patterns of polar bears along the coast of the
SBS were estimated in Wilson et al. (2017) by dividing the North Slope
Coastline into 10 equally sized grids and applying a Bayesian
hierarchical model based on 14 years of aerial surveys in late summer
and early fall. Wilson et al. (2017) estimated 140 polar bears per week
along the coastline (a measurement that included barrier islands), but,
not with uniform distributions. The study found that disproportionately
high densities of bears occur in grids 6 and 9, which contain known
large congregating areas such as Kaktovik and Cross Island; thus, the
study has required polar bear density correction of factors in
previously issued ITAs. The vast majority of the coastline within the
project area in this proposed IHA falls within grids 1-5. The Wilson et
al. (2017) values for grids 1-5 are similar to those in the North Slope
area where the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021)
encounter rates were developed; therefore, we believe those values are
applicable to the project area in this proposed IHA and do not require
any correction factor for polar bear densities in our analyses.
Table 2--Definitions of Variables Used in Harassment Estimates of Polar
Bears on the Coast of the North Slope of Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B................................. Bears encountered in an impact area
for the entire season.
a................................. Coastal exposure area.
a................................. Inland exposure area.
r................................. Occupancy rate.
e................................. Coastal open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/season.
e................................. Coastal ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
e................................. Inland open-water season bear-
encounter rate in bears/season.
e................................. Inland ice season bear-encounter
rate in bears/season.
t................................. Ice season harassment rate.
t................................. Open-water season harassment rate.
B................................. Number of estimated Level B
harassment events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides the definition for each variable used in the
formulas to calculate the number of potential harassment events. The
variables defined in table 2 were used in a series of formulas to
ultimately estimate the total harassment from surface-level
interactions. Encounter rates were originally calculated as polar bears
encountered per square km per season. As a part of their Request, the
BLM provided the FWS with digital geospatial files that included the
maximum expected human occupancy (i.e., rate of occupancy
[ro] for each individual structure (e.g., snow trails, snow
pads) of their specified activities for each season of the IHA period.
Using the buffer tool in ArcGIS Pro, we created a spatial file of a
3.2-km (2-mi) buffer around all snow trails (3.2 km on either side of
the proposed snow trail center line, i.e., 6.4 km [4 mi] total
diameter) to account for up to 1.6-km (1-mi) deviations from the
proposed center line of the routes, and around both well sites to
account for the presently
[[Page 6876]]
undetermined camp locations (within 1.6 km [1 mi] of well head).
Additionally, we placed a 1.6-km (1-mi) buffer around all lakes that
may be potentially utilized during operations. We binned the structures
according to their seasonal occupancy rates by rounding them up into
tenths (10 percent, 20 percent, etc.). We determined the impact area of
each bin by first calculating the area within the buffers of 100-
percent occupancy locations. We then removed the area of the 100-
percent occupancy buffers from the project impact area and calculated
the area within the 90-percent occupancy buffers. This iterative
process continued until we calculated the area within all buffers. The
areas of impact were then clipped by coastal and inland zone geospatial
files to determine the coastal areas of impact (ac) and
inland areas of impact (ai) for each occupancy bin. This
process was repeated for both seasons (ice season and open-water [ice-
free] season).
Impact areas were multiplied by the appropriate encounter rate to
obtain the number of polar bears expected to be encountered in the
impact area per season (Bes). Equation 1 provides an example
of the calculation of polar bears encountered in the ice season for an
impact area in the coastal zone.
Equation 1
Bes = ac * eci
To generate the number of estimated Level B harassments for each
area of interest, we multiplied the number of polar bears in the area
of interest per season by the proportion of the season the area is
occupied, the rate of occupancy, and the harassment rate (equation 2).
Equation 2
Bt = Bes * Sp * ro * ti
Aircraft Impacts on Polar Bears
Polar bears in the project area will likely be exposed to the
visual and auditory stimulation associated with the applicant's fixed-
wing and helicopter activities; however, these impacts are likely to be
minimal and short-term. Aircraft activities may cause disruptions in
the normal behavioral patterns of polar bears as either an auditory or
visual stimulus, thereby resulting in incidental Level B harassment. To
reduce the likelihood that polar bears are disturbed by aircraft, BLM
would implement mitigation measures, such as minimum flight altitudes
over polar bears and restrictions on sudden changes to aircraft
movements and direction, if this authorization is finalized. Once
mitigated, such disturbances are expected to have no more than short-
term, temporary, and minor impacts on individual polar bears.
Estimating Harassment Rates of Aircraft Activities
Harassment rates during aircraft activities were estimated using
results from studies of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter overflights
(Quigley 2022; Quigley et al. 2024). In these studies, aerial searches
along the northern coast of Alaska between Point Barrow and the western
Canadian border were flown and polar bears were approached at different
altitudes. Polar bears that did not exhibit behavioral changes
consistent with harassment were then re-approached at progressively
lower altitudes, reaching as low as 38 m (100 ft). Researchers recorded
behavioral changes during these approaches and evaluated if and when
Level B harassment occurred. Covariates examined were polar bear
location (``barrier island'' or ``mainland''), initial behavior
(``active'' or ``inactive''), group size, whether the polar bear
belonged to a family group, and the number of previous overflights
(i.e., how many times the group was re-approached to elicit a
behavioral change). A Bayesian imputation approach accounted for polar
bears that exhibited a behavioral change consistent with harassment on
their first approach, thus lacking an identified altitude at which no
harassment occurred due to a lack of a ``non-harassment'' observation.
Their final model included location, activity level, and the number of
previous overflights as predictors of the altitude at which a polar
bear was harassed. For our aircraft impacts analysis, we used
harassment rates estimated for active polar bears observed on barrier
islands, as they had the highest rates of harassment. We further
assumed that no previous overflights were conducted.
We provide harassment rates for the following five categories of
flights: take-offs, landings, low-altitude flights (defined as those
between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude), mid-altitude
flights (defined as those between 305 m [1,000 ft] and 457 m [1,500 ft]
altitude), and high-altitude flights (defined as those between 457 m
[1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude). Harassment rates were
assigned to each of these flight categories using the harassment rate
for the lowest altitude in the category (e.g., for low-altitude
flights, the harassment rate estimated for 122 m [400 ft] was used).
This binning method of using the lowest altitude harassment rate in the
bin allowed our estimates to be inclusive of possible changes in
altitude due to variable flight conditions (table 3).
Table 3--Harassment Rates for the Five Categories of Flights for Fixed-
Wing Aircraft and Helicopter Overflights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight category Fixed-wing Helicopter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-offs..................................... 0.99 >0.99
Landings...................................... 0.99 >0.99
Low-Altitude Flights (122-305 m).............. 0.86 >0.99
Mid-Altitude Flights (305-457 m).............. 0.03 0.82
High-Altitude Flights (457-610 m)............. <0.01 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The rates in this table are based on Quigley et al. (2024).We used
the harassment rate associated with 30 m (100 ft) for take-offs and
landings.
Estimating Area of Impact for Aircraft Activities
For each category of the flight path (i.e., take-off, low-altitude
travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and landing), we
calculated an impact area and duration of impact using flight hours or
flight path information provided in the Request. We used flights logs
available through FlightAware (https://www.flightaware.com/), a website
that maintains flight logs in the public domain, to estimate impact
areas and flight hours for take-offs and landings. We estimated a take-
off linear
[[Page 6877]]
distance of 2.41 km (1.5 mi) that would be impacted for 10 minutes. We
estimated a landing linear distance of 4.83 km (3 mi) per 305 m (1,000
ft) of flight altitude that would be impacted for 10 minutes per
landing. To estimate the impact area of traveling segments, we
subtracted the take-off and landing segments from the total length of
the flight path. The duration of impact for traveling flights was
either provided in the Request or calculated using the length of the
flight and a conservative flight speed of 129 km/hr (80 mph), which was
approximately 1.5 minutes per 3.22 km (2 mi) of the flight path.
All take-offs, landings, and traveling segments were then spatially
referenced to determine whether they were within the coastal or inland
zones. The coastal zone is defined as the offshore and onshore areas
within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline, and the inland zone is defined
as the onshore area greater than 2 km (1.2 mi) from the coastline. If
no location or flight hour information was provided, flight paths were
approximated based on the information provided in the Request. Of the
flight paths that were described clearly or were addressed through
assumptions, we marked the approximate flight path take-off and landing
locations using ArcGIS Pro, and the flight paths were drawn. Once
spatially referenced, all flight paths were buffered by 1.6 km (1 mi),
which is consistent with aircraft surveys conducted by the FWS and the
USGS between August and October during most years from 2000 to 2014
(Schliebe et al. 2008; Atwood et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2017). In
these surveys, 99 percent of groups of polar bears that exhibited
behavioral responses consistent with Level B harassment were observed
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the aircraft.
Table 4--Seasonal Polar Bear Encounter Rates by Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (November 12-July 18)................ 0.05 bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (July 19-November 11)......... 1.48 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Zone Seasonal Encounter Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice Season (November 12-July 18)................ 0.004 bears/km\2\.
Open-water Season (July 19-November 11)......... 0.005 bears/km\2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table is adapted from the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR
42982, August 5, 2021).
To calculate the total number of Level B harassment events
estimated to occur due to the specified activities, we calculated the
number of flight hours for each flight category (i.e., take-offs, low-
altitude travel, mid-altitude travel, high-altitude travel, and
landings) for each zone and season combination. These values were then
used to calculate the proportion of the season that aircraft occupied
their impact areas (i.e., take-off area, landing area, or traveling
segment impact areas). This proportion-of-season metric is equivalent
to the occupancy rate (ro) generated for surface-level interaction
harassment estimates. The total impact area for each of the flight
categories was multiplied by the zone and season-specific polar bear
encounter rate to determine the number of polar bears expected in that
area for the season (i.e., Bes, as seen in equation 1). This number was
then multiplied by the proportion of the season to determine the number
of polar bears expected in that area when flights are occurring, which
was then multiplied by the appropriate harassment rate based on flight
altitude to estimate the number of polar bears that may be harassed as
a result of the flights (as seen in equation 2). Table 5 shows a
summary of aircraft operations during the specified activities and the
values used to estimate Level B harassment of polar bears during
aircraft operations.
Table 5--Summary of Aircraft Operations by Season and Activity During the Proposed IHA Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice season (fixed-wing aircraft only) Open-water season (helicopter only)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Winter support: Winter support: Site inspection: Snow trail
Deadhorse--East Utqiagvik--East Deadhorse--East inspection and
Simpson #1 Simpson #1 Simpson #1 cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altitude *...................... High High High Low
Total Flights................... 25 25 5 12
Proportion of Season............ 0.0039 0.0014 0.0022 0.0062
Proportion of Flight in Coastal 1 1 1 1
Zone...........................
Proportion of Flight in Inland 0 0 0 0
Zone...........................
Total Encounter Rate (bears/ 0.05 0.05 1.48 1.48
km\2\/season) **...............
Harassment Rate................. 0.001 0.001 0.05 0.99
Flight Time Harassment.......... 1.59 x 10-\06\ 5.53 x 10-\07\ 0.0014 0.05909
Total Takeoffs and Landings..... 50 50 10 24
Landing Time/Season............. 0.0013 0.0013 0.0006 0.0014
Landing Time Harassment......... 0.0016 0.0016 0.0210 0.0503
Takeoff Time/Season............. 0.0013 0.0013 0.0006 0.0014
Takeoff Time Harassment......... 0.0010 0.0010 0.0141 0.0338
Number Level B Harassment of 0.0027 0.0027 0.0364 0.1576
Activity.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of level B 0.0054: rounded to 1............ Total number of 0.1940: rounded to 1.
harassment during winter level B
aircraft activities. harassment
during summer
aircraft
activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
[[Page 6878]]
* High-altitude flight is defined as between 457 m [1,500 ft] and 610 m [2,000 ft] altitude. Low altitude is
defined as between 122 m [400 ft] and 305 m [1,000 ft] altitude. There are no mid-altitude flights considered
for this project.
** Accounts for unequal encounter rates over coastal and inland zones.
Estimated Harassment From Aircraft Activities
Using the approaches described above, we estimated the total number
of polar bears expected to be harassed by the aircraft activities
during the proposed IHA period as a total of two bears, including one
bear during the winter and one bear during the summer aircraft
activities.
Denning Analysis
Below we provide a complete description, plus results, of the polar
bear den simulation model used to assess impacts to denning polar bears
from disturbance associated with all phases of the specified
activities. In our denning analysis, we used the analytical method
described in the Revised Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) (90 FR 27398, June 26, 2025).
Den Simulation
We simulated dens across the entire North Slope of Alaska, ranging
from the areas identified as denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006, 2013;
Durner and Atwood 2018) contained within the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) in the west to the Canadian border in the east.
To simulate dens on the landscape, we relied on the estimated number of
dens in three different regions of northern Alaska provided by Atwood
et al. (2020). These included the NPR-A, the area between the Colville
and Canning Rivers (CC), and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Den
simulations for this proposed IHA were conducted following the exact
methodology described previously in the AOGA ITR (90 FR 27398, June 26,
2025).
Impact Area of Specified Activities
The model developed by Wilson and Durner (2020) provides a template
for estimating the level of potential impact on denning polar bears
during the specified activities while also considering the natural
denning ecology of polar bears in the region. Previous iterations of
the denning analysis model, including those utilized in the 2021-2026
Beaufort Sea ITR (86 FR 42982, August 5, 2021) and 2023-2024 BLM IHA
(88 FR 88943, December 26, 2023), assumed that during all denning
periods, any polar bears within dens within 1.6 km (1 mi) from project
activities could exhibit a disturbance response if exposed to
industrial stimuli. However, for this IHA, as in the 2024-2025 BLM IHA
(90 FR 2718, January 13, 2025) and 2025-2026 Narwhal LLC IHA (90 FR
33982, July 17, 2025), we refined that broad assumption to account for
denning data that have been collected subsequent to the promulgation of
the 2021-2026 Beaufort Sea ITR. Since 2021, four known dens (monitored
in 2022 and 2023) have occurred near human activity. Of the four newly
observed dens, three were extremely close to human activity (<50 m
[<164 ft]), yet the sows remained in their dens until the late denning
period. We updated polar bear disturbance probabilities and litter size
distributions with the information from these dens, then re-examined
the historic dens that were used to create disturbance probabilities.
We found that the distances between human activity and polar bear dens
during the early denning period were considerably closer than those
observed during other denning periods. Specifically, of the 17 dens
within the case studies that were exposed to human activity during the
early denning period, only one was potentially disturbed at a distance
greater than 800 m (2,625 ft). This single den record also had
imprecise information on the distance to human activity, so activity
was assumed to occur within 1,610 m (5,282 ft) of the den and was
likely closer. The historic dens analyzed during the den establishment,
late denning, and post-emergence periods did not follow this pattern.
For those dens, disturbance distances commonly exceeded 805 m (2,641
ft). Evidence derived from dens exposed to human activity during the
early denning period, including both new den records and historic dens,
illustrates the reluctance of sows to abandon their maternal den/cubs
in response to exposure to stimuli from nearby activity, and supports
the concept that sows may be more risk tolerant during the early
denning period. Additionally, sows may be less affected by sound from
outside activities during the early denning period because dens are
typically closed during that time, which can affect propagation of
noise into the den (Owen et al. 2020). Given this evidence, we modified
the denning analysis model to adjust the impact area for the early
denning period to range from 0 to 805 m (0 to 2,641 ft). As a result,
dens that were simulated to be within 805 m (2,641 ft) of human
activity could be disturbed during all denning periods, while dens
between 806 and 1610 m (2,644 and 5,282 ft) away from human activity
could only be disturbed during the den establishment, late denning, and
post-emergence periods.
AIR Surveys
We assumed that all operational and transit areas that will be
utilized during denning season would have two AIR surveys flown prior
to beginning any operations (figure 1). The first survey would occur
between December 1 and December 25, 2025, and the second survey between
December 15, 2025, and January 10, 2026, with a minimum of 24 hours
between surveys. During each iteration of the model, each AIR survey
was randomly assigned a probability of detecting dens using detection
probabilities previously described in the 2024-2025 BLM IHA (90 FR
2718, January 13, 2025).
Model Implementation
For each iteration of the model, we first determined which dens
were exposed to the specified activities. Dens that were simulated to
be within 805 m (2,641 ft) of human activity could be disturbed during
all denning periods, while dens within 806-1610 m (2,644-5,282 ft) of
human activity could only be disturbed during the den establishment,
late denning, and post-emergence periods. Dens detected during AIR
survey were excluded if activity did not occur prior to AIR survey. We
identified the stage in the denning period when the exposure occurred
based on the date range of the activities the den was exposed to: den
establishment (i.e., initial entrance into den until cubs are born),
early denning (i.e., birth of cubs until they are 60 days old), late
denning (i.e., date cubs are 60 days old until den emergence) and post-
emergence (i.e., the date of den emergence until permanent departure
from the den site). We then determined whether the exposure elicited a
response by the denning polar bear based on probabilities derived from
the reviewed case studies (Woodruff et al. 2022b), which were updated
with data from the dens monitored in 2022 and 2023 using the methods
described in Woodruff et al. (2022a).
Specifically, we divided the number of cases that documented
responses associated with either Level B harassment (e.g., potential to
cause a disruption of behavioral patterns), Level A harassment (e.g.,
potential to injure an
[[Page 6879]]
animal), or lethal take (i.e., cub abandonment) of polar bears by the
total number of cases with that combination of period and exposure type
(table 6). Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs,
if present, whereas Level A harassment and lethal take were applicable
to only cubs. AIR surveys were not considered to be a source of
potential impact. In thousands of hours of AIR surveys conducted in
northern Alaska over the last decade, we are not aware of a single
instance of a polar bear abandoning its den during the early denning
period due to an AIR survey overflight. These responses would be
readily observable on the thermal cameras, and the fact that none have
been observed indicates that den abandonment very likely does not occur
given the brief duration of the aircraft overflight as well as the
distance and altitude of the aircraft from the den site. Recent peer-
reviewed research further supports the model assumption that AIR
surveys are not a source of harassment (Quigley et al. 2024).
For dens exposed to activity, we used a multinomial distribution
with the probabilities of different levels of take for that period
(table 6) to determine whether a den was disturbed or not. If den
abandonment was simulated to occur, a den was not allowed to be
disturbed again during the subsequent denning periods because the
outcome of that denning event (lethal take of any cubs present) was
already determined.
The level of impact associated with a disturbance varied according
to the severity and timing of the exposure (table 6). Exposures that
resulted in emergence from dens prior to cubs reaching 60 days of age
were considered lethal takes of cubs. If an exposure resulted in Level
A harassment during the late denning period, we first assigned that den
a new random emergence date from a uniform distribution that ranged
between the first date of exposure during the late denning period and
the original den emergence date. We then determined whether that den
was disturbed during the post-emergence period, but the probability of
disturbance was dependent on whether or not a den was disturbed (i.e.,
Level A harassment occurred) during the late denning period (table 6).
If an exposure resulted in Level A harassment during the post-emergence
period, we assigned the den a new time spent at the den site post-
emergence from a uniform distribution that ranged from 0 to the
original simulated time at the den post-emergence.
Recent research suggests that litter survival is related to the
date of den emergence and time spent at the den post-emergence
(Andersen et al. 2024), with litters having higher survival rates if
they emerge later in the spring and if they spend more time at the den
site after emergence. To determine whether dens that were disturbed
during the late denning and/or post-emergence period(s) experienced
Level A harassment, we relied on estimates of litter survival in the
spring following den emergence, which were derived from the analysis of
empirical data on the dates of emergence from the den and departure
from the den site (i.e., estimates were dependent on the date of
emergence and time spent at the den site post-emergence) (Andersen et
al. 2024). For each den disturbed during the late denning and/or post-
emergence periods, we obtained a random sample of regression
coefficients from the posterior distribution and calculated the
probability of litter survival in the spring after den departure with
the following equation:
Equation 3
logit(s) = [beta]0 + [beta]1emerge +
[beta]2depart
where s is the probability of at least one cub being alive in the
spring after den departure, [beta]0 is the intercept
coefficient, [beta]1 is the coefficient associated with the
Julian date of emergence (emerge), and [beta]2 is the
coefficient associated with the number of days the family group stayed
at the den site post-emergence before departing (depart). These
probabilities are based on estimates of litter survival derived from
the analysis of empirical data on the dates of emergence from the den
and departure from the den site (Andersen et al. 2024).
We developed the code to run this model in program R (R Core
Development Team 2020) and ran 10,000 iterations of the model (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the estimated number of dens
disturbed and associated levels of harassment. We then determined the
number of cubs that would have lethal take, Level A harassment, and
Level B harassment, and the number of females that would experience
Level B harassment. Table 6 shows the probability of an exposure
resulting in the types of harassment of denning polar bears.
Table 6--Probability That an Exposure Elicited a Response by Denning Polar Bears That Would Result in Level B
Harassment, Level A Harassment, Lethal Take, or No Take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None (sow or Level B Level A
Denning period cub(s)) Level B (sow) (cub(s)) (cub(s)) Lethal cub(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den Establishment............... 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000
Early Denning................... 0.923 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.077
Late Denning.................... 0.684 0.316 0.000 0.316 0.000
Post Emergence-Previously 0.000 1.000 0.316 0.684 0.000
Undisturbed Den................
Post Emergence-Previously 0.000 1.000 0.667 0.333 0.000
Disturbed Den..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Level B harassment was applicable to both adults and cubs, if present; Level A harassment and lethal take
were applicable to cubs only and were not possible during the den establishment period, which ended with the
birth of the cubs. During the early denning period, there was no Level A harassment for cubs, only lethal
take. We provide two sets of take probabilities for the post-emergence period. The first (Post-emergence--
Undisturbed) is the set of probabilities when a den has not been disturbed during the late denning period. The
second (Post-emergence--Disturbed) is the set of probabilities for a den that was disturbed during the late
denning period (Rode et al. 2018; Andersen et al. 2024).
Model Results
In the denning model both sows and cubs may experience Level B
harassment, but only cubs can experience either Level A harassment or
lethal take (see Model Implementation and table 6 for further detail).
The distributions of model results for Level B harassments, Level A
harassments, and lethal takes were non-normal and heavily skewed. The
heavily skewed nature of these distributions suggests that the mean
value is not representative of the most common model result. Therefore,
mean is not an appropriate measure of potential denning related
harassments. However, the median value, which is the midpoint value of
a frequency distribution of all model results, is a more precise
estimator of common model results when the
[[Page 6880]]
distribution displays a non-normal and heavily skewed pattern. In all
three take scenarios, Level B harassment, Level A harassment, and
Lethal take, the median value was zero (0), with 95 percent confidence
intervals ranging between 0-2 for level B harassment, 0-4 for Level A
harassment, and from 0-2 for Lethal take (table 7). Table 7 also shows
the probability of Level B harassment was the highest (0.367), followed
by Level A harassment (0.269), lowest for lethal take (0.140). As a
result of these model outputs, we anticipate zero (0) Level B
harassment, Level A harassment, or Lethal take associated with denning
polar bears during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA.
Table 7--Results of the Den Disturbance Model for Proposed Activity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates *
Level of harassment/take ---------------------------------------------------------------
Probability Mean Median 95% CI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B Harassment.............................. 0.367 0.479 0 0-2
Level A Harassment.............................. 0.269 0.566 0 0-4
Lethal Take..................................... 0.140 0.270 0 0-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * Estimates are provided for the probability, mean, median, and 95 percent Confidence Intervals (CI) for
Level B harassment, Level A harassment, and Lethal take. The probabilities represent the probability of >=1
take of a bear occurring during a given winter.
Critical Assumptions
To conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of Level
B harassment, Level A harassment, and lethal take, we made several
critical assumptions.
Our estimates do not account for variable responses by polar bear
age and sex; however, sensitivity of denning polar bears was
incorporated into the analysis. The available information suggests that
polar bears are generally resilient to low levels of disturbance.
Females with dependent young and juvenile polar bears are
physiologically the most sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008) and most
likely to experience harassment from disturbance. Not enough
information on composition of the SBS polar bear stock in the specified
project area is available to incorporate individual variability based
on age and sex or to predict its influence on harassment estimates. Our
estimates are derived from a variety of sample populations with various
age and sex structures, and we assume the exposed population will have
a similar composition, and that, therefore, the response rates are
applicable.
The estimates of behavioral response presented here do not account
for potential individual movements of animals in response to the
specified activities that would alter the density of polar bears in or
near the project area. Not enough information is available about the
movement of polar bears in response to specific disturbances to refine
the assumption that their density does not change.
The SBS polar bears create maternal dens on the sea ice as well as
on land. The den simulation used in our analysis does not simulate dens
on the sea ice. However, the specified activities will be conducted
entirely on land and only a small percentage of the activities will
occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the coastline. Therefore, the impact of
the activities will be primarily limited to land-based dens within 1.6
km (1 mi) of the project impact areas used during denning season.
Additionally, this impact area will be surveyed during AIR surveys to
mitigate impacts on denning polar bears.
The specific combination of snow trail segments depicted in figure
1 that will be used for mobilization, resupply, and backhauling is not
currently known. For the purposes of the above analyses and estimates
of take by Level B and Level A harassment, and the risks of lethal
take, we assumed that all routes within the AIR surveyed section
(figure 1) of the project might potentially be used at some point
during the denning season. This assumption results in a very
conservative estimate of take for the 1-year IHA period that accounts
for all possible operational scenarios.
Sum of Harassment From All Sources
Our analyses quantified the total number Level B harassment, Level
A harassment, and lethal take potential to result from the BLM's
specified activities. We evaluated three potential sources of
harassment/take, including surface interactions, aircraft overflights,
and den disturbance of sows and/or cubs in our analyses. A summary of
total estimated take via Level B harassment during the project by
source is provided in table 8. We do not anticipate take by Level A
harassment or lethal take to occur.
Table 8--Total Estimated Takes by Harassment of Polar Bears, by Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of estimated
Source and type of harassment harassments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bears on the surface-summer--Level B harassment 1
Bears on the surface-winter--Level B harassment 7
Aircraft activities-summer--Level B harassment. 1
Aircraft activities-winter--Level B harassment. 1
Denning Bears.................................. 0
------------------------
Total...................................... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinations and Findings
In proposing these findings, we considered the best available
scientific information, including: the biological and behavioral
characteristics of polar bears, the most recent information on polar
bear distribution and abundance within the area of the specified
activities, the current and expected future status of the stock
(including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the
potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the
potential responses of polar bears to this disturbance. In addition,
[[Page 6881]]
we reviewed applicant-provided materials, information in our files and
datasets, published reference materials, and we consulted with fellow
species experts.
Small Numbers
For our small numbers determination, we consider whether the
estimated number of polar bears to be subjected to incidental take is
small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. We estimate that BLM's proposed specified activities in the
specified geographic region will cause the take of no more than 10
polar bears by Level B harassment during the 1-year period of this
proposed IHA (table 8). Take of 10 animals is 1.1 percent of the best
available estimate of the current SBS stock size of 907 animals
(Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood et al. 2020) ((10/907) x 100 [ap]
1.10 percent) and represents a ``small number'' of polar bears of that
stock.
2. The footprint of the specified activities within the specified
geographic region is extremely small relative to the range of the SBS
stock of polar bears. Polar bears from the SBS stock occur well beyond
the boundaries of the proposed IHA region. As such, the IHA boundaries
represent only a minute subset of the potential area in which the polar
bear may occur. Thus, the FWS concludes that a small portion of the SBS
polar bear populations may be present in the specified geographic
region during the time of the specified activities.
Small Numbers Conclusion
We propose a finding that take of up to 10 SBS polar bears
represents a small number of the SBS stock of polar bears.
Negligible Impact
For our negligible impacts determination, we consider the
following:
1. The documented impacts of previous activities (including the
2023-2024 BLM IHA (88 FR 88943, December 26, 2023) and the 2024-2025
BLM IHA (90 FR 2718, January 13, 2025), which are similar to the
specified activities with respect to impact on polar bears), considered
in addition to the baseline of existing impacts from factors such as
oil and gas activities in the area and other ongoing or proposed ITAs,
suggest that the types of activities analyzed for this proposed IHA
will have minimal effects on polar bears. Additionally, the effects
will be limited to short-term, temporary behavioral changes.
Furthermore, our analyses do not indicate, nor do we anticipate, any
take by Level A harassment or lethal take of polar bears during the 1-
year period of this proposed IHA. Therefore, we anticipate that the
specified activities will not have lasting impacts that could
significantly affect an individual polar bear's health, reproduction,
or survival. The limited extent of anticipated impacts on polar bears
is unlikely to adversely affect annual rates of polar bear survival or
recruitment. Thus, we do not expect any long-term negative consequences
to either individual- or population-level fitness.
2. The distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears
indicate that relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified
areas of activity at any time and, therefore, few polar bears are
likely to be affected.
3. The BLM has committed to the implementation of monitoring
requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential
impacts of their operations on polar bears. Den detection surveys for
polar bears and adaptive mitigation and management responses based on
real-time monitoring information (described in this proposed
authorization) will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with
polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of the species.
4. The FWS does not anticipate any lethal take that would remove
individual polar bears from the population or prevent their successful
reproduction. This proposed IHA does not authorize any take by Level A
harassment or injury that will likely result in the death of a polar
bear.
We also consider the conjectural or speculative impacts associated
with these specified activities. The specific congressional direction
described below justifies balancing the probability of such impacts
with their severity: 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 FWS 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 (54 FR
40338, September 29, 1989, quoting 53 FR 8473, March 15, 1988, and 132
Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)).
The potential effects of most concern here are the mortality of
cubs that could result from disturbances during certain periods of the
denning season. The FWS estimated that the probability of greater than
or equal to one lethal take resulting in the mortality of a denning
polar bear is only 0.140 within the 1-year period of this proposed IHA.
Therefore, the FWS does not anticipate any lethal take will occur
during the IHA period. If a den is disturbed and lethal take were to
occur, this take would be limited to only cubs during the denning
period. Denning females, the demographic group most important to annual
recruitment, are limited to take by Level B harassment. Therefore, the
number of potentially available reproductive females that would
contribute to recruitment for the SBS stock would remain unaffected if
a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of the cubs.
Cub mortality occurs naturally each year. Cub litter survival was
estimated at 50 percent (90 percent CI: 33-67 percent) for the SBS
stock during 2001-2006 (Regehr et al. 2010), indicating a female may
lose her litter for several reasons separate from den disturbance. The
SBS stock of polar bears is currently estimated as 907 polar bears
(Bromaghin et al. 2015, 2021; Atwood 2020). The loss of one litter
ranges from 0 percent (0 cubs) to approximately 0.33 percent (3 cubs)
of the annual SBS stock size of polar bears (((0 cubs to 3 cubs) /907)
x100[ap]0 to 0.33). The determining factor for polar bear stock growth
is adult female survival (Eberhardt 1990). Consequently, the loss of
female cubs has a greater impact on annual recruitment rates for the
SBS stock of polar bears compared to male cubs. If a den disturbance
were to result in the mortality of the entire litter, the adult female
would be available to breed during the next mating season and could
produce another litter during the next denning season.
Based on our projected zero cub mortality associated with these
specified activities, and the recognition that even if a den is
disturbed, the number of potentially affected cubs would be minimal and
the number of reproductive females in the stock would remain the same,
the FWS does not anticipate that the conjectural or speculative impacts
associated with these specified activities warrant a finding of non-
negligible impact or otherwise preclude issuance of this proposed IHA.
We reviewed the effects of the specified well-plugging and
reclamation activities on polar bears, including impacts from surface
interactions, aircraft overflights, and the potential for den
disturbance. Based on our review of these potential impacts, past
monitoring
[[Page 6882]]
reports, and the biology and natural history of polar bears, we
anticipate that such effects will be limited to short-term behavioral
disturbances.
We have evaluated the effects of climate change on polar bears as
part of the environmental baseline. Climate change is a global
phenomenon and was considered as the overall driver of effects that
could alter polar bear habitat and behavior. The FWS is currently
involved in research to understand how climate change may affect polar
bears. As we gain a better understanding of climate change effects, we
will incorporate the information in future authorizations.
We find that the impacts of these specified activities cannot be
reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect SBS polar bears through effects on annual rates of recruitment
or survival. We therefore find that the total of the taking estimated
above and proposed for authorization will have a negligible impact on
SBS polar bears. We do not propose to authorize lethal take or any take
by Level A harassment that we believe could result in long-term
individual or population level fitness consequences.
Impact on Subsistence Use
Based on past community consultations, locations of hunting areas,
the lack of anticipated overlap of hunting areas and project
activities, and the best scientific information available, including
monitoring data from similar activities, we propose a finding that take
caused by the oil well plugging and reclamation; soil sampling; snow
trail, pad, and airstrip construction; and summer cleanup activities in
the project area will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of polar bears for taking for subsistence uses during the
proposed timeframe.
While polar bears represent a small portion, in terms of the number
of animals, of the total subsistence harvest for the Utqiagvik,
Nuiqsut, Wainwright and Atqasuk communities, their harvest is important
to Alaska Natives. The BLM would notify the cities of Wainwright and
Utqiagvik and the Native villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsut of the planned
activities and document any discussions of potential conflict. The BLM
will make reasonable efforts to ensure that activities do not interfere
with subsistence hunting and that adverse effects on the availability
of polar bears are minimized. Should such a concern be voiced,
development of plans of cooperation (POC), which must identify measures
to minimize any adverse effects, will be required. The POC will ensure
that project 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 the BLM will work with the
affected Alaska Native communities and what actions will be taken to
avoid interference with subsistence hunting of polar bears, as
warranted.
The FWS has not received any reports and is not aware of
information that indicates that polar bears are being or will be
deterred from hunting areas or impacted in any way that diminishes
their availability for subsistence use by oil well plugging and
reclamation; soil sampling; snow trail, pad, and airstrip construction;
and summer cleanup.
Least Practicable Adverse Impact
We evaluated the practicability and effectiveness of mitigation
measures based on the nature, scope, and timing of the specified
activities, the best available scientific information, and monitoring
data during the BLM's activities in the specified geographic region. We
propose a finding that the mitigation measures included within the
BLM's Request will ensure least practicable adverse impacts on polar
bears (BLM 2025).
Polar bear den surveys at the beginning of the winter season, the
resulting 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion zone around any known
polar bear dens, and restrictions on the timing and types of activities
in the vicinity of dens will ensure that impacts to denning female
polar bears and their cubs are minimized during this critical period.
Minimum flight elevations over polar bear areas and flight restrictions
around observed polar bears and known polar bear dens will reduce the
potential for aircraft disturbing polar bears. Finally, the BLM will
implement mitigation measures to prevent the presence and impact of
attractants in camps such as the use of wildlife-resistant waste
receptacles, daily food waste incineration, and storing hazardous
materials in drums or other secure containers. These measures are
outlined in a polar bear interaction plan that was developed in
coordination with the FWS and is part of the BLM's application for this
IHA. Based on the information we currently have regarding den and
aircraft disturbance and polar bear attractants, we concluded that the
mitigation measures outlined in the BLM's Request (BLM 2025) and
incorporated into this authorization will minimize impacts from the
specified oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail,
pad, and airstrip construction, and summer cleanup activities to the
extent practicable.
Several mitigation measures were considered but determined to be
not practicable. These measures are listed below:
Grounding all flights if they must fly below 457 m (1,500
ft) Requiring all aircraft to maintain an altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft)
at all times is not practicable as some operations may require flying
below 457 m (1,500 ft) to perform necessary inspections or maintain
safety of flight crew. Aircraft are required to fly above 457 m (1,500
ft) at all times within 805 m (0.5 mi) of an observed polar bear unless
there is an emergency;
One-mile buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat--One-mile (1.6-km) buffer around all known polar bear denning
habitat is not practicable as much of the BLM's proposed project area
occurs within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat; thus, to exclude all
areas within 1.6 km (1 mi) of denning habitat would preclude the
planned activities from occurring;
Prohibition of driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings--While general avoidance of
denning habitat, such as high relief areas, embankments, and streams or
riverbanks must be considered during tundra travel, complete
prohibition is not practicable. High relief areas, embankments,
streams, and rivers occur throughout the project area. To completely
avoid these types of areas would likely cause personnel to drive
further away from established operational areas and unnecessarily
create additional safety concerns. Furthermore, other mitigation
measures to minimize impact to denning habitats are included and will
minimize the risk imposed by driving over high relief areas,
embankments, or stream and river crossings;
Use of a broader definition of ``denning habitat'' for
operational offsets--There is no available data to support broadening
the defining features of denning habitat beyond that established by the
USGS.
Establishment of corridors for sow and cub transit to the
sea ice--As there is no data to support the existence of natural
transit corridors to the sea ice, establishment of corridors in the IHA
area would be highly speculative. Therefore, there would be no
mitigative benefit realized by their establishment;
Require all activities to cease if a polar bear is injured
or killed until an investigation is completed--The FWS has incorporated
reporting requirements into this proposed authorization for all polar
bear interactions. While it may aid in any subsequent investigation,
ceasing
[[Page 6883]]
all activities may not be practicable or safe and, thus, will not be
mandated;
Require use of den detection dogs--It is not practicable
or safe to require scent-trained dogs to detect dens due to the large
spatial extent that would need to be surveyed within activity areas;
Require the use of handheld or vehicle-mounted Forward
Looking Infrared (FLIR)--AIR has been found to be four times more
effective at detecting dens versus ground-based FLIR (handheld or
vehicle-mounted FLIR) due to impacts of blowing snow on detection. The
BLM has incorporated into their mitigation measures the use of handheld
or vehicle-mounted FLIR when transiting rivers occurring in suitable
denning habitat, but it is not practicable to use the equipment during
all transit;
Construct safety gates, fences, and enclosures to prevent
polar bears from accessing facilities--This project will require no
permanent facility/structures and encompasses a large area.
Construction and deconstruction of barriers for a moving camp would
increase potential human-polar bear interactions and impacts to polar
bear habitat;
Employ protected species observers (PSOs) for monitoring,
recording, reporting, and implementing mitigation measures--All
personnel will be trained in wildlife observation. Monitoring,
recording, reporting measures are described in the IHA application. If
personnel cannot be observant and detect bears, dedicated bear guards
would be used (Refer to the IHA application). A 360-degree visual
survey of the access routes and any locations within sight of the coast
will be completed during aviation and if any marine mammals are
observed within 0.8 km (0.5 mi), the fixed wing aircraft or helicopter
would not land or continue inspections and would leave the area.;
Avoid areas of high-density polar bear use (e.g., barrier
islands and coastline) including for the establishment of camps and
pads--This measure is not practicable because the legacy wells that
this project is focused on are all located along the coastline, and
snow trail must also cross through these areas to reach the well sites;
Avoid predominantly coastal routes for flight pathways--
This measure is not practicable because the remediation sites are
located along the coast, and aviation access routes to project sites
must occur over the coast; and
Restrict activity and travel over polar bear denning
habitat to eliminate or lessen risk of den collapse--This project has
activities that will travel over potential polar bear denning habitat.
The BLM has committed to multiple effective mitigation measures to
minimize their potential impacts to polar bear denning habitat and
reduce to chance of den collapse. Therefore, we believe that the
probability of this project's activities causing a den collapse is near
zero and additional mitigation measures would not further reduce the
probability.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance
with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily concluded
that authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of 10
SBS polar bears by Level B harassment during the proposed harassment
authorization period would not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment and, thus, preparation of an environmental impact
statement for this incidental harassment authorization is not required
by section 102(2) of NEPA or its implementing regulations. We are
accepting comments on the draft environmental assessment as specified
above in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all
Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Prior to issuance of a final IHA, the FWS will
complete intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA on our
proposed issuance of an IHA. These evaluations and findings will be
made available on the FWS's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/biological-opinion.
Government-to-Government Consultation
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their
full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing
conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain
sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available
to Alaska Tribal organizations and communities. Our efforts are guided
by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the FWS (January 20, 2016);
(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form;
see 87 FR 66255, November 3, 2022);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 3342 (October
21, 2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as well as Director's Order 227
(September 8, 2022);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental
memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed IHA on federally
recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act) Corporations. The FWS has determined that authorizing
the Level B harassment of up to 10 polar bears from the BLM's specified
activities would not have any Tribal implications or ANCSA Corporation
implications and, therefore, Government-to-Government consultation or
Government-to-ANCSA Corporation consultation is not necessary. However,
we invite continued discussion, either about the project and its
impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout
the IHA/POC public comment process.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed IHA does not contain any new collection of
information that requires approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements associated with IHAs and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-
0194 (expires 08/31/2026). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Proposed Authorization
We propose to authorize, for 1 year from date of issuance, the
nonlethal, incidental take by Level B harassment of up to 10 polar
bears from the SBS stock of polar bears for activities associated with
the BLM's oil well plugging and reclamation, soil sampling, snow trail,
pad, and airstrip construction, and
[[Page 6884]]
summer cleanup activities in the North Slope Borough of Alaska between
Wainwright and Oliktok. Authorized take will be limited to Level B
harassment only, i.e., disruption of behavioral patterns, and is not
anticipated to incur any significant impacts to either individual- or
population-level fitness. We do not anticipate or authorize any take by
Level A harassment, lethal take, or any other injury.
A. General Conditions for the IHA for the BLM
1. Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the
revised Request dated August 2025 (received August 18, 2025) for an IHA
and in accordance with all applicable conditions and mitigation
measures. The taking of polar bears whenever the required conditions,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully
implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to follow the
measures specified both in the revised Request and within this proposed
authorization may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation
of the IHA.
2. If project activities cause unauthorized take (i.e., take of
more than 10 polar bears from the SBS stock by Level B harassment or a
form of take other than Level B harassment, or take of 1 or more polar
bears through methods not described in the IHA), then BLM must take the
following actions:
i. Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the
minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
ii. Report the details of the incident to the FWS within 48 hours;
and
iii. Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the
circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are
necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
3. All operations managers, aircraft pilots, and vehicle operators
must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference
at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be
fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the
IHA at all times during project work.
4. This IHA will apply to activities associated with the proposed
project as described in this document and in the BLM's revised Request.
Changes to the proposed project without prior authorization may
invalidate the IHA.
5. The BLM's revised Request is approved and fully incorporated
into this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The
revised Request includes:
i. The BLM's original Request for an IHA, dated July 2025 (received
by the FWS July 10, 2025), which includes the BLM's Polar Bear Safety,
Awareness, and Interaction Plan and geospatial files; and
ii. The BLM's revised Request for an IHA, dated August 2025
(received by the FWS August 18, 2025).
6. Operators will allow the FWS personnel or the FWS's designated
representative to visit project work sites to monitor for impacts to
polar bears and subsistence uses of polar bears at any time throughout
project activities so long as it is safe to do so. ``Operators'' are
all personnel operating under the BLM's authority, including all
contractors and subcontractors.
The BLM must implement the following policies and procedures to
avoid interactions and minimize to the greatest extent practicable any
adverse impacts on polar bears, their habitat, and the availability of
these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
B. General Avoidance Measures
7. The BLM must cooperate with the FWS and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts
of activities on polar bears.
8. Trained and qualified personnel must be designated to monitor
for the presence of polar bears, initiate mitigation measures, and
monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on polar
bears. The BLM must provide all operators with polar bear awareness
training prior to their participation in project activities.
9. A FWS-approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction
plan must be on file with the FWS Marine Mammal Management office and
available onsite. The interaction plan must include:
i. A description of the proposed activity (i.e., a summary of the
plan of operations during the proposed activity);
ii. A food, waste, and other attractants management plan;
iii. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
iv. Site-specific polar bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
v. Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
vi. Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
10. The BLM must contact potentially affected subsistence
communities and hunter organizations to discuss potential conflicts
caused by the activities and provide the FWS documentation of
communications as described in D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to
Subsistence Users.
11. Mitigation measures for aircraft. The BLM must undertake the
following activities to limit disturbance from aircraft activities:
i. Operators of support aircraft shall, at all times, conduct their
activities at the maximum distance practicable from concentrations of
polar bears.
ii. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter operations within the IHA
area must maintain a minimum altitude of 457 m (1,500 ft) above ground
level when safe and operationally possible.
iii. Under no circumstances, other than an emergency, will aircraft
operate at an altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) within 805 m (0.5
mi) of a polar bear observed on ice or land measured in a straight line
between the polar bear and the ground directly underneath the aircraft.
Helicopters may not hover or circle above such areas or within 805 m
(0.5 mi) of such areas. If weather conditions or operational
constraints necessitate operation of aircraft at altitudes below 457 m
(1,500 ft), the operator must avoid areas of known polar bear
concentrations and should take precautions to avoid flying directly
over or within 805 m (0.5 mi) of these areas.
iv. Aircraft may not be operated in such a way as to separate
individual polar bears from a group (i.e., two or more polar bears).
12. Mitigation measures for winter activities. The BLM must
undertake the following activities to limit disturbance around known
polar bear dens:
i. The BLM must conduct or otherwise obtain the results of two
aerial infrared (AIR) surveys of all denning habitat located within 1.6
km (1 mi) of specified activities in an attempt to identify maternal
polar bear dens. The first survey must occur between December 1 and
December 25, 2025, and the second survey must occur between December
15, 2025, and January 10, 2026, with at least 24 hours occurring
between the completion of the first survey and the beginning of the
second survey. Surveys must not be conducted during daytime or times
when weather conditions significantly hinder visibility (e.g., blowing
snow, precipitation, or airborne moisture). A scientist with experience
in real-time aerial infrared interpretation must be onboard during all
flights. All AIR survey videos must be made available to FWS within 48
hours of survey completion.
ii. All observed or suspected polar bear dens must be reported to
the FWS prior to the initiation of activities.
iii. If a suspected den site is located, the BLM will immediately
consult with the FWS to analyze the data and
[[Page 6885]]
determine if additional surveys or mitigation measures are required.
The FWS will determine whether the suspected den is to be treated as a
putative den for the purposes of this IHA.
iv. Operators must observe a 1.6-km (1-mi) operational exclusion
zone around all putative polar bear dens during the denning season
(November-April, or until the female and cubs leave the areas). Should
a suspected den be discovered within 1.6 km (1 mi) of activities, work
must cease, and the FWS contacted for guidance. The FWS 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 BLM must comply with
any additional measures specified.
v. In determining the denning habitat that requires surveys, use
the den habitat map developed by the USGS. A map of potential coastal
polar bear denning habitat can be found at: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/asc/science/polar-bear-maternal-denning?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects.
C. Monitoring
13. Operators must provide onsite observers and implement the FWS -
approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan to apply
mitigation measures, monitor the project's effects on polar bears and
subsistence uses, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
14. Onsite observers must be present during all operations and must
record all polar bear observations, identify and document potential
harassment, and work with personnel to implement appropriate mitigation
measures.
15. Operators shall cooperate with the FWS and other designated
Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor the impacts of project
activities on polar bears. Where information is insufficient to
evaluate the potential effects of activities on polar bears and the
subsistence use of this species, the BLM may be required to participate
in joint monitoring efforts to address these information needs and
ensure the least practicable impact to this resource.
D. Measures To Reduce Impacts to Subsistence Users
The BLM must conduct its activities in a manner that, to the
greatest extent practicable, minimizes adverse impacts on the
availability of polar bears for subsistence uses.
16. The BLM will be required to develop a FWS-approved POC if,
through community consultation, concerns are raised regarding impacts
to subsistence harvest or Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
17. If a FWS-approved POC is required, the BLM will implement that
POC.
18. Prior to conducting the work, the BLM will take the following
steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of polar
bears:
i. Avoid work in areas of known polar bear subsistence harvest;
ii. Notify the cities Wainwright and Utqiagvik and the Native
Villages of Atqasuk and Nuiqsit of the proposed project activities;
iii. Work to resolve any concerns of potentially affected Alaska
Native Tribal organizations and corporations regarding the project's
effects on subsistence hunting of polar bears;
iv. If any unresolved or ongoing concerns of potentially affected
Alaska Native Tribal organizations and corporations remain, modify the
POC in consultation with the FWS and subsistence stakeholders to
address these concerns; and
v. Implement FWS-required mitigation measures that will reduce
impacts to subsistence users and their resources.
E. Reporting Requirements
The BLM must report the results of monitoring to the FWS Marine
Mammals Management office via email at: [email protected].
19. In-season monitoring reports.
20. Activity progress reports. The BLM must:
(i) Notify the FWS at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
(ii) Provide the FWS weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
(iii) Notify the FWS within 48 hours after ending of activities.
21. Polar bear observation reports. The BLM must report, within 48
hours, all observations of polar bears and potential polar bear dens
during any project activities. Upon request, monitoring report data
must be provided in a common electronic format (to be specified by the
FWS). Information in the observation report must include, but need not
be limited to:
i. Date and time of each observation;
ii. Locations of the observer and polar bears (GPS coordinates if
possible);
iii. Number of polar bears;
iv. Sex and age class--adult, subadult, cub (if known);
v. Observer name and contact information;
vi. Weather, visibility, and if at sea, sea state, and sea-ice
conditions at the time of observation;
vii. Estimated closest distance of polar bears from personnel and
facilities;
viii. Type of work being conducted at time of sighting;
ix. Possible attractants present;
x. Polar bear behavior--initial behavior when first observed (e.g.,
walking, swimming, resting, etc.);
xi. Potential reaction--behavior of polar bear potentially in
response to presence or activity of personnel and equipment;
xii. Description of the encounter;
xiii. Duration of the encounter; and
xiv. Mitigation actions taken.
22. Human-polar bear interaction reports. The BLM must report all
human-polar bear interaction incidents immediately, and not later than
48 hours after the incident. Human-polar bear interactions include:
i. Any situation in which there is a possibility for unauthorized
take. For instance, when project activities exceed those included in an
IHA, when a mitigation measure was required but not enacted, or when
the injury or death of a polar bear occurs. Reports must include all
information specified for an observation report in paragraphs (3)(i)-
(xiv) of this section E, a complete detailed description of the
incident, and any other actions taken.
ii. Injured, dead, or distressed polar bears that are clearly not
associated with project activities (e.g., animals found outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must also be reported to
the FWS immediately, and not later than 48 hours after discovery.
Photographs, video, location information, or any other available
documentation must be included.
23. Final report. The results of monitoring and mitigation efforts
identified in the marine mammal avoidance and interaction plan must be
submitted to the FWS for review within 90 days of the expiration of
this IHA. Upon request, final report data must be provided in a common
electronic format (to be specified by the FWS). Information in the
final report must include, but need not be limited to:
i. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the IHA;
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 polar bears during monitoring;
[[Page 6886]]
v. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
vi. A summary and analysis of the distribution, abundance, and
behavior of all polar bears observed; and
vii. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the
associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may
submit your comments by either of the methods described in ADDRESSES.
Please identify whether you are commenting on the proposed
authorization, draft environmental assessment, or both, make your
comments as specific as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to
the proposed authorization, and explain the reason for any changes you
recommend. Where possible, your comments should reference the specific
section or paragraph that you are addressing. The FWS will consider all
comments that are received before the close of the comment period (see
DATES). The FWS does not anticipate extending the public comment period
beyond the 30 days required under section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the
MMPA.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record for this proposal. Before
including your address, telephone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comments to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director--Fisheries and Ecological Services, Alaska
Region.
[FR Doc. 2026-02960 Filed 2-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P