13454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 18 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098; 

71490–1351–0000–L5–FY11] 

RIN 1018–AX32 

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take 

During Specified Activities 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) proposes regulations that 

would authorize the nonlethal, 

incidental, unintentional take of small 

numbers of polar bears and Pacific 

walruses during year-round oil and gas 

industry (Industry) exploration, 

development, and production 

operations in the Beaufort Sea and 

adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 

Industry operations for the covered 

period are similar to, and include all 

activities covered by the previous 5-year 

Beaufort Sea incidental take regulations 

that were effective from August 2, 2006, 

through August 2, 2011. We propose a 

finding that the total expected takings of 

polar bears and Pacific walruses during 

oil and gas industry exploration, 

development, and production activities 

will have a negligible impact on these 

species and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of these species for 

subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We 

base this finding on the results of 17 

years of data on the encounters and 

interactions between polar bears, Pacific 

walruses, and Industry; recent studies of 

potential effects of Industry on these 

species; oil spill risk assessments; 

potential and documented Industry 

impacts on these species; and current 

information regarding the natural 

history and status of polar bears and 

Pacific walruses. We are proposing that 

this rule be effective for 5 years from 

date of issuance. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by April 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203; Attention: Beaufort Sea 

Incidental Take Regulations; or 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Perham, Office of Marine 

Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907– 

786–3810 or 1–800–362–5148, or 

Internet: craig_perham@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) gives the Secretary 

of the Interior (Secretary) through the 

Director of the Service (we) the 

authority to allow the incidental, but 

not intentional, taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals, in response to 

requests by U.S. citizens [as defined in 

50 CFR 18.27(c)] engaged in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

in a specified geographic region. 

According to the MMPA, we shall allow 

this incidental taking if (1) we make a 

finding that the total of such taking for 

the 5-year regulatory period will have 

no more than a negligible impact on 

these species and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of these species for taking 

for subsistence use by Alaska Natives, 

and (2) we issue regulations that set 

forth (a) permissible methods of taking, 

(b) means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species and their habitat and on the 

availability of the species for 

subsistence uses, and (c) requirements 

for monitoring and reporting. If 

regulations allowing such incidental 

taking are issued, we issue Letters of 

Authorization (LOA) to conduct 

activities under the provisions of these 

regulations when requested by citizens 

of the United States. 

The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the 

MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill any marine mammal. 

Harassment, as defined by the MMPA, 

means ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which (i) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild’’ (the MMPA 

calls this Level A harassment); ‘‘or (ii) 

has the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering’’ (the MMPA calls 

this Level B harassment). 

The terms ‘‘small numbers,’’ 

‘‘negligible impact,’’ and ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ are defined in 50 CFR 

18.27 (i.e., regulations governing small 

takes of marine mammals incidental to 

specified activities) as follows. ‘‘Small 

numbers’’ is defined as ‘‘a portion of a 

marine mammal species or stock whose 

taking would have a negligible impact 

on that species or stock.’’ It is necessary 

to note that the Service’s analysis of 

‘‘small numbers’’ complies with the 

agency’s regulatory definition and is an 

appropriate reflection of Congress’ 

intent. As was noted during the 

development of this definition (48 FR 

31220; July 7, 1983), Congress itself 

recognized the ‘‘imprecision of the term 

small numbers,’’ but was unable to offer 

a more precise formulation because the 

concept is not capable of being 

expressed in absolute numerical limits.’’ 

See H.R. Report No. 97–228 at 19. Thus, 

Congress itself focused on the 

anticipated effects of the activity on the 

species and stated that authorization 

should be available to persons ‘‘whose 

taking of marine mammals is infrequent, 

unavoidable, or accidental.’’ 

‘‘Negligible impact’’ is ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

‘‘Unmitigable adverse impact’’ means 

‘‘an impact resulting from the specified 

activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by (i) causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users, or (iii) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) that cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met.’’ 

Industry conducts activities such as 

oil and gas exploration, development, 

and production in marine mammal 

habitat that may result in the taking of 

marine mammals. Although Industry is 

under no legal requirement to obtain 

incidental take authorization, since 

1993, Industry has requested, and we 

have issued, a series of regulations for 

incidental take authorization for 

conducting activities in areas of polar 

bear and walrus habitat. Since the 

inception of these incidental take 

regulations (ITRs), polar bear/walrus 

monitoring observations associated with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13455 

the regulations have recorded over 2,000 

polar bear observations associated with 

Industry activities. The large majority of 

reported encounters have been passive 

observations of bears moving through 

the oil fields. Monitoring of Industry 

activities indicates that encounters with 

walruses are insignificant with only 18 

walruses recorded during the same 

period. 

A detailed history of our past 

regulations can be found in our most 

recent regulation, published on August 

2, 2006 (71 FR 43926). In summary, 

these past regulations were published 

on: November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60402); 

August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42805); January 

28, 1999 (64 FR 4328); February 3, 2000 

(65 FR 5275); March 30, 2000 (65 FR 

16828); November 28, 2003 (68 FR 

66744); and August 2, 2006 (71 FR 

43926). 

Summary of Current Request 

In 2009, the Service received a 

petition to promulgate a renewal of 

regulations for nonlethal incidental take 

of small numbers of walruses and polar 

bears in the Beaufort Sea for a period of 

5 years (2011–2016). The request was 

submitted on April 22, 2009, by the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) 

on behalf of its members and other 

participating parties. The petition is 

available at: (http://alaska.fws.gov/ 

fisheries/mmm/itr.htm). 

AOGA’s application indicates that 

they request regulations that will be 

applicable to any company conducting 

oil and gas exploration, development, 

and production activities as described 

within the request. This includes 

members of AOGA and other parties 

planning to conduct oil and gas 

operations in the geographic region. 

Members of AOGA represented in the 

petition include: 

• Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; 

• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; 

• BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; 

• Chevron USA, Inc.; 

• Eni Petroleum; 

• ExxonMobil Production Company; 

• Flint Hills Resources, Inc.; 

• Marathon Oil Company; 

• Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.; 

• Petro-Canada (Alaska) Inc.; 

• Petro Star Inc.; 

• Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska, 

Inc.; 

• Shell Exploration & Production 

Company; 

• Statoil Hydro; 

• Tesoro Alaska Company; and 

• XTO Energy, Inc. 

Other participating parties include 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI), 

CGG Veritas, Brooks Range Petroleum 

Corporation (BRPC), and Arctic Slope 

Regional Corporation (ASRC) Energy 

Services. The activities and geographic 

region specified in AOGA’s request, and 

considered in these regulations, are 

described in the ensuing sections titled 

‘‘Description of Geographic Region’’ and 

‘‘Description of Activities.’’ 

Prior to issuing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 18, subpart J in response to this 

request, we must evaluate the level of 

industrial activities, their associated 

potential impacts to polar bears and 

Pacific walruses, and their effects on the 

availability of these species for 

subsistence use. The information 

provided by the petitioners indicates 

that projected oil and gas activities over 

this time frame will encompass onshore 

and offshore exploration, development, 

and production activities. The 

petitioners have also specifically 

requested that these regulations be 

issued for nonlethal take. Industry has 

indicated that, through implementation 

of the mitigation measures, it is 

confident a lethal take will not occur. 

The Service is tasked with analyzing the 

impact that lawful oil and gas industry 

activities will have on polar bears and 

walruses during normal operating 

procedures. In addition, the potential 

for impact by the oil and gas industry 

outside normal operating conditions 

warrant an analysis of the risk of an oil 

spill and its potential impact on polar 

bears and walruses. 

Description of Proposed Regulations 

The regulations that we propose to 

issue include: Permissible methods of 

nonlethal taking; measures to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

species and the availability of these 

species for subsistence uses; and 

requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. If promulgated, these 

regulations will not authorize, or 

‘‘permit,’’ the actual activities associated 

with oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production. Rather, 

they will authorize the nonlethal 

incidental, unintentional take of small 

numbers of polar bears and Pacific 

walruses associated with those activities 

based on standards set forth in the 

MMPA. The Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) are 

responsible for permitting activities 

associated with oil and gas activities in 

Federal waters and on Federal lands. 

The State of Alaska is responsible for 

permitting activities on State lands and 

in State waters. 

If we finalize these nonlethal 

incidental take regulations, persons 

seeking taking authorization for 

particular projects will apply for an 

LOA to cover nonlethal take associated 

with exploration, development, or 

production activities pursuant to the 

regulations. Each group or individual 

conducting an oil and gas industryrelated activity within the area covered 

by these regulations may request an 

LOA. A separate LOA is mandatory for 

each activity. We must receive 

applications for LOAs at least 90 days 

before the activity is to begin. 

Applicants must submit a plan to 

monitor the effects of authorized 

activities on polar bears and walruses. 

Applicants must include in their LOA 

request the time frame of proposed 

activities, the operating terms and 

conditions, a polar bear encounter and 

interaction plan, and a marine mammal 

monitoring plan. 

Applicants must also include a Plan 

of Cooperation (POC) describing the 

availability of these species for 

subsistence use by Alaska Native 

communities and how they may be 

affected by Industry operations. The 

purpose of the POC is to ensure that oil 

and gas activities will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or the stock 

for subsistence uses. The POC must 

provide the procedures on how Industry 

will work with the affected Native 

communities, including a description of 

the necessary actions that will be taken 

to: (1) Avoid or minimize interference 

with subsistence hunting of polar bears 

and Pacific walruses; and (2) ensure 

continued availability of the species for 

subsistence use. The POC is further 

described in ‘‘Effects of Oil and Gas 

Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals.’’ 

If regulations are implemented, we 

will evaluate each request for an LOA 

based on the specific activity and 

specific location, and may condition the 

LOA depending on specific 

circumstances for that activity and 

location. For example, an LOA issued in 

response to a request to conduct 

activities in areas with known, active 

bear dens or a history of polar bear 

denning, may be conditioned to require 

one or more of the following: Forward 

Looking Infrared (FLIR) imagery flights 

to determine the location of active polar 

bear dens; avoiding all denning activity 

by 1 mile; intensified monitoring in a 1- 

mile buffer around the den; or avoiding 

the area during the denning period. 

More information on applying for and 

receiving an LOA can be found at 50 

CFR 18.27(f). 

Description of Geographic Region 

The geographic area covered by the 

requested incidental take regulations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(hereafter referred to as the Beaufort Sea 

Region) encompasses all Beaufort Sea 

waters east of a north-south line through 

Point Barrow (71°23′29′′ N, ¥156 

°28′30′′ W, BGN 1944), and up to 200 

miles north of Point Barrow, including 

all Alaska State waters and Outer 

Continental Shelf waters, and east of 

that line to the Canadian border. The 

onshore region is the same north/south 

line at Barrow, 25 miles inland and east 

to the Canning River. The Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge is not included 

in these regulations. The geographical 

extent of these regulations is similar as 

in previous regulations (71 FR 43926), 

where the offshore boundary is the 

Beaufort Sea Planning area, 

approximately 200 miles offshore. 

Description of Activities 

Activities covered in these regulations 

include Industry exploration, 

development, and production 

operations of oil and gas reserves, as 

well as environmental monitoring 

associated with these activities, on the 

northern coast of Alaska. Throughout 

the five years that the future regulations 

will be in place, the petitioners expect 

similar types of oil and gas activities 

will occur at similar times of the year as 

under the prior regulations. Examples of 

future Industry activities include the 

completion of the Alpine Satellite 

Development, development of Point 

Thomson, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, and 

areas in the National Petroleum 

Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A). According to 

the petitioners, the locations of these 

operations are anticipated to be 

approximately equally divided among 

the onshore and offshore tracts 

presently under lease and to be leased 

during the period under consideration. 

Additionally, for the purpose of 

assessing possible impacts we 

anticipate, based on information 

provided by the petitioners, that these 

activities will occur equally spaced over 

time and area for the upcoming icecovered and open-water seasons. Due to 

the large number of variables affecting 

Industry activities, prediction of exact 

dates and locations of operation for the 

open-water and ice-covered seasons is 

not possible at this time. However, 

operators must provide specific dates 

and locations of proposed activities 

prior to receiving an LOA. 

Industry-Proposed Activities 

Considered Under Incidental Take 

Regulations 

Alaska’s North Slope encompasses an 

area of 88,280 square miles and 

currently contains 11 oil and gas field 

units associated with Industry. These 

include the Greater Prudhoe Bay, Duck 

Island, Badami, Northstar, Kuparuk 

River, Colville River, Oooguruk, Tuvaq, 

Nikaitchuq, Milne Point, and Point 

Thomson. These units encompass 

exploration, development, and 

production activities. In addition, some 

of these fields include associated 

satellite oilfields: Sag Delta North, 

Eider, North Prudhoe Bay, Lisburne, 

Niakuk, Niakuk-Ivashak, Aurora, 

Midnight Sun, Borealis, West Beach, 

Polaris, Orion, Tarn, Tabasco, Palm, 

West Sak, Meltwater, Cascade, Schrader 

Bluff, Sag River, and Alpine. 

Exploration Activities 

As with previous regulations, 

exploration activities may occur 

onshore or offshore and include: 

Geological surveys; geotechnical site 

investigations; reflective seismic 

exploration; vibrator seismic data 

collection; airgun and water gun seismic 

data collection; explosive seismic data 

collection; vertical seismic profiles; subsea sediment sampling; construction 

and use of drilling structures such as 

caisson-retained islands, ice islands, 

bottom-founded structures [steel drilling 

caisson (SDC)], ice pads and ice roads; 

oil spill prevention, response, and 

cleanup; and site restoration and 

remediation. Exploration activities 

could also include the development of 

staging facilities. The level of 

exploration activities is expected to be 

similar to the level during the past 

regulatory periods, although exploration 

projects may shift to different locations, 

particularly the NPR–A. 

The location of new exploration 

activities within the geographic region 

of the rule will, in part, be determined 

by the following State and Federal oil 

and gas lease sales: 

State of Alaska Lease Sales 

In 1996, the State of Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources 

(ADNR), Oil and Gas Division, adopted 

an ‘‘area wide’’ approach to leasing. 

Under area-wide leasing, the State offers 

all available state acreage not currently 

under lease within each area annually. 

The area of activity in this Petition 

includes the North Slope and Beaufort 

Sea planning areas. Lease sale data are 

available on the ADNR Web site at: 

http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/ 

index.htm. Industry activities may occur 

on state lease sales during the time 

period of the requested action. North 

Slope Area-wide lease sales are held 

annually in October. As of August 2008, 

there are 774 active leases on the North 

Slope, encompassing 971,245 hectares 

(2.4 million acres), and 224 active leases 

in the state waters of the Beaufort Sea, 

encompassing 249,000 hectares (615,296 

acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 

resulted in the sale of 60 tracts for a 

total of 86,765 hectares (214,400 acres). 

Eight lease sales have been held to date. 

As of July 2008, there are 38 active 

leases in the Beaufort Sea area, 

encompassing 38,333 hectares (94,724 

acres). The sale on October 22, 2008 

resulted in the sale of 32 tracts for a 

total of 40,145 hectares (99,200 acres). 

Northwest and Northeast Planning 

Areas of NPR–A 

The BLM manages over 9 million 

hectares (23 million acres) in the NPR– 

A, including the Northwest (3.5 million 

hectares, 8.8 million acres), Northeast 

(1.8 hectares, 4.6 million acres), and 

South (3.6 million hectares, 9 million 

acres) Planning Areas. The area of 

activity in this Petition includes the 

Northwest and Northeast areas. 

Oil and gas lease sales were held in 

2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. The 2004 

lease sale sold 123 tracts totaling 

566,560 hectares (1.4 million acres); the 

2006 sale sold 81 tracts covering 

380,350 hectares (939,867 acres); the 

2008 sale sold 23 tracts covering 

106,013 hectares (261,964 acres). From 

2000 to 2008, 25 exploratory wells were 

drilled in the Northeast and Northwest 

planning areas of the NPR–A. Current 

operator/ownership information is 

available on the BLM NPR–A Web site 

at http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/ 

energy/oil_gas/npra.html. Exploration 

activities were conducted on the FEX LP 

company leases in the Northwest 

Planning Area between 2006–2008. 

Exploration may continue where new 

areas have been selected. New project 

elements included exploration drilling 

at nine new ice drill pad locations (in 

the Uugaq, Aklaq, Aklaqyaaq, and 

Amaguq prospects), 99 km (62 mi) of 

new access corridor, and 34 new water 

sources. 

In the Northeast Planning Area, CPAI 

applied for permits to begin a five-year 

(2006–2011) winter drilling program at 

11 sites (Noatak, Nugget, Cassin and 

Spark DD prospects), including 177 km 

(110 mi) of new right-of-way corridors 

and 10 new water supply lakes. CPAI is 

planning to continue developing its 

program in the Northeast Planning Area 

throughout the duration of the requested 

regulations. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales 

The BOEMRE manages the Alaska 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) region 

encompassing 242 million hectares (600 

million acres). In February, 2003, 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

(now known as the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement or BOEMRE) issued the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13457 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for three lease sales planned for 

the Beaufort Sea Planning Area: Sale 

186, 195, and 202. Sale 186 was held in 

2003, resulting in the leasing of 34 tracts 

encompassing 73,576 hectares (181,810 

acres). Sale 195 was held in 2005, 

resulting in the leasing of 117 tracts 

encompassing 245,760 hectares (607,285 

acres). Sale 202 was held in 2007, 

resulting in the leasing of 90 tracts 

covering 198,580 hectares (490,700 

acres). Leasing information from 

BOEMRE is located at http:// 

www.boemre.gov/alaska/lease/ 

lease.htm. The next lease sale, Lease 

Sale 217, is planned for 2011. BOEMRE 

has begun preparing the multiple-sale 

EIS for these areas. The Draft EIS was 

released in November 2008 and is 

located at http://www.BOEMRE.gov/ 

alaska/ref/EIS%20EA/ 

ArcticMultiSale_209/_DEIS.htm. While 

the disposition of the leases is highly 

speculative at this time, it is probable 

that at least some seismic exploration 

and possibly some exploratory drilling 

will take place during the 5-year period 

of the regulations. 

Exploratory drilling for oil occurs 

onshore, in inland areas, or in the 

offshore environment. Exploratory 

drilling and associated support 

activities and features may include: 

Transportation to site; setup and 

relocation of up to 100-person camps 

and support camps (lights, generators, 

snow removal, water plants, wastewater 

plants, dining halls, sleeping quarters, 

mechanical shops, fuel storage, landing 

strips, aircraft support, health and safety 

facilities, data recording facilities and 

communication equipment); building 

gravel pads; building gravel islands with 

sandbag and concrete block protection; 

ice islands; ice roads; gravel hauling; 

gravel mine sites; road building; 

pipelines; electrical lines; water lines; 

road maintenance; buildings and 

facilities; operating heavy equipment; 

digging trenches; burying and covering 

pipelines; sea lift; water flood; security 

operations; dredging; moving floating 

drill units; helicopter support; and drill 

ships such as the Steel Drilling Caisson 

(SDC), CANMAR Explorer III, and the 

Kulluk. 

During the regulatory period, 

exploration activities are anticipated to 

occur in the offshore environment and 

continue in the current oil field units, 

including those projects identified by 

Industry below. 

Point Thomson 

The Point Thomson reservoir is 

approximately 32 km (20 mi) east of the 

Badami field. In January 2009, ADNR 

issued a conditional interim decision 

that allows for the drilling of two wells 

by 2010 and commencing production by 

2014. Following startup of production 

from Point Thomson in 2014, field 

development is expected to include 

additional liquids production and sale 

of gas. Field development will require 

additional wells, field facilities, and 

pipelines. The timing and nature of 

additional facilities and expansions will 

depend upon initial field performance 

and timing of an Alaska gas pipeline to 

export gas off the North Slope. 

Ataruq (Two Bits) 

The Ataruq project is permitted for 

construction but, not completely 

permitted for operation. This KerrMcGee Oil and Gas Corporation project 

is located about 7.2 km (4.5 mi) 

northwest of the Kuparuk River Unit 

(KRU) Drill Site 2M. The area consists 

of two onshore prospects and covers 

about 2,071 hectares (5,120 acres). It 

includes a 6.4-km (4-mi) gravel road and 

a single gravel pad with production 

facilities and up to 20 wells in 

secondary containment modules. The 

processed fluids will be transported to 

DS 2M via a pipe-in-a-pipe buried line 

within the access road. After drilling, 

the facility will be normally unmanned. 

Shell Offshore Exploration Activities 

Shell anticipates conducting an 

exploration drilling program, called the 

Suvulliq Project, on BOEMRE Alaska 

OCS leases located in the Beaufort Sea 

during the arctic drilling seasons of 

2011–2016. Presently, the arctic drilling 

seasons are generally considered to be 

from July through October in the 

Beaufort Sea. Shell will use a floating 

drilling vessel complimented by ice 

management and oil spill response 

(OSR) barges and/or vessels to 

accomplish exploration and/or 

delineation drilling during each arctic 

drilling season. An open water program 

in support of the development of Shell’s 

Beaufort Sea leases will involve a site 

clearance and shallow hazards study as 

well. A detailed description of an 

offshore drilling activity of this nature 

can be found at: http://alaska.fws.gov/ 

fisheries/mmm/itr.htm, under ‘‘LOA 

Applications for Public Viewing.’’ 

ION Seismic Activity 

ION is planning an open water 

seismic program in the late open-water 

and into the ice-covered season, which 

will consist of an estimated 3,000 miles 

of 2D seismic line acquisition and site 

clearance surveys in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea. The open water seismic 

program will consist of two vessels, one 

active in seismic acquisition and the 

second providing logistical support and 

ice breaking capabilities. An offshore 

open water seismic program is proposed 

to occur between September through 

October 2011. 

Development Activities 

Development activities associated 

with oil and gas Industry operations 

include: Road construction; pipeline 

construction; waterline construction; 

gravel pad construction; camp 

construction (personnel, dining, 

lodging, maintenance, water production, 

wastewater treatment); transportation 

(automobile, airplane, and helicopter); 

runway construction; installation of 

electronic equipment; well drilling; drill 

rig transport; personnel support; and 

demobilization, restoration, and 

remediation. 

Alpine Satellites Development 

CPAI has proposed to develop oil and 

gas from five satellites. Two proposed 

satellites known as CD–3 (CD North 

during exploration) and CD–4 (CD 

South) are in the Colville Delta. The 

CD–3 drill site is located north of CD– 

1 (Alpine facility) and is a roadless 

development accessed by a gravel 

airstrip or ice road in winter. The CD– 

4 drill site is connected to the main 

production pad via a gravel road. 

Production start-up of CD–3 and CD–4 

drill sites occurred in late summer 2006. 

Three other proposed satellites known 

as CD–5, CD–6, and CD–7 (Alpine West, 

Lookout, and Spark, respectively, 

during exploration) are in the NPR–A. 

These remaining three drill sites are 

proposed to be connected to CD–2 via 

road and bridge over the Niglilq 

Channel from CD–5. The other two drill 

sites are planned to be connected to CD– 

5 via road; however, the permitting for 

these scenarios has not been completed. 

Development of five drill sites is 

planned by CPAI in the immediate 

future in the Alpine development area 

and could occur within the regulatory 

period. Production of CD–5, CD–6, and 

CD–7 could also occur during the 

regulatory period. 

Liberty 

BPXA is currently in the process of 

developing the Liberty field, where the 

use of ultra extended-reach drilling 

(uERD) technology will access an 

offshore reservoir from existing onshore 

facilities. The Liberty reservoir is 

located in federal waters in Foggy Island 

Bay about 13 km (8 mi) east of the 

Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI). 

Liberty prospect is located 

approximately 5.5 miles offshore in 20 

ft of water. The development of Liberty 

was first proposed in 1998 when BPXA 

submitted a plan to BOEMRE (then 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

MMS) for a production facility on an 

artificial island in Foggy Island Bay. In 

2002, BPXA put the project on hold to 

review project design and economics 

after the completion of BPXA’s 

Northstar project. In August 2005, BPXA 

moved the project onshore to take 

advantage of advances in extended 

reach drilling. Liberty wells will extend 

as much as 8 miles offshore. Drilling of 

the initial Liberty development well and 

first oil production is planned to occur 

during the 5-year period of the proposed 

action. 

North Shore Development 

Brooks Range Petroleum Company 

(BRPC) is proposing the North Shore 

Development Project to produce oil 

from several relatively small, isolated 

hydrocarbon accumulations on the 

North Slope. The fields are close to 

existing Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, 

where production will concentrate on 

the Ivishak and Sag River sands 

prospects. Horizontal drilling 

technology and long-reach wells will be 

used to maximize production while 

minimizing surface impacts. BRPC 

expects to recover between five and ten 

million barrels of oil, and future 

exploration success could increase the 

reserves. 

Potential Gas Pipeline 

Two companies are currently 

proposing to construct a natural gas 

pipeline that would transport natural 

gas from the North Slope to North 

American markets. The two proposed 

projects are discussed below, although it 

is expected that only one pipeline 

would be constructed. Only a small 

portion (40 km [25 mi] inland) of a 

pipeline would occur within the 

specified area of activity covered under 

this Petition. Initial stages of the gas 

pipeline development, such as 

environmental studies and route 

selection, could occur during the 5-year 

period of the requested action. 

One project is proposed by the Alaska 

Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali), a company 

jointly owned by BP Alaska Gas 

Pipelines LLC and the ConocoPhillips 

Denali Company. The Denali natural gas 

pipeline project is expected to include 

a gas treatment plant on the North Slope 

and approximately 3,220 km (2,000 mi) 

of large-diameter natural gas 

transmission pipeline beginning on the 

North Slope and terminating in the 

vicinity of the British Columbia-Alberta, 

Canada border. The Alaska portion of 

the project would generally follow the 

Dalton Highway south from the North 

Slope. 

The second project is proposed by the 

TransCanada Corporation. The Alaska 

Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) was 

passed into law by the State of Alaska 

in May 2007. TransCanada Corporation 

was selected by the State of Alaska in 

August 2008 as the exclusive recipient 

of the AGIA license. TransCanada 

Corporation is currently in the planning 

stages of developing the Alaska Pipeline 

Project, which will move natural gas 

from Alaska to North American markets. 

The project is planned to stretch 

approximately 2,760 km (1,715 mi) from 

Prudhoe Bay to the British Columbia/ 

Alberta border near Boundary Lake. 

Nikaitchuq Unit 

The Nikaitchuq Unit is located near 

Spy Island, north of Oliktok Point and 

the Kuparuk River Unit, and northwest 

of the Milne Point Unit. Former operator 

Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation 

drilled three exploratory wells on and 

immediately adjacent to Spy Island, 4 

miles north of Oliktok Point in the icecovered season of 2004–2005. The 

current operator, Eni, is moving to 

develop this site as a future production 

area. Future drilling will be from a small 

gravel island shoreward of the barrier 

islands. Additional operations will 

include approximately 13 miles of 

underground pipeline connecting the 

offshore sites to a mainland landfall and 

onshore facilities pad near Oliktok 

Point. 

Production Activities 

Existing North Slope production 

operations extend from the oilfield units 

of Alpine in the west to Point Thomson 

and Badami in the east. Badami and 

Alpine are developments without 

permanent access roads; access is 

available to these fields by airstrips, 

barges, and seasonal ice roads. Oil 

pipelines extend from these fields and 

connect to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

System (TAPS). North Slope oilfield 

developments include a series of major 

fields and their associated satellite 

fields. In some cases a new oilfield 

discovery has been developed 

completely using existing infrastructure. 

Thus, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield unit 

encompasses the Prudhoe Bay, 

Lisburne, Niakuk, West Beach, North 

Prudhoe Bay, Point McIntyre, Borealis, 

Midnight Sun, Polaris, Aurora, and 

Orion reservoirs, while the Kuparuk 

oilfield development incorporates the 

Kuparuk, West Sak, Tarn, Palm, 

Tabasco, and Meltwater oilfields. 

Production activities include: 

Personnel transportation (automobiles, 

airplanes, helicopters, boats, rolligons, 

cat trains, and snowmobiles); and unit 

operations (building operations, oil 

production, oil transport, restoration, 

remediation, and improvement of oil 

field operations). Production activities 

are permanent, year-round activities, 

whereas exploration and development 

activities are usually temporary and 

seasonal. 

Only production units and facilities 

operated by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. 

and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. have 

been covered under previous incidental 

take regulations (Greater Prudhoe Bay, 

Endicott, Milne Point, Badami, 

Northstar, Kuparuk River, and Alpine, 

respectively). Now the Oooguruk field, 

operated by Pioneer, is currently 

producing as well. 

Prudhoe Bay Unit 

The Prudhoe Bay oilfield is the largest 

oilfield by production in North America 

and ranks among the 20 largest oilfields 

ever discovered worldwide. Over 11 

billion barrels have been produced from 

a field originally estimated to have 25 

billion barrels of oil in place. The 

Prudhoe Bay field also contains an 

estimated 26 trillion cubic ft of 

recoverable natural gas. More than 1,100 

wells are currently in operation in the 

greater Prudhoe Bay oilfields, just over 

900 of which are producing oil (others 

are for gas or water injection). 

The total development area in the 

Prudhoe Bay Unit is approximately 

2,785 hectares (6,883 acres). The Base 

Operations Center on the western side 

of the Prudhoe Bay oilfield can 

accommodate 476 people, the nearby 

Main Construction Camp can 

accommodate up to 680 people, and the 

Prudhoe Bay Operations Center on the 

eastern side of the field houses up to 

488 people. Additional contract or 

construction personnel can be housed at 

facilities in nearby Deadhorse or in 

temporary camps placed on existing 

gravel pads. 

Kuparuk River Unit 

The Kuparuk oilfield is the secondlargest producing oilfield in North 

America. More than 2.6 billion barrels 

of oil are expected to be produced from 

this oilfield. The Greater Kuparuk Area 

includes the satellite oilfields of Tarn, 

Palm, Tabasco, West Sak, and 

Meltwater. These satellite fields have 

been developed using existing facilities. 

To date, nearly 900 wells have been 

drilled in the Greater Kuparuk Area. 

The total development area in the 

Greater Kuparuk Area is approximately 

603 hectares (1,508 acres), including 

167 km (104 mi) of gravel roads, 231 km 

(144 mi) of pipelines, 6 gravel mine 

sites, and over 50 gravel pads. 

The Kuparuk Operations Center and 

Kuparuk Construction Camp are able to 

accommodate up to 1,200 people. The 

Kuparuk Industrial Center is primarily 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13459 

used for personnel overflow during the 

winter in years with a large amount of 

construction. 

Greater Point McIntyre 

The Greater Point McIntyre Area 

encompasses the Point McIntyre field 

and nearby satellite fields of West 

Beach, North Prudhoe Bay, Niakuk, and 

Western Niakuk. The Point McIntyre 

area is located 11.3 km (7 mi) north of 

Prudhoe Bay. It was discovered in 1988 

and came online in 1993. BPXA 

produces the Point McIntyre area from 

two drill site gravel pads. The field’s 

production peaked in 1996 at 170,000 

barrels per day, whereas in 2006 

production averaged 21,000 barrels per 

day with just over 100 wells in 

operation. Cumulative oil production as 

of December 31, 2006, was 738 million 

barrels of oil equivalent. 

Milne Point 

Located approximately 56 km (35 mi) 

northwest of Prudhoe Bay, the Milne 

Point oilfield was discovered in 1969 

and began production in 1985. The field 

consists of more than 220 wells drilled 

from 12 gravel pads. Milne Point 

produces from three main fields: 

Kuparuk, Schrader Bluff, and Sag River. 

Cumulative oil production as of 

December 31, 2006, was 248 million 

barrels of oil equivalent. The total area 

of Milne Point and its satellites is 94.4 

hectares (236 acres) of tundra, including 

31 km (19 mi) of gravel roads, 64 km (40 

mi) of pipelines, and one gravel mine 

site. The Milne Point Operations Center 

has accommodations for up to 300 

people. It is estimated that the Ugnu 

reservoir contains roughly 20 billion 

barrels of heavy oil in place. BPXA’s 

reservoir scientists and engineers 

conservatively estimate that roughly 10 

percent of that resource, or 2 billion 

barrels, could be recoverable. Currently, 

cold heavy oil production with sand 

(CHOPS) technology is being tested at 

Milne South Pad. CHOPS is part of a 

multiyear technology testing and 

research program initiated at Milne 

Point in 2007. 

Endicott 

The Endicott oilfield is located 

approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast 

of Prudhoe Bay. It is the first 

continuously producing offshore field in 

the U.S. arctic. The Endicott oilfield was 

developed from two man-made gravel 

islands connected to the mainland by a 

gravel causeway. The operations center 

and processing facilities are located on 

the 18-hectare (45-acre) Main 

Production Island. Approximately 80 

wells have been drilled to develop the 

field. Two satellite fields drilled from 

Endicott’s Main Production Island 

access oil from the Ivishak formation: 

Eider produces about 110 barrels per 

day, and Sag Delta North produces 

about 117 barrels per day. The total area 

of Endicott development is 156.8 

hectares (392 acres) of land with 25 km 

(15 mi) of roads, 47 km (29 mi) of 

pipelines, and one gravel mine site. 

Approximately 100 people are housed at 

the Endicott Operations Center. 

Badami 

Production began from the Badami 

oilfield in 1998, but has not been 

continuous. The Badami field is located 

approximately 56 km (35 mi) east of 

Prudhoe Bay and is currently the most 

easterly oilfield development on the 

North Slope. The Badami development 

area is approximately 34 hectares (85 

acres) of tundra including 7 km (4.5 mi) 

of gravel roads, 56 km (35 mi) of 

pipeline, one gravel mine site, and two 

gravel pads with a total of eight wells. 

There is no permanent road connection 

from Badami to Prudhoe Bay. The 

pipeline connecting the Badami oilfield 

to the common carrier pipeline system 

at Endicott was built from an ice road. 

The cumulative production is five 

million barrels of oil equivalent. This 

field is currently in ‘‘warm storage’’ 

status, i.e., site personnel are minimized 

and the facility is maintained at a 

minimal level. Additionally, it currently 

is not producing oil reserves at this 

time. BPXA recently entered into an 

agreement with Savant LLC; under this 

agreement Savant will drill an 

exploration well in the winter of 2009 

and potentially add an additional well 

in 2010. Depending on the outcome of 

these drilling programs, Badami could 

resume production. 

Alpine 

Discovered in 1996, the Alpine 

oilfield began production in November 

2000. Alpine is the westernmost oilfield 

on the North Slope, located 50 km (31 

mi) west of the Kuparuk oilfield and 14 

km (9 mi) northeast of the village of 

Nuiqsut. Although the Alpine reservoir 

covers 50,264 hectares (124,204 acres), 

it has been developed from 65.9 

hectares (162.92 acres) of pads and 

associated roads. Alpine features a 

combined production pad/drill site and 

three additional drill sites with an 

estimated 172 wells. There is no 

permanent road connecting Alpine with 

the Kuparuk oilfield; small aircraft are 

used to provide supplies and crew 

changeovers. Major resupply activities 

occur in the winter, using the ice road 

that is constructed annually between the 

two fields. The Alpine base camp can 

house approximately 540 employees. 

Northstar 

The Northstar oilfield was discovered 

in 1983 and developed by BPXA in 

1995. The offshore oilfield is located 6 

km (4 mi) northwest of the Point 

McIntyre field and 10 km (6 mi) from 

Prudhoe Bay in about 39 feet of water. 

The 15,360-hectare (38,400-acre) 

reservoir has now been developed from 

a 2-hectare (5-acre) artificial island. 

Production from the Northstar reservoir 

began in late 2001. The 2-hectare (5- 

acre) island will eventually contain 19 

producing wells, six gas injector wells, 

and one solids injection well. A subsea 

pipeline connects facilities to the 

Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Access to 

Northstar is via helicopter, hovercraft, 

and boat. 

Oooguruk Unit 

The Oooguruk Unit is located 

adjacent to and immediately northwest 

of the Kuparuk River Unit in shallow 

waters of the Beaufort Sea, near Thetis 

Island. Unit production began in 2008. 

Facilities include an offshore drill site 

and onshore production facilities pad. 

In addition, a subsea 5.7-mile flowline 

transports produced fluids from the 

offshore drill site to shore, where it 

transitions to an aboveground flowline 

supported on vertical support members 

for 3.9 km (2.4 mi) to the onshore 

facilities for approximately 3.3 hectares 

(8.2 acres). The offshore drill site (2.4 

hectares, 6 acres) is planned to support 

48 wells drilled from the Nuiqsut and 

Kuparuk reservoirs. The wells are 

contained in well bay modules, with 

capacity for an additional 12 wells, if 

needed. Pioneer is additionally 

proposing production facilities west of 

KRU drill site 3S on State oil and gas 

leases. The contemplated facilities 

consist of two drill sites near the 

Colville River delta mouth, a tie-in pad 

adjacent to DS–3S, gravel roads, flow 

lines, and power lines. Drilling of the 

initial appraisal well is planned to start 

in 2013, with first oil production as 

early as 2015. 

During the time period of the previous 

ITRs (2006–2011), three development 

projects were described as possibly 

moving into the production phase. 

Currently, only Oooguruk is producing. 

The two other developments, 

Nikaitchuq and the Alpine West 

Development, have not begun to 

produce oil to their fullest capacity. 

Concurrently, there are two additional 

developments that could be producing 

oil during the regulatory period. They 

are the Liberty and North Shore 

developments. 

Proposed production activities will 

increase the total area of the Industrial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13460 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

footprint by the addition of new 

facilities, such as drill pads, pipelines, 

and support facilities, in the geographic 

region; however, oil production volume 

is expected to continue to decrease 

during this 5-year regulatory period, 

despite new fields initiating production. 

This is due to current producing fields 

reducing output and new fields not 

maintaining the loss of that output. 

Current monitoring and mitigation 

measures, described later, will be kept 

in place. 

Evaluation of the Nature and Level of 

Proposed Activities 

During the period covered by the 

proposed regulations, we anticipate the 

annual level of activity at existing 

production facilities, as well as levels of 

new annual exploration and 

development activities, will be similar 

to that which occurred under the 

previous regulations, although 

exploration and development may shift 

to different locations and new 

production facilities will add to the 

overall Industry footprint. Additional 

onshore and offshore production 

facilities are being considered within 

the timeframe of these regulations, 

potentially adding to the total 

permanent activities in the area. The 

progress is similar to prior production 

schedules, but there is a potential 

increase in the accumulation of the 

industrial footprint, with an increase 

mainly in onshore facilities. 

Biological Information 

Pacific Walrus 

The Pacific walrus (Odobenus 

rosmarus divergens), is represented by a 

single population of animals inhabiting 

the shallow continental shelf waters of 

the Bering and Chukchi seas. The 

distribution of Pacific walruses varies 

markedly with seasons. During the late 

winter breeding season, walruses are 

found in areas of the Bering Sea where 

open leads, polynyas, or areas of broken 

pack ice occur. Significant winter 

concentrations are normally found in 

the Gulf of Anadyr, the St. Lawrence 

Island Polynya, and in an area south of 

Nunivak Island. In the spring and early 

summer, most of the population follows 

the retreating pack ice northward into 

the Chukchi Sea; however, several 

thousand animals, primarily adult 

males, remain in the Bering Sea, 

utilizing coastal haulouts during the icefree season. During the summer months, 

walruses are widely distributed across 

the shallow continental shelf waters of 

the Chukchi Sea. Significant summer 

concentrations are normally found in 

the unconsolidated pack ice west of 

Point Barrow, and along the northern 

coastline of Chukotka in the vicinity of 

Wrangell Island. Small herds of 

walruses occasionally range east of 

point Barrow into the Beaufort Sea in 

late summer. As the ice edge advances 

southward in the fall, walruses reverse 

their migration and re-group on the 

Bering Sea pack ice. 

Population Status 

The size of the Pacific walrus 

population has never been known with 

certainty. Based on large sustained 

harvests in the 18th and 19th centuries, 

Fay (1957) speculated that the preexploitation population was represented 

by a minimum of 200,000 animals. 

Since that time, population size is 

believed to have fluctuated markedly in 

response to varying levels of human 

exploitation. Large-scale commercial 

harvests are believed to have reduced 

the population to 50,000–100,000 

animals in the mid-1950s (Fay et al. 

1989). The population appears to have 

increased rapidly in size during the 

1960s and 1970s in response to harvest 

regulations and reductions in hunting 

pressure (Fay et al. 1989). Between 1975 

and 1990, visual aerial surveys were 

carried out by the United States and 

Russia at 5-year intervals, producing 

population estimates ranging from 

201,039 to 290,000 walruses. In 2006, 

U.S. and Russian researchers surveyed 

walrus groups in the pack ice of the 

Bering Sea using thermal imaging 

systems to detect walruses hauled out 

on sea ice and satellite transmitters to 

account for walruses in the water. The 

number of walruses within the surveyed 

area was estimated at 129,000 with 95 

percent confidence limits of 55,000 to 

507,000 individuals. Previous aerial 

survey results are highly variable and 

not directly comparable among years 

because of differences in survey 

methods, timing of surveys, segments of 

the population surveyed, and 

incomplete coverage of areas where 

walrus may have been present. Because 

of such issues, existing abundance 

estimates do not provide a basis for 

determining trends in population size. 

Changes in walrus population status 

have also been investigated by 

examining changes in biological 

parameters over time. Based on 

evidence of changes in abundance, 

distributions, condition indices, and 

life-history parameters, Fay et al. (1989) 

and Fay et al. (1997) concluded that the 

Pacific walrus population increased 

greatly in size during the 1960s and 

1970s, and postulated that the 

population was approaching, or had 

exceeded, the carrying capacity of its 

environment by the early 1980s. Harvest 

increased in the 1980s. Changes in the 

size, composition, and productivity of 

the sampled walrus harvest in the 

Bering Strait Region of Alaska over this 

timeframe are consistent with this 

hypothesis (Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). 

Harvest levels declined sharply in the 

early 1990s, and increased reproductive 

rates and earlier maturation in females 

occurred, suggesting that densitydependent feedback mechanisms had 

been relaxed and the population had 

likely dropped below carrying capacity 

(Garlich-Miller et al. 2006). However, it 

is unknown whether density-dependent 

changes in life-history parameters were 

mediated by changes in population 

abundance or changes in the carrying 

capacity of the environment (GarlichMiller et al. 2006). 

Habitat 

Walruses rely on floating pack ice as 

a substrate for resting and giving birth. 

Walruses generally require ice 

thicknesses of 50 cm (20 in) or more to 

support their weight. Although walruses 

can break through ice up to 20 cm (8 in) 

thick, they usually occupy areas with 

natural openings and are not found in 

areas of extensive, unbroken ice (Fay 

1982). Thus, their concentrations in 

winter tend to be in areas of divergent 

ice flow or along the margins of 

persistent polynyas. Concentrations in 

summer tend to be in areas of 

unconsolidated pack ice, usually within 

100 km (30 mi) of the leading edge of 

the ice pack (Gilbert 1999). When 

suitable pack ice is not available, 

walruses haul out to rest on land. 

Isolated sites, such as barrier islands, 

points, and headlands, are most 

frequently occupied. Social factors, 

learned behavior, and proximity to their 

prey base are also thought to influence 

the location of haulout sites. Traditional 

walrus haulout sites in the eastern 

Chukchi Sea include Cape Thompson, 

Cape Lisburne, and Icy Cape. In recent 

years, the Cape Lisburne haulout site 

has seen regular use in late summer. 

Numerous haulouts also exist along the 

northern coastline of Chukotka, and on 

Wrangell and Herald islands, which are 

considered important haul-out areas in 

September, especially in years when the 

pack ice retreats far to the north. 

Although capable of diving to deeper 

depths, walruses are generally found in 

shallow waters of 100 m (300 ft) or less, 

possibly because of higher productivity 

of their benthic foods in shallower 

water. They feed almost exclusively on 

benthic invertebrates although Native 

hunters have also reported incidences of 

walruses preying on seals. Prey 

densities are thought to vary across the 

continental shelf according to sediment 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13461 

type and structure. Preferred feeding 

areas are typically composed of 

sediments of soft, fine sands. The 

juxtaposition of ice over appropriate 

depths for feeding is especially 

important for females and their 

dependent young that are not capable of 

deep diving or long exposure in the 

water. The mobility of the pack ice is 

thought to help prevent walruses from 

overexploiting their prey resource (Ray 

et al. 2006). Foraging trips may last for 

several days, during which time they 

dive to the bottom nearly continuously. 

Most foraging dives to the bottom last 

between 5 and 10 minutes, with a 

relatively short (1–2 minute) surface 

interval. The intensive tilling of the sea 

floor by foraging walruses is thought to 

have significant influence on the 

ecology of the Bering and Chukchi seas. 

Foraging activity recycles large 

quantities of nutrients from the sea floor 

back into the water column, provides 

food for scavenger organisms, and 

contributes greatly to the diversity of the 

benthic community. 

Life History 

Walruses are long-lived animals with 

low rates of reproduction. Females 

reach sexual maturity at 4–9 years of 

age. Males become fertile at 5–7 years of 

age; however, they are usually unable to 

compete for mates until they reach full 

physical maturity at 15–16 years of age. 

Breeding occurs between January and 

March in the pack ice of the Bering Sea. 

Calves are usually born in late April or 

May the following year during the 

northward migration from the Bering 

Sea to the Chukchi Sea. Calving areas in 

the Chukchi Sea extend from the Bering 

Strait to latitude 70°N. (Fay et al. 1984). 

Calves are capable of entering the water 

shortly after birth, but tend to haulout 

frequently, until their swimming ability 

and blubber layer are well developed. 

Newborn calves are tended closely. 

They accompany their mother from 

birth and are usually not weaned for 2 

years or more. Cows brood newborns to 

aid in their thermoregulation (Fay and 

Ray 1968), and carry them on their back 

or under their flipper while in the water 

(Gehnrich 1984). Females with 

newborns often join together to form 

large ‘‘nursery herds’’ (Burns 1970). 

Summer distribution of females and 

young walruses is closely tied to the 

movements of the pack ice relative to 

feeding areas. Females give birth to one 

calf every two or more years. This 

reproductive rate is much lower than 

other pinniped species; however, some 

walruses live to age 35–40 and remain 

reproductively active until relatively 

late in life. 

Walruses are extremely social and 

gregarious animals. They tend to travel 

in groups and haulout onto ice or land 

in groups. Walruses spend 

approximately one-third of their time 

hauled out onto land or ice. Hauled-out 

walruses tend to lie in close physical 

contact with each other. Youngsters 

often lie on top of the adults. The size 

of the hauled out groups can range from 

a few animals up to several thousand 

individuals. 

Mortality 

Polar bears are known to prey on 

walrus calves, and killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) have been known to take 

all age classes of walruses (Frost et al. 

1992, Melnikov and Zagrebin 2005). 

Predation levels are thought to be 

highest near terrestrial haulout sites 

where large aggregations of walruses can 

be found; however, few observations 

exist for off-shore environs. 

Pacific walruses have been hunted by 

coastal Natives in Alaska and Chukotka 

for thousands of years. Exploitation of 

the Pacific walrus population by 

Europeans has also occurred in varying 

degrees since first contact. Presently, 

walrus hunting in Alaska and Chukotka 

is restricted to meet the subsistence 

needs of aboriginal peoples. The 

Service, in partnership with the Eskimo 

Walrus Commission (EWC) and the 

Association of Traditional Marine 

Mammal Hunters of Chukotka, 

administered subsistence harvest 

monitoring programs in Alaska and 

Chukotka in 2000–2005. Harvest 

mortality over this timeframe averaged 

5,458 walruses per year. This mortality 

estimate includes corrections for underreported harvest and struck and lost 

animals. 

Intra-specific trauma is also a known 

source of injury and mortality. 

Disturbance events can cause walruses 

to stampede into the water and have 

been known to result in injuries and 

mortalities. The risk of stampede-related 

injuries increases with the number of 

animals hauled out. Calves and young 

animals at the perimeter of these herds 

are particularly vulnerable to trampling 

injuries. 

Distributions and Abundance of Pacific 

Walruses in the Beaufort Sea 

The distribution of Pacific walruses is 

thought to be influenced primarily by 

the extent of the seasonal pack ice. In 

May and June, most of the Pacific 

walrus population migrates through the 

Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea. 

Walruses tend to migrate into the 

Chukchi Sea along lead systems that 

develop along the northwest coast of 

Alaska. Walruses are expected to be 

closely associated with the southern 

edge of the seasonal pack ice during the 

open water season. By July, large groups 

of walruses, up to several thousand 

animals, can be found along the edge of 

the pack ice between Icy Cape and Point 

Barrow. During August, the edge of the 

pack ice generally retreats northward to 

about 71°N, but in light ice years, the ice 

edge can retreat beyond 76°N. The sea 

ice normally reaches its minimum 

(northern) extent in September. In years 

when the sea ice retreats beyond the 

relatively shallow continental shelf 

waters of the Chukchi Sea, some 

animals migrate west towards Chukotka, 

while others have been observed 

hauling out along the shoreline between 

Point Barrow and Cape Lisburne. In 

recent years, coastal haulouts in 

Chukotka Russia have seen regular and 

persistent use in the fall. Russian 

biologists attribute the increased use of 

these coastal haulouts to diminishing 

sea ice habitat. A similar event was 

recorded along the Alaskan coastline in 

August–September 2007, 2009, and 

2010 when several thousand animals 

were reported along the Chukchi Sea 

coast between Barrow and Cape 

Lisburne. The pack ice usually advances 

rapidly southward in October, and most 

walruses are thought to have moved into 

the Bering Sea by mid to late November. 

Although most walruses remain in the 

Chukchi Sea throughout the summer 

months, small numbers of animals 

occasionally range into the Beaufort Sea 

in late summer. A total of 18 walrus 

sightings have been reported as a result 

of Industry monitoring efforts over the 

past 20 years (Kalxdorff and Bridges 

2003, USFWS unpubl. data). Two 

sightings occurred in 1996; one 

involved a single animal observed from 

a seismic vessel near Point Barrow, and 

a second animal was sighted during an 

aerial survey approximately 5 miles 

northwest of Howe Island. In 1997, 

another single animal was sighted 

during an aerial survey approximately 

20 miles north of Pingok Island. In 1998, 

a dead walrus was observed on Pingok 

Island being scavenged by polar bears. 

One walrus was observed hauled out 

near the SDC at McCovey in 2002. In 

2004, one walrus was observed 50 m 

from the Saltwater Treatment Plant, on 

West Dock. In addition, walrus have 

been observed on the armor of Northstar 

Island three times since 2001; in 2004, 

three walrus were observed on the 

armor in two separate instances. 

Between 2005 and 2009 additional 

walruses were recorded. 

Climate Change 

Analyses of long-term environmental 

data sets indicate that substantial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

reductions in both the extent and 

thickness of the arctic sea-ice cover have 

occurred over the past 40 years. Record 

minimum sea ice extent was recorded in 

2002, 2005, and again in 2007; sea ice 

cover in 2003 and 2004 was also 

substantially below the 20-year mean. 

Walruses rely on suitable sea ice as a 

substrate for resting between foraging 

bouts, calving, molting, isolation from 

predators, and protection from storm 

events. The juxtaposition of sea ice over 

shallow-shelf habitat suitable for 

benthic feeding is important to 

walruses. Recent trends in the Chukchi 

Sea have resulted in seasonal sea-ice 

retreat off the continental shelf and over 

deep Arctic Ocean waters, presenting 

significant adaptive challenges to 

walruses in the region. Reasonably 

foreseeable impacts to walruses as a 

result of diminishing sea ice cover 

include: Shifts in range and abundance, 

such as hauling out on land and 

potential movements into the Beaufort 

Sea; increased vulnerability to predation 

and disturbance; declines in prey 

species; increased mortality rates 

resulting from storm events; and 

premature separation of females and 

dependent calves. Secondary effects on 

animal health and condition resulting 

from reductions in suitable foraging 

habitat may also influence survivorship 

and productivity. Future studies 

investigating walrus distributions, 

population status and trends, and 

habitat use patterns are important for 

responding to walrus conservation and 

management issues associated with 

environmental and habitat changes. 

Polar Bear 

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was 

listed as threatened, range-wide, under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on 

May 15, 2008, due to loss of sea ice 

habitat caused by climate change (73 FR 

28212). The Service published a final 

special rule under section 4(d) of the 

ESA for the polar bear on December 16, 

2008 (73 FR 76249), which provides for 

measures that are necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of polar 

bears. This means that this special 4(d) 

rule: (a) In most instances, adopts the 

conservation regulatory requirements of 

the MMPA and the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) for the polar bear as the 

appropriate regulatory provisions for the 

polar bear; (b) provides that incidental, 

nonlethal take of polar bears resulting 

from activities outside the bear’s current 

range is not prohibited under the ESA; 

(c) clarifies that the special rule does not 

alter the Section 7 consultation 

requirements of the ESA; and (d) applies 

the standard ESA protections for 

threatened species when an activity is 

not covered by an MMPA or CITES 

authorization or exemption. 

Polar bears occur throughout the 

arctic. In Alaska, they have been 

observed as far south in the eastern 

Bering Sea as St. Matthew Island and 

the Pribilof Islands (Ray 1971). 

However, they are most commonly 

found within 180 miles of the Alaskan 

coast of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, 

from the Bering Strait to the Canadian 

border. Two stocks occur in Alaska: (1) 

The Chukchi-Bering seas stock (CS); and 

(2) the Southern Beaufort Sea stock 

(SBS). A summary of the CS and SBS 

polar bear stocks are described below. A 

detailed description of the CS and SBS 

polar bear stocks can be found in the 

‘‘Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar 

Bear (Ursus maritimus)’’ (http:// 

alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

polarbear/issues.htm). 

Management and conservation 

concerns for the SBS and CS polar bear 

populations include: Climate change, 

which continues to increase both the 

expanse and duration of open water in 

summer and fall; human activities 

within the near-shore environment, 

including oil and gas activities; 

atmospheric and oceanic transport of 

contaminants into the Arctic; and overharvest, should polar bear stocks 

become nutritionally stressed or decline 

due to some combination of the aforementioned threats. 

Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) 

The SBS polar bear population is 

shared between Canada and Alaska. 

Radio-telemetry data, combined with 

earlier tag returns from harvested bears, 

suggest that the SBS region comprised a 

single population with a western 

boundary near Icy Cape, Alaska, and an 

eastern boundary near Pearce Point, 

Northwest Territories, Canada. Early 

estimates from the mid 1980s suggested 

the size of the SBS population was 

approximately 1,800 polar bears, 

although uneven sampling was known 

to compromise the accuracy of that 

estimate. A population analysis of the 

SBS stock was completed in June 2006 

through joint research coordinated 

between the United States and Canada. 

That analysis indicated the population 

of the region between Icy Cape and 

Pearce Point is now approximately 

1,500 polar bears (95 percent confidence 

intervals approximately 1,000–2,000). 

Although the confidence intervals of the 

current population estimate overlap the 

previous population estimate of 1,800, 

other statistical and ecological evidence 

(e.g., high recapture rates encountered 

in the field) suggest that the current 

population is actually smaller than has 

been estimated for this area in the past. 

Recent analyses of radio-telemetry 

data of spatio-temporal use patterns of 

bears of the SBS stock using new spatial 

modelling techniques suggest 

realignment of the boundaries of the 

SBS area. We now know that nearly all 

bears in the central coastal region of the 

Beaufort Sea are from the SBS 

population, and that proportional 

representation of SBS bears decreases to 

both the west and east. For example, 

only 50 percent of the bears occurring 

in Barrow, Alaska, and Tuktoyaktuk, 

Northwest Territories, are SBS bears, 

with the remainder being from the CS 

and Northern Beaufort Sea populations, 

respectively. The recent radio-telemetry 

data indicate that bears from the SBS 

population seldom reach Pearce Point, 

which is currently on the eastern 

management boundary for the SBS 

population. Conversely, SBS bears can 

also be found in the western regions of 

their range in the Chukchi Sea (i.e., 

Wainwright and Point Lay) in lower 

proportions than the central portion of 

their range. 

Additional threats evaluated during 

the listing included impacts from 

activities such as industrial operations, 

subsistence harvest, shipping, and 

tourism. No other impacts were 

considered significant in causing the 

decline, but minimizing effects from 

these activities could become 

increasingly important for conservation 

as polar bear numbers continue to 

diminish. More information can be 

found at: http://www.fws.gov/ and 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/ 

polarbear/issues.htm. 

Chukchi/Bering Seas (CS) 

The CS is defined as those polar bears 

inhabiting the area as far west as the 

eastern portion of the Eastern Siberian 

Sea, as far east as Point Barrow, and 

extending into the Bering Sea, with its 

southern boundary determined by the 

extent of annual ice. Based upon 

telemetry studies, the western boundary 

of the population has been set near 

Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia. 

The eastern boundary is at Icy Cape, 

Alaska, which also is the previous 

western boundary of the SBS. This 

eastern boundary constitutes a large 

overlap zone with bears in the SBS 

population. The status of the CS 

population, which was believed to have 

increased after the level of harvest was 

reduced in 1972, is now thought to be 

uncertain or declining. The most recent 

population estimate for the CS 

population is 2,000 animals. This was 

based on extrapolation of aerial den 

surveys from the early 1990s; however, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13463 

this crude estimate is currently 

considered to be of little value for 

management. Reliable estimates of 

population size based upon mark and 

recapture are not available for this 

region and measuring the population 

size remains a research challenge (Evans 

et al. 2003). 

With the action of the Bilateral 

Commission under the Bilateral 

Agreement on the Conservation and 

Management of the Alaska-Chukotka 

Polar Bear Population, legal subsistence 

harvest for polar bears from the CS stock 

occurs in both Russia and in western 

Alaska, as long as this harvest does not 

affect the sustainability of the polar bear 

population. In Alaska, average annual 

harvest levels declined by 

approximately 50 percent between the 

1980s and the 1990s and have remained 

at low levels in recent years. There are 

several factors potentially affecting the 

harvest level in western Alaska. The 

factor of greatest direct relevance is the 

substantial illegal harvest in Chukotka. 

In recent years a reportedly sizable 

illegal harvest has occurred in Russia, 

despite a ban on hunting that has been 

in place since 1956. In addition, other 

factors such as climatic change and its 

effects on pack ice distribution, as well 

as changing demographics and hunting 

effort in native communities, could 

influence the declining take. The 

unknown rate of illegal take makes the 

stable designation uncertain and 

tentative. 

Habitat 

Polar bears evolved for life in the 

Arctic and are distributed throughout 

most ice-covered seas of the Northern 

Hemisphere. They are generally limited 

to areas where the sea is ice-covered for 

much of the year; however, polar bears 

are not evenly distributed throughout 

their range. They are most abundant 

near the shore in shallow-water areas, 

and in other areas where currents and 

ocean upwelling increase marine 

productivity and maintain some open 

water during the ice-covered season. 

Over most of their range, polar bears 

remain on the sea ice year-round or 

spend only short periods on land. 

The Service designated critical habitat 

for polar bear populations in the United 

States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR 

76086; December 7, 2010). Critical 

habitat identifies geographic areas that 

contain features that are essential for the 

conservation of a threatened or 

endangered species and that may 

require special management or 

protection. The designation of critical 

habitat under the ESA does not affect 

land ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. It does not allow 

government or public access to private 

lands. A critical habitat designation 

does not affect private lands unless 

Federal funds, permits, or activities are 

involved. Federal agencies that 

undertake, fund, or permit activities that 

may affect critical habitat are required to 

consult with the Service to ensure that 

such actions do not adversely modify or 

destroy critical habitat. 

The Service’s designation of critical 

habitat is divided into three areas or 

units: barrier island habitat, sea ice 

habitat (both described in geographic 

terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a 

functional description). Barrier island 

habitat includes coastal barrier islands 

and spits along Alaska’s coast and is 

used for denning, refuge from human 

disturbances, access to maternal dens 

and feeding habitat, and travel along the 

coast. Sea ice habitat is located over the 

continental shelf, and includes water 

300 m (984 feet) and less in depth. 

Terrestrial denning habitat includes 

lands within 32 km (20 miles) of the 

northern coast of Alaska between the 

Canadian border and the Kavik River 

and within 8 km (5 miles) of the 

coastline between the Kavik River and 

Barrow. The total area designated would 

cover approximately 484,734 square 

kilometers (187,157 square miles) and is 

entirely within the lands and waters of 

the United States. A detailed 

description of the critical habitat can be 

found online at: http://alaska.fws.gov/ 

fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/ 

federal_register_notice.pdf. 

Denning and Reproduction 

Female bears can be quite sensitive to 

disturbances during denning. Females 

can initiate breeding at 5 to 6 years of 

age. Females without dependent cubs 

breed in the spring. Pregnant females 

enter maternity dens by late November, 

and the young are usually born in late 

December or early January. Only 

pregnant females den for an extended 

period during the winter; other polar 

bears may excavate temporary dens to 

escape harsh winter winds. An average 

of two cubs is born. Reproductive 

potential (intrinsic rate of increase) is 

low. The average reproductive interval 

for a polar bear is 3 to 4 years, and a 

female polar bear can produce about 8 

to 10 cubs in her lifetime; in healthy 

populations, 50 to 60 percent of the 

cubs will survive. 

In late March or early April, the 

female and cubs emerge from the den. 

If the mother moves young cubs from 

the den before they can walk or 

withstand the cold, mortality to the cubs 

increases. Therefore, it is thought that 

successful denning, birthing, and 

rearing activities require a relatively 

undisturbed environment. Radio and 

satellite telemetry studies elsewhere 

indicate that denning can occur in 

multi-year pack ice and on land. Recent 

studies of the SBS indicate that the 

proportion of dens on pack ice have 

declined from approximately 60 percent 

in 1985–1994 to 40 percent in 1998– 

2004. 

In northern Alaska, maternal polar 

bear dens appear to be less concentrated 

than in Canada to the east and in Russia 

to the west. In Alaska, certain areas, 

such as barrier islands (linear features of 

low-elevation land adjacent to the main 

coastline that are separated from the 

mainland by bodies of water), river bank 

drainages, much of the North slope 

coastal plain, and coastal bluffs that 

occur at the interface of mainland and 

marine habitat, receive proportionally 

greater use for denning than other areas. 

Maternal denning occurs on tundrabearing barrier islands along the 

Beaufort Sea and also in the large river 

deltas, such as those associated with the 

Colville and Canning rivers. 

A recent study showed that the 

proportion of polar bears denning in the 

SBS on pack ice, which requires a high 

level of sea-ice stability for successful 

denning, declined from 62 percent in 

1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004 

(Fischbach et al. 2007). The authors 

concluded that the denning distribution 

changed in response to reductions in 

stable old ice, increases in 

unconsolidated ice, and lengthening of 

the melt season. If sea-ice extent in the 

Arctic continues to decrease and the 

amount of unstable ice increases, a 

greater proportion of polar bears may 

seek to den on land (Durner et al. 2006, 

Fischbach et al., 2007). 

Prey 

Ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are the 

primary prey of polar bears in most 

areas. Bearded seals (Erignathus 

barbatus) and walrus calves are hunted 

occasionally. Polar bears also 

opportunistically scavenge marine 

mammal carcasses, notably bowhead 

whale (Balaena mysticetus) carcasses at 

Point Barrow, and Cross and Barter 

islands, associated with the annual 

subsistence hunt in these communities. 

There are also anecdotal reports of polar 

bears killing beluga whales 

(Delphinapterus leucas) trapped in the 

ice, although the importance of beluga 

as a food source is not known. Polar 

bears have also been observed 

consuming non-food items including 

Styrofoam, plastic, antifreeze, and 

hydraulic and lubricating fluids. 

Polar bears use the sea ice as a 

platform to hunt seals. Polar bears often 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

hunt seals along leads—cracks in the 

ice, and other areas of open water. Polar 

bears also hunt seals at breathing holes, 

or by breaking through the roof of seal 

lairs. Lairs are excavated by seals in 

snow drifts on top of the ice. Bears also 

stalk seals in the spring when they haul 

out on the ice in warm weather. The 

relationship between ice type and polar 

bear distribution is as yet unknown, but 

it is suspected to be related to seal 

availability. Due to changing sea ice 

conditions, the area of open water and 

proportion of marginal ice has increased 

and extends later in the fall. This may 

limit seal availability to polar bears as 

the most productive areas for seals 

appear to be over the shallower waters 

of the continental shelf. 

Mortality 

Polar bears are long-lived (up to 30 

years), have no natural predators, and 

do not appear prone to death by 

diseases or parasites. Cannibalism by 

adult males on cubs and occasionally on 

adult bears is known to occur. The most 

significant source of premature adult 

polar bear mortality is man. Before the 

MMPA was passed in 1972, polar bears 

were taken by sport hunters and 

residents. Between 1925 and 1972, the 

mean reported kill was 186 bears per 

year. Seventy-five percent of these were 

males, as cubs and females with cubs 

were protected. Since 1972, only Alaska 

Natives from coastal Alaskan villages 

have been allowed to hunt polar bears 

for their subsistence uses, for the 

manufacture of handicraft and clothing 

items. From 1980 to 2005, the total 

annual harvest for Alaska averaged 101 

bears: 64 percent from the Chukchi Sea 

and 36 percent from the Beaufort Sea. 

Other sources of mortality related to 

human activities include bears killed 

during research activities, euthanasia of 

sick or injured bears, and defense-of-life 

kills by non-Natives (Brower et al. 

2002). 

Distributions and Abundance of Polar 

Bears in the Beaufort Sea 

Polar bears are dependent upon the 

sea ice as a platform for foraging. The 

most productive areas seem to be near 

the ice edge, leads, or polynyas over the 

continental shelf (Durner et al. 2004). 

Polar bears can also be observed 

throughout the year in the onshore and 

nearshore environments, where they 

will opportunistically scavenge on 

marine mammal carcasses washed up 

along the shoreline (Kalxdorff and 

Fischbach 1998). Their distribution in 

the coastal habitat can be influenced by 

the movement of the seasonal pack ice. 

More specifically, during the icecovered season, pregnant females can 

use terrestrial denning habitat between 

late-October and mid-April. The 

percentage of pregnant females using 

terrestrial habitat for denning is 

unknown but, as stated earlier, the 

proportion of dens on terrestrial habitat 

has increased in recent years. In 

addition, a small proportion of bears of 

different cohorts may be found along the 

coastline as well during this time 

period. During the open water season 

(July through September), a small 

proportion of bears will utilize the 

coastal environments while the majority 

of the population will be on the ice edge 

of the pack ice. 

During the late summer/fall period 

(August through October), polar bears 

are most likely to be encountered along 

the mainland coastline and barrier 

islands, using these features as travel 

corridors and hunting areas. Based on 

Industry observations, encounter rates 

are higher during the fall period (August 

to October) than any other time period. 

The duration the bears spend in these 

coastal habitats depends on storm 

events, ice conditions, and the 

formation of the annual ice. In recent 

years, polar bears have been observed in 

larger numbers than previously 

recorded during the fall period. The 

remains of subsistence-harvested 

bowhead whales at Cross and Barter 

Islands provide a readily available food 

source for the bears in these areas and 

appear to play a role in these numbers 

(Schliebe et al. 2006). Based on Industry 

observations and coastal survey data 

acquired by the Service, up to 125 

individuals of the SBS bear population 

have been observed during the fall 

period between Barrow and the AlaskaCanada border. 

Climate Change 

For polar bears, habitat loss due to 

changes in Arctic sea ice has been 

identified as the primary cause of 

decline in polar bear populations, where 

the decline of sea ice is expected to 

continue throughout the polar bear’s 

range for the foreseeable future (73 FR 

28212). In support of the listing, 

Amstrup et al. (2007) projected that if 

current sea ice declines continue, the 

sea-ice retreat may eventually exclude 

bears from onshore denning habitat in 

the Polar Basin Divergent Region, where 

they have projected a 42 percent loss of 

optimal summer polar bear habitat by 

2050. SBS and CS polar bear 

populations inhabit this ecoregion, and 

Amstrup et al. (2007) have projected 

that these populations will be extirpated 

within the next 45–75 years, if sea ice 

declines continue at current rates. 

Climate change is likely to have 

serious consequences for the worldwide population of polar bears and their 

prey (ACIA 2004, Derocher et al. 2004, 

NRC 2003). Climate change is expected 

to impact polar bears in a variety of 

ways. The timing of ice formation and 

breakup will impact seal distributions 

and abundance, and, consequently, how 

efficiently polar bears can hunt seals. 

Reductions in sea ice are expected to 

increase the polar bears’ energetic costs 

of traveling, as moving through 

fragmented sea ice and open water 

requires more energy than walking 

across consolidated sea ice. 

Decreased sea ice extent may impact 

the reproductive success of denning 

polar bears. Polar bears require a stable 

substrate for denning. As ice conditions 

moderate, ice platforms become less 

stable, and coastal dens become 

vulnerable to erosion from storm surges. 

In the 1990s, approximately 50 percent 

of the maternal dens of the SBS polar 

bear population occurred annually on 

the pack ice in contrast to terrestrial 

sites (Amstrup and Gardner 1994). 

Recently, the proportion of dens on 

pack ice declined from 62 percent in 

1985–1994 to 37 percent in 1998–2004 

(Fischbach et al. 2007). Terrestrial 

denning is expected to increase in the 

future, despite the threats of coastal 

erosion. 

Due to the changing ice conditions, 

the Service anticipates that polar bear 

use of the Beaufort Sea coast will 

increase during the open-water season 

(June through October). Indeed, polar 

bear use of coastal areas during the fall 

open-water period has increased in 

recent years in the Beaufort Sea. This 

change in distribution has been 

correlated with the distance of the pack 

ice from the coast at that time of year 

(the farther from shore the leading edge 

of the pack ice is, the more bears are 

observed onshore) (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Reductions in sea ice will result in 

increased distances between the ice 

edge and land which, in turn, will lead 

to increasing numbers of bears coming 

ashore during the open-water period, or 

possibly drowning in an attempt to 

reach land. An increased number of 

bears on land may increase human–bear 

interactions or conflicts during this time 

period. 

Potential Effects of Oil and Gas 

Industry Activities on Subsistence Uses 

of Marine Mammals 

Pacific walruses and polar bears have 

been traditionally harvested by Alaska 

Natives for subsistence purposes. The 

harvest of these species plays an 

important role in the culture and 

economy of many villages throughout 

coastal Alaska. Walrus meat is often 

consumed, and the ivory is used to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13465 

manufacture traditional arts and crafts. 

Polar bears are primarily hunted for 

their fur, which is used to make cold 

weather gear; however, their meat is 

also consumed. Although walruses and 

polar bears are a part of the annual 

subsistence harvest of most rural 

communities on the North Slope of 

Alaska, these species are not as 

significant a food resource as bowhead 

whales, seals, caribou (Rangifer 

tarandus), and fish. 

An exemption under section 101(b) of 

the MMPA allows Alaska Natives who 

reside in Alaska and dwell on the coast 

of the North Pacific Ocean or the Arctic 

Ocean to take polar bears and walruses 

if such taking is for subsistence 

purposes or for purposes of creating and 

selling authentic native articles of 

handicrafts and clothing, as long as the 

take is not done in a wasteful manner. 

Sport hunting of both species has been 

prohibited in the United States since 

enactment of the MMPA in 1972. 

Pacific Walrus—Harvest Information 

Few walruses are harvested in the 

Beaufort Sea along the northern coast of 

Alaska as the primary range of Pacific 

walruses is west and south of the 

Beaufort Sea. Walruses constitute a 

small portion of the total marine 

mammal harvest for the village of 

Barrow. Hunters from Barrow have 

reported 477 walruses harvested in the 

past 20 years with 65 of those since 

2005. Reports indicate that up to six 

animals, approximately 10 percent of 

the recorded harvest, were taken east of 

Point Barrow in the last 5 years within 

the geographical limits of the incidental 

take regulations. Hunters from Nuiqsut 

and Kaktovik do not normally hunt 

walruses unless the opportunity arises. 

They have reported taking only three 

walruses since the inception of the 

regulations. Two walruses were 

harvested on Cross Island in 2004, but 

no walruses have been harvested since 

2005. To date, two percent of the total 

walrus harvest for Barrow, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik from 1994 to 2009 has 

occurred within the geographic range of 

the incidental take regulations. 

Polar Bear—Harvest Information 

Alaska Natives from coastal villages 

are permitted to harvest polar bears. 

Current harvest levels are believed to be 

sustainable for the SBS population at 

present (USFWS unpubl. data). 

Although there are no restrictions under 

the MMPA, a more restrictive Native-toNative agreement between the Inupiat 

from Alaska and the Inuvialuit in 

Canada was created in 1988. This 

agreement, referred to as the InuvialuitInupiat Polar Bear Management 

Agreement, established quotas and 

recommendations concerning protection 

of denning females, family groups, and 

methods of take. Although this 

Agreement does not have the force of 

law from either the Canadian or the U.S. 

governments, the users have abided by 

its terms. In Canada, users are subject to 

provincial regulations consistent with 

the Agreement. Commissioners for the 

Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement set the 

original quota at 76 bears in 1988, and 

it was later increased to 80. The quota 

was based on estimates of the 

population size and age-specific 

estimates of survival and recruitment. 

One estimate suggests that harvest up to 

1.5 percent of the adult females was 

sustainable. Combining this estimate 

and a 2:1 sex ratio (male:female) of the 

harvest ratio, 4.5 percent of the total 

population could be harvested each 

year. In July 2010, at the most recent 

Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear 

Management Meeting, the quota was 

reduced from 80 to 70 bears per year. 

The Service has monitored the Alaska 

polar bear harvest since 1980. The 

Native subsistence harvest from the SBS 

has remained relatively consistent since 

1980 and averages 36 bears removed per 

year. The combined harvest from Alaska 

and Canada from the SBS appears 

sustainable and equitable. During the 

period 2005–2009, 84 bears were 

harvested by residents of Barrow, 11 for 

Kaktovik, 6 for Nuiqsut, 13 for 

Wainwright, and 3 for Atqasuk for a 

total of 117 bears harvested. This was a 

decline of 40 harvested bears from the 

previous timeframe analyzed (2000– 

2004: 157 bears harvested). The Native 

subsistence harvest is the largest source 

of mortality related to human activities, 

although several bears have been killed 

during research activities, through 

euthanasia of sick or injured bears, and 

accidental drowning, or in defense of 

human life by non-Natives. 

Plan of Cooperation 

As a condition of incidental take 

authorization, and to ensure that 

Industry activities do not impact 

subsistence opportunities for 

communities using the geographic 

region, any applicant requesting an LOA 

is required to present a record of 

communication that reflects discussions 

with the Native communities most 

likely affected by the activity. The North 

Slope native communities that could 

potentially be affected by Industry 

activities include Barrow, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik. Polar bear and Pacific 

walruses inhabiting the Beaufort Sea 

represent a small portion, in terms of 

the number of animals, of the total 

subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife 

for the villages of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik. Despite this, harvest of these 

species is important to Alaska Natives. 

Therefore, an important aspect of the 

LOA process is that, prior to issuance of 

an LOA, Industry must provide 

evidence to the Service that an adequate 

Plan of Cooperation (POC) has been 

coordinated with any affected 

subsistence community (or, as 

appropriate, with the EWC, the Alaska 

Nanuuq Commission (ANC), and the 

North Slope Borough (NSB)) if, after 

community consultations, Industry and 

the community concludes that increased 

mitigation and monitoring is necessary 

to minimize impacts to subsistence 

resources. Where relevant, a POC will 

describe measures to be taken to 

mitigate potential conflicts between the 

proposed activity and subsistence 

hunting. If requested by Industry or the 

affected subsistence community, the 

Service will review these plans and 

provide guidance. The Service will 

reject POCs if they do not provide 

adequate safeguards to ensure that any 

taking by Industry will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of polar bears and walruses 

for taking for subsistence uses. 

Included as part of the POC and the 

overall State and Federal permitting 

process of Industry activities, Industry 

engages the Native communities in 

numerous informational meetings. 

During these community meetings, 

Industry must ascertain if community 

responses indicate that impact to 

subsistence uses will occur as a result 

of activities in the requested LOA. If 

community concerns suggest that 

Industry activities may have an impact 

on the subsistence uses of these species, 

the POC must provide the procedures 

on how Industry will work with the 

affected Native communities and what 

actions will be taken to avoid interfering 

with the availability of polar bear and 

walruses for subsistence harvest. 

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects of 

Proposed Activities on Subsistence Uses 

No unmitigable concerns from the 

potentially affected communities 

regarding the availability of polar bears 

or walruses for subsistence uses have 

been identified through Industry 

consultations in the potentially affected 

communities of Barrow, Nuiqsut, and 

Kaktovik in the geographic region. 

Based on the proximity of the 

proposed activities and the location of 

its hunting areas for polar bears and 

walruses, Nuiqsut continues to be the 

community most likely affected by 

Industry activities due to its close 

proximity to Industry activities. Nuiqsut 

is located within 5 miles of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ConocoPhillips’ Alpine production field 

to the north and ConocoPhillips’ Alpine 

Satellite development field to the west. 

For this rule, we determined that the 

total taking of polar bears and walruses 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of these 

species for subsistence uses to Nuiqsut 

residents during the duration of the 

regulation. We base this conclusion on: 

The results of coastal aerial surveys 

conducted between 2000 and 2009 

within the area; direct observations of 

polar bears occurring on Cross Island 

during Nuiqsut’s annual fall bowhead 

whaling efforts; and anecdotal reports 

and recent sightings of polar bears by 

Nuiqsut residents. In addition, we have 

received no evidence or reports that 

bears are being deflected (i.e., altering 

habitat use patterns by avoiding certain 

areas) or being impacted in other ways 

by the existing level of oil and gas 

activity near communities or traditional 

hunting areas that would diminish their 

availability for subsistence use, and we 

do not expect any change in the impact 

of future activities during the regulatory 

period. 

Barrow and Kaktovik are expected to 

be affected differently and to a lesser 

degree by oil and gas activities than 

Nuiqsut, due to their distance from 

known Industry activities during the 5- 

year period of the regulations. As 

similar to past ITRs, through aerial 

surveys, direct observations, community 

consultations, and personal 

communication with hunters, it appears 

that subsistence opportunities for bears 

and walruses have not been impacted by 

past Industry operations and we do not 

anticipate any new impacts to result 

from the proposed activities. 

Changes in activity locations may 

trigger community concerns regarding 

the effect on subsistence uses. Industry 

will need to remain proactive to address 

potential impacts on the subsistence 

uses by affected communities through 

consultations, and where warranted, 

POCs. Open communication through 

venues, such as public meetings, which 

allow communities to express feedback 

prior to the initiation of operations, will 

be required as part of an LOA 

application. If community subsistence 

use concerns arise from new activities, 

appropriate mitigation measures are 

available and will be applied, such as a 

cessation of certain activities at certain 

locations during specified times of the 

year, i.e., hunting seasons. Hence, we 

find that any take will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of polar bears or walruses 

for subsistence uses by residents of the 

affected communities. 

Potential Effects of Oil and Gas 

Industry Activities on Pacific Walruses, 

Polar Bears and Prey Species 

Individual walruses and polar bears 

can be affected by Industry activities in 

numerous ways. These include: (1) 

Noise disturbance; (2) physical 

obstructions; (3) human encounters; and 

(4) effects on prey. 

Pacific Walrus 

The Beaufort Sea is beyond the 

normal range of the Pacific walrus and 

the likelihood of encountering walruses 

during Industry operations is low. 

During the time period of the proposed 

regulations, Industry operations may 

occasionally encounter small groups of 

walruses swimming in open water or 

hauled out onto ice floes or along the 

coast. Although interactions are 

expected to be infrequent, proposed 

activities could potentially result in 

some level of disturbances. The 

response of walruses to disturbance 

stimuli is highly variable. Anecdotal 

observations by walrus hunters and 

researchers suggest that males tend to be 

more tolerant of disturbances than 

females and individuals tend to be more 

tolerant than groups. Females with 

dependent calves are considered least 

tolerant of disturbances. In other parts 

of their range, disturbance events are 

known to cause walrus groups to 

abandon land or ice haulouts and 

occasionally result in trampling injuries 

or cow-calf separations, both of which 

are potentially fatal. Calves and young 

animals at the perimeter of the haulouts 

appear particularly vulnerable to 

trampling injuries. 

1. Noise Disturbance 

Noise generated by Industry activities, 

whether stationary or mobile, has the 

potential to disturb small numbers of 

walruses. Potential impacts of Industrygenerated noise include displacement 

from preferred foraging areas, increased 

stress and energy expenditure, 

interference with feeding, and masking 

of communications. Any impact of 

Industry noise on walruses is likely to 

be limited to a few individuals rather 

than the population due to their 

geographic range and seasonal 

distribution within the geographic 

region. For example, Pacific walruses 

generally inhabit the pack ice of the 

Bering Sea and do not normally range 

into the Beaufort Sea, although 

individuals and small groups are 

occasionally observed. 

Reactions of marine mammals to 

noise sources, particularly mobile 

sources such as marine vessels, vary. 

Reactions depend on the individuals’ 

prior exposure to the disturbance 

source; their need or desire to be in the 

particular habitat or area where they are 

exposed to the noise; and visual 

presence of the disturbance sources. 

Walruses are typically more sensitive to 

disturbance when hauled out on land or 

ice than when they are in the water. In 

addition, females and young are 

generally more sensitive to disturbance 

than adult males. 

Noise generated by Industry activities, 

whether stationary or mobile, has the 

potential to disturb small numbers of 

walrus. The response of walrus to sound 

sources may be either avoidance or 

tolerance. 

A. Stationary Sources 

Endicott, BP’s Saltwater Treatment 

Plant (located on the West Dock 

Causeway), Oooguruk, and Northstar are 

the offshore facilities that could produce 

noise that has the potential to disturb 

walruses. Liberty, as part of the Endicott 

complex, will also have this potential 

when it commences operations. A few 

walruses have been observed in the 

vicinity of these facilities. Three 

walruses have hauled out on Northstar 

Island since its construction in 2000, 

and a walrus was observed swimming 

near the Saltwater Treatment Plant in 

2004. In 2007, a female and subadult 

walrus were observed hauled-out on the 

Endicott Causeway. In instances where 

walruses have been seen near these 

facilities, they have appeared to be 

attracted to them, possibly as a resting 

area or haulout. 

B. Mobile Sources 

Seismic operations introduce 

substantial levels of noise into the 

marine environment. There are 

relatively little data available to evaluate 

the potential response of walruses to 

seismic operations. Although the 

hearing sensitivity of walruses is poorly 

known, source levels associated with 

marine 3D and 2D seismic surveys are 

thought to be high enough to cause 

temporary hearing loss in other 

pinniped species. Therefore, it is 

possible that walruses within the 180- 

decibel (dB re 1 μPa) safety radius for 

seismic activities could suffer temporary 

shifts in hearing thresholds. 

Seismic surveys and high-resolution 

site clearance surveys are typically 

carried out in open water conditions 

where walrus numbers are expected to 

be low. This will minimize potential 

interactions with large concentrations of 

walruses which typically favor sea ice 

habitats. Seismic operations in the 

Beaufort Sea are more likely to 

encounter small herds of walruses 

swimming in open water. Potential 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13467 

adverse effects of seismic noise on 

swimming walruses can be reduced 

through the implementation of 

sufficient, practicable monitoring 

coupled with adaptive management 

responses (where the mitigation 

measures required are dependent on 

what is discovered during monitoring). 

Previous open-water seismic 

exploration has been conducted in 

nearshore ice-free areas. This is the area 

where any future open-water seismic 

exploration will occur during the 

duration of this rule. It is highly 

unlikely that walruses will be present in 

these areas, and, therefore, it is not 

expected that seismic exploration would 

disturb walruses. Furthermore, with the 

adoption of the mitigation measures 

described in Section VI, the Service 

concludes that the only anticipated 

effects of seismic operations in the 

Beaufort Sea would be short-term 

behavioral alterations of small numbers 

of walruses. 

C. Vessel Traffic 

Although seismic surveys and 

offshore drilling operations are expected 

to occur in areas of open water away 

from the pack ice, support vessels and/ 

or aircraft servicing seismic and drill 

operations may encounter aggregations 

of walruses hauled out onto sea ice. The 

sight, sound, or smell of humans and 

machines could potentially displace 

these animals from any ice haulouts. 

Walruses react variably to noise from 

vessel traffic; however, it appears that 

low-frequency diesel engines cause less 

of a disturbance than high-frequency 

outboard engines. In addition, walrus 

densities within their normal 

distribution are highest along the edge 

of the pack ice, and Industry vessel 

traffic typically avoids these areas. The 

reaction of walruses to vessel traffic is 

dependent upon vessel type, distance, 

speed, and previous exposure to 

disturbances. Walruses in the water 

appear to be less readily disturbed by 

vessels than walruses hauled out on 

land or ice. Furthermore, barges and 

vessels associated with Industry 

activities travel in open-water and avoid 

large ice floes or land where walruses 

are likely to be found. In addition, 

walruses can use a vessel as a haul-out 

platform. In 2009, during Industry 

activities in the Chukchi Sea, an adult 

walrus was found hauled out on the 

stern of a vessel. It eventually left once 

confronted. 

Drilling operations are expected to 

involve drill ships attended by 

icebreaking vessels to manage 

incursions of sea ice. Ice management 

operations are expected to have the 

greatest potential for disturbances since 

walruses are more likely to be 

encountered in sea ice habitats and ice 

management operations typically 

require the vessel to accelerate, reverse 

direction, and turn rapidly thereby 

maximizing propeller cavitations and 

producing significant noise. Previous 

monitoring efforts in the Chukchi Sea 

suggest that icebreaking activities can 

displace some walrus groups up to 

several kilometers away; however, most 

groups of hauled-out walruses showed 

little reaction beyond 800 m (0.5 mi). 

Monitoring programs associated with 

exploratory drilling operations in the 

Chukchi Sea in 1990 noted that 25 

percent of walrus groups encountered in 

the pack ice during icebreaking 

responded by diving into the water, 

with most reactions occurring within 1 

km (0.6 mi) of the ship. The monitoring 

report noted that: (1) Walrus 

distributions were closely linked with 

pack ice; (2) pack ice was near active 

prospects for relatively short time 

periods; and (3) ice passing near active 

prospects contained relatively few 

animals. The report concluded that 

effects of the drilling operations on 

walruses were limited in time, 

geographical scale, and the proportion 

of population affected. 

When walruses are present, 

underwater noise from vessel traffic in 

the Beaufort Sea may ‘‘mask’’ ordinary 

communication between individuals by 

preventing them from locating one 

another. It may also prevent walruses 

from using potential habitats in the 

Beaufort Sea and may have the potential 

to impede movement. Vessel traffic will 

likely increase if offshore Industry 

expands and may increase if warming 

waters and seasonally reduced sea ice 

cover alter northern shipping lanes. 

Because offshore exploration 

activities are expected to move 

throughout the Beaufort Sea, impacts 

associated with support vessels and 

aircrafts are likely to be distributed in 

time and space. Therefore, the only 

effect anticipated would be short-term 

behavioral alterations impacting small 

numbers of walruses in the vicinity of 

active operations. Adoption of 

mitigation measures that include an 

800-m (0.5-mi) exclusion zone for 

marine vessels around walrus groups 

observed on ice are expected to reduce 

the intensity of disturbance events and 

minimize the potential for injuries to 

animals. 

D. Aircraft Traffic 

Aircraft overflights may disturb 

walruses. Reactions to aircraft vary with 

range, aircraft type, and flight pattern, as 

well as walrus age, sex, and group size. 

Adult females, calves, and immature 

walruses tend to be more sensitive to 

aircraft disturbance. Fixed-winged 

aircraft are less likely to elicit a 

response than helicopter overflights. 

Walruses are particularly sensitive to 

changes in engine noise and are more 

likely to stampede when planes turn or 

fly low overhead. Researchers 

conducting aerial surveys for walruses 

in sea ice habitats have observed little 

reaction to fixed-winged aircraft above 

457 m (1,500 ft) (USFWS unpubl. data). 

Although the intensity of the reaction to 

noise is variable, walruses are probably 

most susceptible to disturbance by fastmoving and low-flying aircraft (100 m 

above ground level). In 2002, a walrus 

hauled out near the SDC on the 

McCovey prospect was disturbed when 

a helicopter landed on the SDC. 

However, most aircraft traffic is in 

nearshore areas, where there are 

typically few to no walruses. 

2. Physical Obstructions 

Based on known walrus distribution 

and the very low numbers found in the 

Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay, it is 

unlikely that walrus movements would 

be displaced by offshore stationary 

facilities, such as the Northstar Island or 

causeway-linked Endicott/Liberty 

complex, or vessel traffic. There is no 

indication that the few walruses that 

used Northstar Island as a haulout in 

2001 were displaced from their 

movements. Vessel traffic could 

temporarily interrupt the movement of 

walruses, or displace some animals 

when vessels pass through an area. This 

displacement would probably have 

minimal or no effect on animals and 

would last no more than a few hours. 

3. Human Encounters 

Human encounters with walruses 

could occur in the course of Industry 

activities, although such encounters 

would be rare due to the limited 

distribution of walruses in the Beaufort 

Sea. These encounters may occur within 

certain cohorts of the population, such 

as calves or animals under stress. In 

2004, a suspected orphaned calf hauled 

out on the armor of Northstar Island 

numerous times over a 48-hour period, 

causing Industry to cease certain 

activities and alter work patterns before 

it disappeared in stormy seas. 

Additionally, a walrus calf was 

observed for 15 minutes during an 

exploration program 60 feet from the 

dock at Cape Simpson in 2006. It 

climbed onto an extended barge ramp, 

which was lowered. The walrus then 

jumped in the water the moment the 

crew member started the ramp engine. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4. Effect on Prey Species 

Walruses feed primarily on immobile 

benthic invertebrates. The effect of 

Industry activities on benthic 

invertebrates most likely would be from 

oil discharged into the environment. Oil 

has the potential to impact walrus prey 

species in a variety of ways including, 

but not limited to, mortality due to 

smothering or toxicity, perturbations in 

the composition of the benthic 

community, as well as altered metabolic 

and growth rates. Relatively few 

walruses are present in the central 

Beaufort Sea. It is important to note that, 

although the status of walrus prey 

species within the Beaufort Sea are 

poorly known, it is unclear to what 

extent, if any, prey abundance plays in 

limiting the use of the Beaufort Sea by 

walruses. Further study of the Beaufort 

Sea benthic community as it relates to 

walruses is warranted. The low 

likelihood of an oil spill large enough to 

affect prey populations (see analysis in 

the section titled Potential Impacts of 

Waste Product Discharge and Oil Spills 

on Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears, 

Pacific Walrus subsection) combined 

with the fact that walruses are not 

present in the region during the icecovered season and occur only 

infrequently during the open-water 

season indicates that Industry activities 

will likely have limited indirect effects 

on walruses through effects on prey 

species. 

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on 

Walruses 

As with previous ITRs, Industry noise 

disturbance and associated vessel traffic 

may have a more pronounced impact 

than physical obstructions or human 

encounters on walruses in the Beaufort 

Sea. However, due to the limited 

number of walruses inhabiting the 

geographic region during the open-water 

season and lack of walruses in the 

region during the ice-covered season, 

the Service expects minimal impact to 

only small numbers of individual 

walruses and that any take will have a 

negligible impact on this stock during 

the 5-year regulatory period. 

Polar Bear 

Polar bears are present in the region 

of activity and, therefore, oil and gas 

activities could impact polar bears in 

various ways during both open-water 

and ice-covered seasons. Impacts from: 

(1) Noise disturbance; (2) physical 

obstructions; (3) human encounters; and 

(4) effects on prey species are described 

below. 

1. Noise Disturbance 

Noise produced by Industry activities 

during the open-water and ice-covered 

seasons could potentially result in the 

take of polar bears. The impact of noise 

disturbances may affect bears differently 

depending upon their reproductive 

status (e.g., denning versus non-denning 

bears). The best available scientific 

information indicates that female polar 

bears entering dens, or females in dens 

with cubs, are more sensitive than other 

age and sex groups to noises. 

Noise disturbance can originate from 

either stationary or mobile sources. 

Stationary sources include: 

Construction, maintenance, repair, and 

remediation activities; operations at 

production facilities; flaring excess gas; 

and drilling operations from either 

onshore or offshore facilities. Mobile 

sources include: Vessel and aircraft 

traffic; open-water seismic exploration; 

winter vibroseis programs; geotechnical 

surveys; ice road construction and 

associated vehicle traffic, including 

tracked vehicles and snowmobiles; 

drilling; dredging; and ice-breaking 

vessels. 

A. Stationary Sources 

All production facilities on the North 

Slope in the area to be covered by this 

rulemaking are currently located within 

the landfast ice zone. Typically, most 

polar bears occur in the active ice zone, 

far offshore, hunting throughout the 

year; although some bears also spend a 

limited amount of time on land, coming 

ashore to feed, den, or move to other 

areas. At times, usually during the fall 

season when fall storms and ocean 

currents may deposit ice-bound bears on 

land, bears may remain along the coast 

or on barrier islands for several weeks 

until the ice returns. 

Noise produced by stationary Industry 

activities could elicit variable responses 

from polar bears. The noise may act as 

a deterrent to bears entering the area, or 

the noise could potentially attract bears. 

Attracting bears to these facilities, 

especially exploration facilities in the 

coastal or nearshore environment, could 

result in human-bear encounters, 

unintentional harassment, lethal take, or 

intentional hazing (stipulated under 

separate authorization) of the bear. 

Noise from Industry activities has the 

ability to disturb bears at den sites. 

However, the timing of potential 

Industry impacts coupled with the time 

period in the denning cycle when any 

disturbance occurs can have varying 

effects and impacts on the female bear 

and the family group. Researchers have 

suggested that disturbances, including 

noise, can negatively impact bears 

during the early stages of denning, 

where the pregnant female has limited 

investment at the site, by causing them 

to abandon the site in search of another 

one. Premature site abandonment may 

also occur after the bears have emerged, 

but while they are still at the den site, 

when cubs are acclimating to their ‘‘new 

environment’’ and the female bear is 

now vigilant of the environment in 

regards to her offspring. During this 

time, in-air noises may disturb the 

female to the point of abandoning the 

den site before the cubs are 

physiologically ready to move from the 

site. 

An example of a den abandonment in 

the early stages of denning occurred in 

January 1985, where a female polar bear 

appears to have abandoned her den in 

response to Rolligon traffic, which was 

occurring within 500 meters of the den 

site. In 2002, noise associated with a 

polar bear research camp in close 

proximity to a bear den is thought to 

have caused a female bear and her 

cub(s) to abandon their den and move 

to the ice prematurely. In 2006, a female 

and two cubs emerged from a den 400 

meters from an active river crossing 

construction site. The den site was 

abandoned within hours of cub 

emergence after only 3 days. In 2009, a 

female and two cubs emerged from a 

den site within 100 meters of an active 

ice road with heavy traffic and quickly 

abandoned the site. While such events 

may have occurred, information 

indicates they have been infrequent and 

isolated. It is important to note that the 

knowledge of these recent examples 

occurred because of the monitoring and 

reporting program established by the 

ITRs. 

Conversely, during the ice-covered 

seasons of 2000–2001 and 2001–2002, 

dens known to be active were located 

within approximately 0.4 km and 0.8 

km (0.25 mi and 0.5 mi), respectively, 

of remediation activities on Flaxman 

Island in the Beaufort Sea with no 

observed impact to the polar bears. This 

suggests that polar bears exposed to 

routine industrial noises may habituate 

to those noises and show less vigilance 

than bears not exposed to such stimuli. 

This observation came from a study that 

occurred in conjunction with industrial 

activities performed on Flaxman Island 

in 2002 and a study of undisturbed dens 

in 2002 and 2003 (N = 8) (Smith et al. 

2007). Researchers assessed vigilant 

behavior with two potential measures of 

disturbance: proportion of time 

scanning their surroundings and the 

frequency of observable vigilant 

behaviors. The two bears exposed to the 

industrial activity within 1.6 km spent 

less time scanning their surroundings 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13469 

than bears in undisturbed areas and 

engaged in vigilant behavior 

significantly less often. 

The potential for disturbance 

increases once the female emerges from 

the den, where she is potentially more 

vigilant to sights and in-air sounds as 

she uses the den site. As noted earlier, 

in some cases, while the female is in the 

den, Industry activities have progressed 

near the den sites with no perceived 

disturbance. Indeed, in the 2006 den 

incident previously discussed, it was 

believed that Industry activity 

commenced in the area after the den 

had been established. Ancillary 

activities occurred within 50 meters of 

the den site with no apparent 

disturbance while the female was in the 

den. Ongoing activity most likely had 

been occurring for approximately 3 

months in the vicinity of the den. 

Likewise, in 2009, two bear dens were 

located along an active ice road. The 

bear at one den site appeared to 

establish her site prior to ice road 

activity and was exposed to 

approximately three months of activity 

100 meters away and emerged at the 

appropriate time. The other den site was 

discovered after ice road construction 

commenced. This site was exposed to 

ice road activity, 100 meters away, for 

approximately one month. In all, there 

have been three recorded examples 

(2006, 2009, and 2010) of pregnant 

female bears establishing dens, prior to 

Industry activity occurring within 400 

meters of the den site, and remaining in 

the den through the normal denning 

cycle despite the nearby activity. 

More recent data suggests that, with 

proper mitigation measures in effect, 

activities can continue in the vicinity of 

dens until the emergence by the female 

bear. At that time, mitigation, such as 

activity shutdowns near the den and 24- 

hour monitoring of the den site can 

limit bear/human interactions, thereby 

allowing the female bear to abandon the 

den naturally and minimize impacts to 

the animals. For example, in the spring 

of 2010, an active den site was observed 

approximately 60 meters from a heavily 

used ice road. A 1-mile exclusion zone 

was established around the den, closing 

a 2-mile portion of the road. Monitors 

were assigned to observe bear activity 

and monitor human activity to 

minimize any other impacts to the bear 

group. These mitigation efforts 

minimized disturbance to the bears and 

allowed them to abandon the den site 

naturally. 

B. Mobile Sources 

During the open-water season in the 

SBS, polar bears spend the majority of 

their lives on the pack ice, which limits 

the chances of impacts on polar bears 

from Industry activities. Although polar 

bears have been documented in open 

water, miles from the ice edge or ice 

floes, this has been a relatively rare 

occurrence. In the open-water season, 

Industry activities are generally limited 

to vessel-based exploration activities, 

such as ocean-bottom cable (OBC) and 

shallow hazards surveys. These 

activities avoid ice floes and the 

multiyear ice edge; however, they may 

contact bears in open water and the 

effects of such encounters will be shortterm behavior disturbance. Polar bears 

are more likely to be affected by on-ice 

seismic surveys rather than open-water 

surveys. Although no on-ice seismic 

surveys have reported polar bear 

observations during the period of the 

last ITRs, disturbance from on-ice 

operations would most likely occur by 

vehicle and nonpermanent camp 

activity associated with the seismic 

project. These effects would be minimal 

due to the mobility of such projects and 

limited to small-scale alterations to bear 

movements. 

C. Vessel Traffic 

During the open-water season, most 

polar bears remain offshore associated 

with the multiyear pack ice and are not 

typically present in the ice-free areas 

where vessel traffic occurs. Barges and 

vessels associated with Industry 

activities travel in open water and avoid 

large ice floes. If there is any encounter 

between a vessel and a bear, it would 

most likely result in short-term 

behavioral disturbance only. Indeed, 

observations from monitoring programs 

report that in the rare occurrence when 

bears are encountered in open water 

swimming, they retreat from the vessel 

as it passes the bear. 

D. Aircraft Traffic 

Routine aircraft traffic should have 

little to no effect on polar bears; 

however, extensive or repeated 

overflights of fixed-wing aircraft or 

helicopters could disturb polar bears. 

Behavioral reactions of non-denning 

polar bears should be limited to shortterm changes in behavior, such as 

evading the plane by retreating from the 

stimulus. They would have no longterm impact on individuals and no 

discernible impacts on the polar bear 

population. In contrast, denning bears 

may abandon or depart their dens early 

in response to repeated noise produced 

by extensive aircraft overflights. 

Mitigation measures, such as minimum 

flight elevations over polar bears or 

areas of concern and flight restrictions 

around known polar bear dens, will be 

required, as appropriate, to reduce the 

likelihood that bears are disturbed by 

aircraft. 

E. Offshore Seismic Exploration and 

Exploratory Drilling 

Although polar bears are typically 

associated with the pack ice during 

summer and fall, open-water seismic 

exploration activities can encounter 

polar bears in the central Beaufort Sea 

in late summer or fall. It is unlikely that 

seismic exploration activities or other 

geophysical surveys during the openwater season would result in more than 

temporary behavioral disturbance to 

polar bears. Any disturbance would be 

visual and auditory in nature, where 

bears could be deflected from their 

route. Polar bears could be encountered 

on ice where they would be unaffected 

by underwater sound from the airguns. 

Bears could also be encountered in the 

water. Sound levels received by polar 

bears in the water would be attenuated 

because polar bears generally do not 

dive much below the surface and they 

normally swim with their heads above 

the surface, where noises produced 

underwater are weak. This occurs 

because received levels of airgun sounds 

are reduced near the surface because of 

the pressure release effect at the water’s 

surface (Greene and Richardson 1988, 

Richardson et al. 1995). 

Noise and vibrations produced by oil 

and gas activities during the ice-covered 

season could potentially result in 

impacts on polar bears. During this time 

of year, denning female bears as well as 

mobile, non-denning bears could be 

exposed to and affected differently by 

potential impacts from seismic 

activities. As stated earlier, disturbances 

to denning females, either on land or on 

ice are of particular concern. 

As part of the LOA application for 

seismic surveys during denning season, 

Industry provides us with the proposed 

seismic survey routes. To minimize the 

likelihood of disturbance to denning 

females, the Service evaluates these 

routes along with information about 

known polar bear dens, historic denning 

sites, and delineated denning habitat 

prior to authorizing seismic activities. 

Previous regulations have analyzed 

open water exploration activity, such as 

seismic and drilling, even though this 

type of open water activity has not 

occurred on an annual basis in the 

Beaufort Sea. In the previous ITRs, 

open-water seismic programs and 

exploratory drilling programs were 

analyzed for impacts to polar bears and 

walruses. Due to the limited scope of 

the planned offshore activities, the 

Service concluded that this level of 

activity would affect only small 

numbers of polar bears and walrus and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

would have no more than negligible 

effects on the populations. The actual 

number of offshore seismic projects 

during the previous regulatory period 

was smaller than the amount analyzed. 

We issued LOAs for five offshore 

seismic projects, and no offshore 

drilling projects occurred, even though 

drilling projects were requested twice 

during the previous ITRs (2006–2011). 

2. Physical Obstructions 

There is some chance that Industry 

facilities would act as physical barriers 

to movements of polar bears. Most 

facilities are located onshore and inland 

where polar bears are only occasionally 

found. The offshore and coastal 

facilities are most likely to be 

approached by polar bears. The majority 

of Industry bear observations occur 

within 1 mile of the coastline as bears 

use this area as travel corridors. Bears 

traversing along the coastline can 

encounter Industry facilities located on 

the coast, such as CPAI and Eni 

facilities at Oliktok Point and the Point 

Thomson development. As bears contact 

these facilities, the chances for bear/ 

human interactions increase. The 

Endicott and West Dock causeways, as 

well as the facilities supporting them 

have the potential to act as barriers to 

movements of polar bears because they 

extend continuously from the coastline 

to the offshore facility. However, polar 

bears appear to have little or no fear of 

man-made structures and can easily 

climb and cross gravel roads and 

causeways, and polar bears have 

frequently been observed crossing 

existing roads and causeways in the 

Prudhoe Bay oilfields. Offshore 

production facilities, such as Northstar, 

may be approached by polar bears, but 

due to their layout (i.e., continuous 

sheet pile walls around the perimeter) 

and monitoring plans the bears may not 

gain access to the facility itself. This 

situation may present a small-scale, 

local obstruction to the bears’ 

movement, but also minimizes the 

likelihood of bear/human encounters. 

3. Human Encounters 

Whenever humans work in polar bear 

habitat, there is a chance of an 

encounter, even though, historically, 

such encounters have been uncommon 

in association with Industry. Encounters 

can be dangerous for both polar bears 

and humans. 

Although bears may be found along 

the coast during open-water periods, 

most of the SBS bear stock inhabits the 

multiyear pack ice during this time of 

year. Encounters are more likely to 

occur during fall and winter periods 

when greater numbers of the bears are 

found in the coastal environment 

searching for food and possibly den 

sites later in the season. Potentially 

dangerous encounters are most likely to 

occur at gravel islands or on-ice 

exploratory sites. These sites are at ice 

level and are easily accessible by polar 

bears. Industry has developed and uses 

devices to aid in detecting polar bears, 

including bear monitors and motion 

detection systems. In addition, some 

companies take steps to actively prevent 

bears from accessing facilities using 

safety gates and fences. 

Offshore production islands, such as 

the Northstar production facility, may 

attract polar bears. In 2004, Northstar 

accounted for 41 percent of all polar 

bear observations Industry-wide. They 

reported 37 sightings in which 54 polar 

bears were observed. The offshore sites 

continue to account for the majority of 

the polar bear observations. The 

offshore facilities of Endicott, Liberty, 

Northstar, and Oooguruk accounted for 

47 percent of the bear observations 

between 2005 and 2008 (182 of 390 

sightings). It should be noted that, 

although most bears were observed 

passing through the area, the sites may 

also serve as an attractant, which could 

result in increased incidence of 

harassment of bears. Employee training 

and company policies currently reduce 

and mitigate such encounters. 

Depending upon the circumstances, 

bears can be either repelled from or 

attracted to sounds, smells, or sights 

associated with Industry activities. In 

the past, such interactions have been 

mitigated through conditions on the 

LOA, which require the applicant to 

develop a polar bear interaction plan for 

each operation. These plans outline the 

steps the applicant will take, such as 

garbage disposal procedures, to 

minimize impacts to polar bears by 

reducing the attraction of Industry 

activities to polar bears. Interaction 

plans also outline the chain of 

command for responding to a polar bear 

sighting. In addition to interaction 

plans, Industry personnel participate in 

polar bear interaction training while on 

site. 

Employee training programs are 

designed to educate field personnel 

about the dangers of bear encounters 

and to implement safety procedures in 

the event of a bear sighting. The result 

of these polar bear interaction plans and 

training allows on-site personnel to 

detect bears and respond safely and 

appropriately. Often, personnel are 

instructed to leave an area where bears 

are seen. Many times polar bears are 

monitored until they move out of the 

area. Sometimes, this response involves 

deterring the bear from the site. If bears 

are reluctant to leave on their own, in 

most cases bears can be displaced by 

using pyrotechnics (e.g., cracker shells) 

or other forms of deterrents (e.g., 

vehicle, vehicle horn, vehicle siren, 

vehicle lights, spot lights). The purpose 

of these plans and training is to 

eliminate the potential for injury to 

personnel or lethal take of bears in 

defense of human life. Since the 

regulations went into effect in 1993, 

there has been no known instance of a 

bear being killed or Industry personnel 

being injured by a bear as a result of 

Industry activities. The mitigation 

measures associated with these 

regulations have been proven to 

minimize bear/human interactions and 

will continue to be requirements of 

future LOAs, as appropriate. 

There is the potential for humans to 

come into contact with polar bear dens 

as well. Known polar bear dens around 

the oilfield, discovered 

opportunistically, or as a result of 

planned surveys, such as tracking 

marked bears or den detection surveys, 

are monitored by the Service. However, 

these sites are only a small percentage 

of the total active polar bear dens for the 

SBS stock in any given year. Industry 

routinely coordinates with the Service 

to determine the location of Industry’s 

activities relative to known dens and 

denning habitat. General LOA 

provisions require Industry operations 

to avoid known polar bear dens by 1 

mile. 

There is the possibility that an 

unknown den may be encountered 

during Industry activities as well. 

Between 2002 and 2010, six previously 

unknown maternal polar bears dens 

were encountered by Industry during 

the course of project activities. Once a 

previously unknown den is identified 

by Industry, the Service requires that 

the den be reported, triggering 

mitigation measures per response plans. 

Communication between Industry and 

the Service and the implementation of 

mitigation measures, such as the 1-mile 

exclusion area around the now known 

den and 24-hour monitoring of the site, 

ensures that disturbance is minimized. 

4. Effect on Prey Species 

Ringed seals are the primary prey of 

polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and 

inhabit the nearshore waters where 

offshore Industry activities occur. 

Industry will mainly have an effect on 

seals through the potential for 

contamination (oil spills) or industrial 

noise disturbance. Effects of 

contamination from oil discharges for 

seals are described in the following 

section, ‘‘Potential Impacts of Waste 

Product Discharge and Oil Spills on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13471 

Pacific Walruses and Polar Bears,’’ 

under the ‘‘Pacific Walrus’’ subsection. 

Studies have shown that seals can be 

displaced from certain areas such as 

pupping lairs or haulouts and abandon 

breathing holes near Industry activity. 

However, these disturbances appear to 

have minor effects and are short term. 

Evaluation of Anticipated Effects on 

Polar Bears 

The Service anticipates that potential 

impacts of Industry noise, physical 

obstructions, and human encounters on 

polar bears would be limited to shortterm changes in behavior and should 

have no long-term impact on 

individuals and no impacts on the polar 

bear population. 

Potential impacts will be mitigated 

through various requirements stipulated 

within LOAs. Mitigation measures 

required for all projects will include a 

polar bear and/or walrus interaction 

plan, and a record of communication 

with affected villages that may serve as 

the precursor to a POC with the village 

to mitigate effects of the project on 

subsistence activities. Mitigation 

measures that may be used on a case-bycase basis include the use of trained 

marine mammal monitors associated 

with marine activities, the use of den 

habitat maps developed by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), the use of 

FLIR or polar bear scent-trained dogs to 

determine the presence or absence of 

dens, timing of the activity to limit 

disturbance around dens, the 1-mile 

buffer surrounding known dens, and 

suggested work actions around known 

dens. The Service implements certain 

mitigation measures based on need and 

effectiveness for specific activities based 

largely on timing and location. For 

example, the Service will implement 

different mitigation measures for a 2- 

month-long exploration project 20 miles 

inland from the coast, than for an 

annual nearshore development project 

in shallow waters. For example, based 

on past monitoring information, bears 

are more prevalent in the coastal areas 

than 20 miles inland and, therefore, 

there may be differences in monitoring 

and mitigation measures required by the 

Service to limit the disturbance to bears 

and to limit human/bear interactions. 

The Service manages Industry 

activities occurring in polar bear 

denning habitat by applying proactive 

and reactive mitigation measures to 

limit Industry impact to denning bears. 

Proactive mitigation measures are 

actions taken to limit den site exposure 

to Industry activities in denning habitat 

before den locations are known. They 

include the requirement of a polar bear 

interaction plan, possible den detection 

surveys, and polar bear awareness and 

safety training. Reactive mitigation 

measures are actions taken to minimize 

Industry impact to polar bear dens once 

the locations have been identified. They 

can include applying the 1-mile buffer 

around the den site and 24-hour 

monitoring of the den site. 

An example of the application of this 

process would be in the case of Industry 

activities occurring around a known 

bear den, where a standard condition of 

LOAs requires Industry projects to have 

developed a polar bear interaction plan 

and to maintain a 1-mile buffer between 

Industry activities and any known 

denning sites. In addition, we may 

require Industry to avoid working in 

known denning habitat until bears have 

left their dens. To further reduce the 

potential for disturbance to denning 

females, we have conducted research, in 

cooperation with Industry, to enable us 

to accurately detect active polar bear 

dens through the use of remote sensing 

techniques, such as maps of denning 

habitat along the Beaufort Sea coast and 

FLIR imagery. 

FLIR imagery, as a mitigation tool, is 

used in cooperation with coastal polar 

bear denning habitat maps. Industry 

activity areas, such as coastal ice roads, 

are compared to polar bear denning 

habitat, and transects are then created to 

survey the specific habitat within the 

Industry area. FLIR heat signatures 

within a standardized den location 

protocol are noted, and further 

mitigation measures are placed around 

these locations. FLIR surveys are more 

effective at detecting polar bear dens 

than visual observations. The 

effectiveness increases when FLIR 

surveys are combined with site-specific, 

scent-trained dog surveys. These 

techniques will continue to be required 

as conditions of LOAs when 

appropriate. 

In addition, Industry has sponsored 

cooperative research evaluating polar 

bear hearing, the development of polar 

bear audiograms, the transmission of 

noise and vibration through the ground, 

snow, ice, and air; and the received 

levels of noise and vibration in polar 

bear dens. This information has been 

useful to refine site-specific mitigation 

measures. Using current mitigation 

measures, Industry activities have had 

no known polar bear population-level 

effects during the period of previous 

regulations. We anticipate that, with 

continued mitigation measures, the 

impacts to denning and non-denning 

polar bears will be at the same low level 

as in previous regulations. 

Monitoring data suggests that the 

number of polar bear encounters in the 

oil fields fluctuates from year to year. 

Polar bear observations by Industry 

increased between 2004 and 2009 (89 

bear observations in 2004 and 420 bear 

observations in 2009). These 

observations range from bears observed 

from a distance and passively moving 

through the area to bears that pose a 

threat to personnel and are hazed for 

their safety and the safety of Industry 

personnel. This increase in observations 

is believed to be due to an increased 

numbers of bears using terrestrial 

habitat, an effort by Industry and the 

Service to increase polar bear awareness 

and safety to Industry personnel, and an 

increase in the number of people 

monitoring bear activities around the 

facilities. Although bear observations 

appear to have increased, bear/human 

encounters remain uncommon events. 

We anticipate that bear/human 

encounters during the 5-year period of 

these regulations will remain 

uncommon. 

Potential Impacts of Waste Product 

Discharge and Oil Spills on Pacific 

Walruses and Polar Bears 

Individual walruses and polar bears 

can potentially be affected by Industry 

activities through waste product 

discharge and oil spills. These potential 

impacts are described below. 

Polar bear and walrus ranges overlap 

with many active and planned oil and 

gas operations. Polar bears may be 

susceptible to oil spills from platforms/ 

production facilities and pipelines in 

both offshore and onshore habitat, while 

walruses will be susceptible from 

offshore facilities. To date, no major 

offshore oil spills have occurred in the 

Alaska Beaufort Sea. Some on-shore 

spills have occurred on the North Slope 

at production facilities or pipelines 

connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System with no known impacts 

to polar bears. 

Oil spills are unintentional releases of 

oil or petroleum products. In 

accordance with the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Permit 

Program, all North Slope oil companies 

must submit an oil spill contingency 

plan. It is illegal to discharge oil into the 

environment, and a reporting system 

requires operators to report spills. 

Between 1977 and 1999, an average of 

70 oil and 234 waste product spills 

occurred annually on the North Slope 

oil fields. Although most spills have 

been small (less than 50 barrels) by 

Industry standards, larger spills (more 

than 500 barrels) accounted for much of 

the annual volume. Seven large spills 

have occurred between 1985 and 2009 

on the North Slope. The largest spill 

occurred in the spring of 2006 when 

approximately 260,000 gallons leaked 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

from flow lines near a gathering center. 

In November 2009, a 46,000 gallon spill 

occurred as well. These spills originated 

in the terrestrial environment in heavily 

industrialized areas not used by polar 

bears or walrus and posed minimal 

harm to walruses and polar bears. To 

date, no major offshore spills have 

occurred on the North Slope. 

Spills of crude oil and petroleum 

products associated with onshore 

production facilities during ice-covered 

and open-water seasons have been 

minor spills. Larger spills are generally 

production-related and could occur at 

any production facility or pipeline 

connecting wells to the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System. In addition to onshore 

sites, this could include offshore 

facilities, such as causeway-linked 

Endicott or the sub-sea pipeline-linked 

Northstar Island. The trajectories of 

large offshore spills from Northstar and 

the proposed Liberty facilities have been 

modeled and analyzed in past ITRs to 

examine potential impacts to polar 

bears. 

Oil spills in the marine environment 

that can accumulate at the ice edge, in 

ice leads, and similar areas of 

importance to polar bears and walruses 

are of particular concern. As additional 

offshore oil exploration and production 

projects come on line the potential for 

large spills in the marine environment 

increases. 

During the open water season, polar 

bears could encounter oil if it is released 

during exploratory operations, from 

existing offshore platforms, or from a 

marine vessel spill. Furthermore, the 

shipping of crude oil or oil products 

could also increase the likelihood of an 

oil spill due to predicted reductions in 

Arctic sea ice extent and improved 

access to shipping lanes, where a 

projected extended shipping season is 

expected to occur around the margins of 

the Arctic Basin. 

Spilled oil present in fall or spring 

during formation or breakup of ice 

presents a greater risk because of both 

the difficulties associated with cleaning 

oil in mixed, broken ice, and the 

presence of bears and other wildlife in 

prime feeding areas over the Continental 

Shelf during this period. Oil spills 

occurring in areas where polar bears are 

concentrated, such as along off-shore 

leads or polynyas, and along terrestrial 

habitat where marine mammal carcasses 

occur, such as at Cross and Barter 

islands during fall whaling, would affect 

more bears than spills in other areas. 

Oiling of food sources, such as ringed 

seals, may result in indirect effects on 

polar bears, such as a local reduction in 

ringed seal numbers, or a change to the 

local distribution of seals and bears. 

More direct effects on polar bears could 

occur from: (1) Ingestion of oiled prey, 

potentially resulting in reduced survival 

of individual bears; (2) oiling of fur and 

subsequent ingestion of oil from 

grooming; and (3) disturbance, injury, or 

death from interactions with humans 

during oil spill response activities. Polar 

bears may be particularly vulnerable to 

disturbance when nutritionally stressed 

and during denning. Cleanup operations 

that disturb a den could result in death 

of cubs through abandonment, and 

perhaps death of the sow as well. In 

spring, females with cubs of the year 

that denned near or on land and migrate 

to offshore areas may encounter oil 

(Stirling in Geraci and St. Aubin 1990). 

In the event of an oil spill, Service– 

approved response strategies are in 

place to reduce the impact of a spill on 

wildlife populations. Response efforts 

will be conducted under a three-tier 

approach characterized as: (1) Primary 

response—involving containment, 

dispersion, burning, or clean-up of oil; 

(2) secondary response—involving 

hazing, herding, preventative capture/ 

relocation, or additional methods to 

remove or deter wildlife from affected or 

potentially-affected areas; and (3) 

tertiary response—involving capture, 

cleaning, treatment, and release of 

wildlife. If the decision is made to 

conduct response activities, primary 

and secondary response options will be 

vigorously applied since little evidence 

exists that tertiary methods will be 

effective for cleaning oiled polar bears. 

OCS operators are advised to review 

the Service’s Oil Spill Response Plan for 

Polar Bears in Alaska at (http:// 

www.fws.gov/Contaminants/ 

FWS_OSCP_05/ 

FWSContingencyTOC.htm) when 

developing spill-response tactics. 

Several factors will be considered when 

responding to an oil spill. They include 

the location of the spill, the magnitude 

of the spill, oil viscosity and thickness, 

accessibility to spill site, spill trajectory, 

time of year, weather conditions (i.e., 

wind, temperature, precipitation), 

environmental conditions (i.e., presence 

and thickness of ice), number, age, and 

sex of polar bears that are (or are likely 

to be) affected, degree of contact, 

importance of affected habitat, cleanup 

proposal, and likelihood of bear/human 

interactions. 

The BOEMRE has acknowledged that 

there are difficulties in effective oil-spill 

response in broken ice conditions, and 

The National Academy of Sciences has 

determined that ‘‘no current cleanup 

methods remove more than a small 

fraction of oil spilled in marine waters, 

especially in the presence of broken 

ice.’’ The BOEMRE advocates the use of 

nonmechanical methods of spill 

response, such as in-situ burning, 

during periods when broken ice would 

hamper an effective mechanical 

response (MMS 2008b). An in situ burn 

has the potential to rapidly remove large 

quantities of oil and can be employed 

when broken-ice conditions may 

preclude mechanical response. 

However, oil spill cleanup in the broken 

ice and open water conditions that 

characterize Arctic waters is 

problematic. 

Evaluation of Effects of Oil Spills 

Pacific Walrus 

As stated earlier, the Beaufort Sea is 

not within the primary range for the 

Pacific walrus; therefore, the probability 

of walruses encountering oil or waste 

products as a result of a spill from 

Industry activities is low. Onshore oil 

spills would not impact walruses unless 

oil moved into the offshore 

environment. In the event of a spill that 

occurs during the open-water season, oil 

in the water column could drift offshore 

and possibly encounter a small number 

of walruses. Oil spills from offshore 

platforms could also contact walruses 

under certain conditions. Spilled oil 

during the ice-covered season not 

cleaned up could become part of the ice 

substrate and be eventually released 

back into the environment during the 

following open-water season. During 

spring melt, oil would be collected by 

spill response activities, but it could 

eventually contact a limited number of 

walruses. 

Little is known about the effects of oil 

specifically on walruses; no studies 

have been conducted. Hypothetically, 

walruses may react to oil much like 

other pinnipeds. Adult walruses may 

not be severely affected by the oil spill 

through direct contact, but they will be 

extremely sensitive to any habitat 

disturbance by human noise and 

response activities. In addition, due to 

the gregarious nature of walruses, an oil 

spill would most likely affect multiple 

individuals in the area. Walruses may 

also expose themselves more often to 

the oil that has accumulated at the edge 

of a contaminated shore or ice lead if 

they repeatedly enter and exit the water. 

Walrus calves are most likely to suffer 

the effects of oil contamination. Female 

walruses with calves are very attentive, 

and the calf will stay close to its mother 

at all times, including when the female 

is foraging for food. Walrus calves can 

swim almost immediately after birth 

and will often join their mother in the 

water. It is possible that an oiled calf 

will be unrecognizable to its mother 

either by sight or by smell, and be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13473 

abandoned. However, the greater threat 

may come from an oiled calf that is 

unable to swim away from the 

contamination and a devoted mother 

that would not leave without the calf, 

resulting in the potential mortality of 

both animals. 

Walruses have thick skin and blubber 

layers for insulation and very little hair. 

Thus, they exhibit no grooming 

behavior, which lessens their chance of 

ingesting oil. Heat loss is regulated by 

control of peripheral blood flow through 

the animal’s skin and blubber. The 

peripheral blood flow is decreased in 

cold water and increased at warmer 

temperatures. Direct exposure of 

walruses to oil is not believed to have 

any effect on the insulating capacity of 

their skin and blubber, although it is 

unknown if oil could affect their 

peripheral blood flow. 

Damage to the skin of pinnipeds can 

occur from contact with oil because 

some of the oil penetrates into the skin, 

causing inflammation and death of some 

tissue. The dead tissue is discarded, 

leaving behind an ulcer. While these 

skin lesions have only rarely been found 

on oiled seals, the effects on walruses 

may be greater because of a lack of hair 

to protect the skin. Direct exposure to 

oil can also result in conjunctivitis. Like 

other pinnipeds, walruses are 

susceptible to oil contamination in their 

eyes. Continuous exposure to oil will 

quickly cause permanent eye damage. 

Inhalation of hydrocarbon fumes 

presents another threat to marine 

mammals. In studies conducted on 

pinnipeds, pulmonary hemorrhage, 

inflammation, congestion, and nerve 

damage resulted after exposure to 

concentrated hydrocarbon fumes for a 

period of 24 hours. If the walruses were 

also under stress from molting, 

pregnancy, etc., the increased heart rate 

associated with the stress would 

circulate the hydrocarbons more 

quickly, lowering the tolerance 

threshold for ingestion or inhalation. 

Walruses are benthic feeders, and 

much of the benthic prey contaminated 

by an oil spill would be killed 

immediately. Others that survived 

would become contaminated from oil in 

bottom sediments, possibly resulting in 

slower growth and a decrease in 

reproduction. Bivalve mollusks, a 

favorite prey species of the walrus, are 

not effective at processing hydrocarbon 

compounds, resulting in highly 

concentrated accumulations and longterm retention of the contamination 

within the organism. In addition, 

because walruses feed primarily on 

mollusks, they may be more vulnerable 

to a loss of this prey species than other 

pinnipeds that feed on a larger variety 

of prey. Furthermore, complete recovery 

of a bivalve mollusk population may 

take 10 years or more, forcing walruses 

to find other food resources or move to 

nontraditional areas. 

The small number of walruses in the 

Beaufort Sea and the low potential for 

a large oil spill, which is discussed in 

the following Risk Assessment Analysis, 

limit potential impacts to walruses to 

only certain events (a large oil spill) and 

then only to a limited number of 

individuals. In the unlikely event there 

is an oil spill and walruses in the same 

area, mitigation measures, especially 

those to deflect and deter animals from 

spilled areas, would minimize any 

effect. Fueling crews have personnel 

that are trained to handle operational 

spills and contain them. If a small 

offshore spill occurs, spill response 

vessels are stationed in close proximity 

and respond immediately. A detailed 

discussion of oil spill prevention and 

response for walruses can be found at 

the following Web site: (http:// 

www.fws.gov/Contaminants/ 

FWS_OSCP_05/ 

fwscontingencyappendices/LWildlifePlans/WalrusWRP.doc). 

Polar Bear 

The possibility of oil and waste 

product spills from Industry activities 

and the subsequent impacts on polar 

bears are a major concern. Polar bears 

could encounter oil spills during the 

open-water and ice-covered seasons in 

offshore or onshore habitats. Although 

the majority of the SBS polar bear 

population spends much of their time 

offshore on the pack ice, some bears are 

likely to encounter oil regardless of the 

season or location in which a spill 

occurs. 

Small spills of oil or waste products 

throughout the year could potentially 

impact small numbers of bears. The 

effects of fouling fur or ingesting oil or 

wastes, depending on the amount of oil 

or wastes involved, could be short term 

or result in death. For example, in April 

1988, a dead polar bear was found on 

Leavitt Island, approximately 9.3 km (5 

nautical miles) northeast of Oliktok 

Point. The cause of death was 

determined to be poisoning by a mixture 

that included ethylene glycol and 

Rhodamine B dye. While the bear’s 

death was human-caused, the source of 

the mixture was unknown. 

During the ice-covered season, 

mobile, non-denning bears would have 

a higher probability of encountering oil 

or other production wastes than 

nonmobile, denning females. Current 

management practices by Industry, such 

as requiring the proper use, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous materials, 

minimize the potential occurrence of 

such incidents. In the event of an oil 

spill, it is also likely that polar bears 

would be intentionally hazed to keep 

them away from the area, further 

reducing the likelihood of impacting the 

population. 

In 1980, Canadian scientists 

performed experiments that studied the 

effects to polar bears of exposure to oil. 

Effects on experimentally oiled polar 

bears (where bears were forced to 

remain in oil for prolonged periods of 

time) included acute inflammation of 

the nasal passages, marked epidermal 

responses, anemia, anorexia, and 

biochemical changes indicative of 

stress, renal impairment, and death. 

Many effects did not become evident 

until several weeks after the experiment 

(Oritsland et al. 1981). 

Oiling of the pelt causes significant 

thermoregulatory problems by reducing 

the insulation value. Irritation or 

damage to the skin by oil may further 

contribute to impaired 

thermoregulation. Experiments on live 

polar bears and pelts showed that the 

thermal value of the fur decreased 

significantly after oiling, and oiled bears 

showed increased metabolic rates and 

elevated skin temperature. Oiled bears 

are also likely to ingest oil as they 

groom to restore the insulation value of 

the oiled fur. 

Oil ingestion by polar bears through 

consumption of contaminated prey, and 

by grooming or nursing, could have 

pathological effects, depending on the 

amount of oil ingested and the 

individual’s physiological state. Death 

could occur if a large amount of oil were 

ingested or if volatile components of oil 

were aspirated into the lungs. Indeed, 

two of three bears died in the Canadian 

experiment, and it was suspected that 

the ingestion of oil was a contributing 

factor to the deaths. Experimentally 

oiled bears ingested much oil through 

grooming. Much of it was eliminated by 

vomiting and in the feces; some was 

absorbed and later found in body fluids 

and tissues. 

Ingestion of sublethal amounts of oil 

can have various physiological effects 

on a polar bear, depending on whether 

the animal is able to excrete or detoxify 

the hydrocarbons. Petroleum 

hydrocarbons irritate or destroy 

epithelial cells lining the stomach and 

intestine, thereby affecting motility, 

digestion, and absorption. 

Polar bears swimming in, or walking 

adjacent to, an oil spill could inhale 

petroleum vapors. Vapor inhalation by 

polar bears could result in damage to 

various systems, such as the respiratory 

and the central nervous systems, 

depending on the amount of exposure. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Oil may also affect food sources of 

polar bears. Seals that die as a result of 

an oil spill could be scavenged by polar 

bears. This would increase exposure of 

the bears to hydrocarbons and could 

result in lethal impact or reduced 

survival to individual bears. A local 

reduction in ringed seal numbers as a 

result of direct or indirect effects of oil 

could temporarily affect the local 

distribution of polar bears. A reduction 

in density of seals as a direct result of 

mortality from contact with spilled oil 

could result in polar bears not using a 

particular area for hunting. Possible 

impacts from the loss of a food source 

could reduce recruitment and/or 

survival. 

Spilled oil also can concentrate and 

accumulate in leads and openings that 

occur during spring breakup and 

autumn freeze-up periods. Such a 

concentration of spilled oil would 

increase the chance that polar bears and 

their principal prey would be oiled. To 

access ringed and bearded seals, polar 

bears in the SBS concentrate in shallow 

waters less that 300 m deep over the 

continental shelf and in areas with 

greater than 50 percent ice cover 

(Durner et al. 2004). 

Due to their seasonal use of nearshore 

habitat, the times of greatest impact 

from an oil spill to polar bears are likely 

the open-water and broken-ice periods 

(summer and fall). This is important 

because distributions of polar bears are 

not uniform through time. Nearshore 

and offshore polar bear densities are 

greatest in fall, and polar bear use of 

coastal areas during the fall open-water 

period has increased in recent years in 

the Beaufort Sea. This change in 

distribution has been correlated with 

the distance to the pack ice at that time 

of year (i.e., the farther from shore the 

leading edge of the pack ice is, the more 

bears are observed onshore). An analysis 

of data collected 2001–2005 during the 

fall open-water period concluded: (1) 

On average approximately 4 percent of 

the estimated 1,526 polar bears in the 

Southern Beaufort population were 

observed onshore in the fall; (2) 80 

percent of bears onshore occurred 

within 15 km of subsistence-harvested 

bowhead whale carcasses, where large 

congregations of polar bears have been 

observed feeding; and (3) sea ice 

conditions affected the number of bears 

on land and the duration of time they 

spent there (Schliebe et al. 2006). 

Hence, bears concentrated in areas 

where beach-cast marine mammal 

carcasses occur during the fall would 

likely be more susceptible to oiling. 

The persistence of toxic subsurface oil 

and chronic exposures, even at 

sublethal levels, can have long-term 

effects on wildlife (Peterson et al. 2003). 

Although it may be true that small 

numbers of bears may be affected by an 

oil spill initially, the long-term impact 

could be much greater. Long-term oil 

effects could be substantial through 

interactions between natural 

environmental stressors and 

compromised health of exposed 

animals, and through chronic, toxic 

exposure as a result of bioaccumulation. 

Polar bears are biological sinks for 

pollutants because they are the apical 

predator of the Arctic ecosystem and are 

also opportunistic scavengers of other 

marine mammals. Additionally, their 

diet is composed mostly of high-fat 

sealskin and blubber, (Norstrom et al. 

1988). The highest concentrations of 

persistent organic pollutants in Arctic 

marine mammals have been found in 

polar bears and seal-eating walruses 

near Svalbard (Norstrom et al. 1988, 

Andersen et al. 2001, Muir et al. 1999). 

As such, polar bears would be 

susceptible to the effects of 

bioaccumulation of contaminants 

associated with spilled oil, which could 

affect the bears’ reproduction, survival, 

and immune systems. Sublethal, 

chronic effects of any oil spill may 

further suppress the recovery of polar 

bear populations due to reduced fitness 

of surviving animals. 

In addition, subadult polar bears are 

more vulnerable than adults to 

environmental effects (Taylor et al. 

1987). Subadult polar bears would be 

most prone to the lethal and sublethal 

effects of an oil spill due to their 

proclivity for scavenging (thus 

increasing their exposure to oiled 

marine mammals) and their 

inexperience in hunting. Because of the 

greater maternal investment a weaned 

subadult represents, reduced survival 

rates of subadult polar bears have a 

greater impact on population growth 

rate and sustainable harvest than 

reduced litter production rates (Taylor 

et al. 1987). 

To date, large oil spills from Industry 

activities in the Beaufort Sea and coastal 

regions that would impact polar bears 

have not occurred, although the interest 

in, and the development of, offshore 

hydrocarbon reservoirs has increased 

the potential for large offshore oil spills. 

With limited background information 

available regarding oil spills in the 

Arctic environment, the outcome of 

such a spill is uncertain. For example, 

in the event of a large spill (e.g., 5,900 

barrels (equal to a rupture in the 

Northstar pipeline and a complete drain 

of the subsea portion of the pipeline), 

oil would be influenced by seasonal 

weather and sea conditions including 

temperature, winds, wave action, and 

currents. Weather and sea conditions 

also affect the type of equipment needed 

for spill response and the effectiveness 

of spill cleanup. Based on the 

experiences of cleanup efforts following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill, where 

logistical support was readily available, 

spill response may be largely 

unsuccessful in open-water conditions. 

Indeed, spill response drills have been 

unsuccessful in the cleanup of oil in 

broken-ice conditions. 

The major concern regarding large oil 

spills is the impact a spill would have 

on the survival and recruitment of the 

SBS polar bear population. Currently, 

this bear population is approximately 

1,500 bears. In addition, the maximum 

sustainable subsistence harvest is now 

70 bears for this population (divided 

between Canada and Alaska). The 

population may be able to sustain the 

additional mortality caused by a large 

oil spill if a small number of bears are 

killed; however, the additive effect of 

numerous bear deaths due to the direct 

or indirect effects from a large oil spill 

are more likely to reduce population 

recruitment and survival. Indirect 

effects may occur through a local 

reduction in seal productivity or 

scavenging of oiled seal carcasses and 

other potential impacts, both natural 

and human-induced. The removal of a 

large number of bears from the 

population would exceed sustainable 

levels, potentially causing a decline in 

the bear population and affecting bear 

productivity and subsistence use. 

Evaluation of the potential impacts of 

Industry waste products and oil spills 

suggest that individual bears could be 

impacted by the disturbances (Oritsland 

et al. 1981). Depending on the amount 

of oil or wastes involved and the timing 

and location of a spill, impacts could be 

short-term, chronic, or lethal. In order 

for bear population reproduction or 

survival to be impacted, a large-volume 

oil spill would have to take place. The 

following section analyzes the 

likelihood and potential effects of such 

a large-volume oil spill. 

Oil Spill Risk Assessment of Potential 

Impacts to Polar Bears From a Large 

Oil Spill in the Beaufort Sea 

Potential adverse impacts to polar 

bears and Pacific walruses from oil and 

waste-product spills as a result of 

industrial activities in the Beaufort Sea 

are a major concern. As part of the 

incidental take regulatory process, the 

Service evaluates potential impacts of 

oil spills within the proposed regulation 

area, even though the action of an oil 

spill and the possible lethal outcome to 

an animal are not authorized. Through 

experience and current data, the Service 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13475 

has determined that the offshore 

environment is the area where its trust 

species will be most vulnerable to oil 

spill impacts. In this section, we assess 

the risk that polar bears may be oiled 

using various sources of information. 

This information includes: the 

description of offshore facilities; 

BOEMRE oil spill risk assessment for 

the Beaufort Sea; the overview of the 

Risk Assessment from the previous 

ITRs; and information from Servicesupported polar bear aerial coastal 

surveys. 

There is increasing interest in 

developing offshore oil reserves in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where the 

estimate of recoverable oil is up to 

approximately 19 billion barrels 

(BOEMRE 2010a). Development of 

offshore production facilities and 

pipelines increases the potential for 

large offshore spills. Oil spilled from an 

offshore facility or subsea pipeline is a 

scenario that has been considered in 

previous regulations (71 FR 43926). 

With the limited background 

information available regarding the 

effects of large oil spills in the offshore 

Arctic environment, the impact of a 

large oil spill is uncertain. As far as is 

known, polar bears have not been 

affected by oil spilled as a result of 

North Slope industrial activities to date. 

As previously noted, walruses are rare 

in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, they are 

unlikely to encounter oil spills there, 

and were not considered in this 

analysis. Several factors must be 

considered when developing an oil spill 

risk assessment for polar bears. They 

include: 

1. The location of spill; 

2. Magnitude of spill; 

3. Oil viscosity and thickness; 

4. Accessibility to spill site; 

5. Spill trajectory; 

6. Time of year; 

7. Weather conditions (i.e., wind, 

temperature, precipitation); 

8. Environmental conditions (i.e., 

presence and thickness of ice); 

9. Number, age, and sex of polar bears 

that are (or are likely to be) affected; 

10. Degree of contact; 

11. Importance of affected habitat; and 

12. Mitigation to limit bears from 

spilled oil. 

Description of Offshore Facilities 

Currently, there are three offshore 

Industry facilities producing oil in the 

Beaufort Sea: Endicott, Northstar, and 

Oooguruk. Two more, Liberty and 

Nikaitchuq, are expected to commence 

production during the 5-year period 

analyzed for these regulations. The 

Endicott oilfield is located 

approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast 

of Prudhoe Bay. Endicott, which is 

connected by a causeway to the 

mainland, began production in 1986. 

The Liberty field is currently under 

development; the current project 

concept is to use ultra-extended-reach 

drilling technology to access the Liberty 

reservoir from existing facilities at the 

Endicott Satellite Drilling Island. The 

Northstar oilfield, which is located 10 

km (6 mi) from Prudhoe Bay, began 

producing oil in 2001. Northstar oil is 

transported from a gravel island in the 

Beaufort Sea to shore via a 10-km (6-mi) 

subsea pipeline buried in a trench in the 

sea floor. Endicott and Liberty oils are 

medium-weight viscous crudes with 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

gravities of 24 and 27 degrees, 

respectively. Northstar crude is a very 

light, low-viscosity oil with an API 

gravity of 42. 

The Oooguruk Unit is located 

adjacent to the Kuparuk River Unit in 

shallow waters of Harrison Bay. Pioneer 

and its partner, Eni, constructed an 

offshore drill site there in 2006 on State 

of Alaska leases. A subsea flow line was 

also constructed to transfer produced 

fluids 9.2 km (5.7 mi) from the offshore 

drill site to shore. Oooguruk began 

production in 2008. The Oooguruk 

development has targeted two separate 

reservoirs from a single offshore drill 

site. The principal reservoir is the 

Nuiqsut, an Upper Jurassic, inner shelf 

sandstone that contains heavy to 

medium oil with 19–25° American 

Petroleum Institute (API) gravity. The 

secondary reservoir is the Kuparuk C 

sandstone, which consists of medium 

viscosity oil ranging from 24–26° API 

gravity. Peak oil production is 

anticipated to be approximately 18,000 

to 20,000 barrels of oil per day. As 

described earlier, both Nikaitchuq and 

Oooguruk are located in shallow water 

(less than 10 feet). The offshore portion 

of Nikaitchuq is located south of the 

barrier islands, while Oooguruk is 

located southeast of Thetis Island in the 

Colville River outflow. Facilities for the 

Nikaitchuq Unit are located at Oliktok 

Point and at an offshore pad near Spy 

Island, 6.4 km (4 mi) north of Oliktok 

Point. The offshore pad is located in 

shallow water 3 meters (10 feet). Oil 

from the Nikaitchuq prospect is a heavy 

crude from the Schrader Bluff 

formation, sometimes with sand in it, 

found in a shallow reservoir (less than 

4,000 feet). It requires an electrical 

submersible pump to produce oil. 

According to the operators, the flow can 

be stopped by turning off the pump. Oil 

production at Nikaitchuq is anticipated 

to begin in 2011. 

Oil Spill Analysis 

The oil-spill scenario for this analysis 

considers the potential impacts from 

large oil spills resulting from oil 

production at the four developments 

described above (Endicott and Liberty 

are considered to be a complex for 

analysis purposes). Estimating large oilspill occurrence and behavior is a 

probability exercise. Uncertainty exists 

regarding the location and size of a large 

oil spill and the wind, ice, and current 

conditions at the time of a spill. 

Although some of the uncertainty 

reflects incomplete or imperfect data, a 

considerable amount of uncertainty 

exists simply because it is difficult to 

predict events over the next 5 years. 

In order to address oil spill impacts to 

polar bears from the offshore sites, we 

analyzed quantitative and anecdotal 

information. The quantitative 

assessment of oil spill risk for the 

current request for incidental take 

regulations considered conditional oil 

spill probabilities from four offshore 

sites: Northstar, Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, 

and the Endicott/Liberty prospect; oil 

spill trajectory models; and a polar bear 

distribution model. The analysis 

included information from the Bureau 

of Ocean and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

Oil spill Risk analysis in regard to polar 

bears, reviewed previous risk 

assessment information of polar bears in 

prior ITRs, and analyzed polar bear 

distribution using the Service’s coastal 

survey data for 2000 to present. 

BOEMRE Oil Spill Risk Assessment 

Because it provides the most current 

and rigorous treatment of potential oil 

spills in the Beaufort Sea, our analysis 

of potential oil spill impacts draws 

upon the BOEMRE’s most recent Oil 

Spill Risk Analysis (OSRA) (MMS 

2008a) to help elucidate potential 

impacts of an oil spill to polar bears. 

The OSRA is a computer model that 

analyzes how and where large offshore 

spills will likely move (Smith et al. 

1982). To estimate the likely trajectory 

potential oil spills may follow, the 

OSRA model uses information about the 

physical environment, including data 

on wind, sea ice, and currents. Although 

the OSRA estimates that the statistical 

mean number of large spills is less than 

one over the life of most developments 

in the Beaufort Sea, for purposes of this 

analysis we assume one large spill 

occurs and then analyze its effects. 

Large Spill Size and Source 

Assumptions 

As stated in Appendix A of the Arctic 

Multi-sale DEIS (MMS 2008b), large 

spills are those spills of 1,000 barrels 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(bbl) or more and would persist on the 

water long enough to follow in a 

trajectory analysis. Spills smaller than 

1,000 bbl would not be expected to 

persist on the water long enough to 

warrant a trajectory analysis. Because no 

large spills have occurred on the Alaska 

OCS to date from oil and gas activities, 

the large spill-size assumptions used by 

BOEMRE are based on the reported 

spills from oil production in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Pacific OCS regions. 

BOEMRE uses the median spill size in 

the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS 

from 1985 through 1999 as the likely 

large spill size for analysis purposes. 

The median size of a crude oil spill 

greater than or equal to 1,000 bbl from 

a pipeline from 1985 through 1999 on 

the U.S. OCS was 4,600 bbl, and the 

average was 6,700 bbl (Anderson and 

LaBelle 2000). The median spill size for 

a platform on the OCS over the entire 

record 1964–1999, based on analysis, is 

1,500 bbl, and the average is 3,300 bbl 

(Anderson and LaBelle 2000). For 

purposes of analysis, we use the median 

spill size estimates from BOEMRE as the 

likely large spill size from platforms and 

pipelines. 

Our analysis is predicated on the 

BOEMRE assumption that large spills 

would occur only during development 

and production in the Arctic (MMS 

2008a). BOEMRE still considers 

assumptions from the DEIS of the 

Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning 

Areas to be valid despite the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill event in the summer of 

2010. Currently, BOEMRE is working on 

a new large spill projection for the 

Arctic OCS in regard to new information 

gleaned from the Deepwater Horizon 

event. However, considering the low 

number of exploratory wells that have 

occurred in the Beaufort Sea OCS (31 

wells since 1982 [BOEMRE 2010b]) and 

the low rate of exploratory drilling 

blowouts per well drilled, it is 

reasonable to conclude that the risk of 

a large spill occurring during 

exploration of the Arctic OCS is very 

small. In addition, it is important to 

note that Industry does not plan to 

conduct drilling operations at more than 

three exploration sites in the Beaufort 

Sea OCS for the duration of the 5-year 

regulatory period. 

Between 1971 and 2007, OCS 

operators have produced almost 15 

billion barrels (Bbbl) of oil in the United 

States. During this period, there were 

2,645 spills that totaled approximately 

164,100 barrels spilled (equal to 0.001 

percent of barrels produced), or about 1 

bbl spilled for every 91,400 bbl 

produced. Between 1993 and 2007, the 

most recent 15-year period analyzed, 

almost 7.5 Bbbl of oil were produced. 

During this period, there were 651 spills 

that totaled approximately 47,800 bbl 

spilled (equal to 0.0006 percent of 

barrels produced), or approximately 1 

bbl spilled for every 156,900 bbl 

produced. 

Within the duration of the previous 

ITRs, two large onshore terrestrial oil 

spills occurred as a result of failures in 

the oil production transport system. In 

the spring of 2006, an oil spill of 

approximately 260,000 gallons occurred 

near an oil gathering center facility from 

a corroded pipeline operated by BP 

Exploration (Alaska). The spill impacted 

approximately 2 acres (8 square meters). 

In November 2009, a 48,000-gallon spill 

from a ‘‘common line’’ carrying oil, 

water, and natural gas operated by BP 

occurred as well, impacting 

approximately 8,400 square feet (780 

square meters). Neither spill appeared to 

impact polar bears, in part due to the 

locations: Both sites were within or near 

industrial facilities not frequented by 

bears; and timing: Polar bears are not 

typically observed in the affected areas 

during the time of the spills and 

subsequent cleanup. 

Trajectory Estimates of a Large 

Offshore Oil Spill 

Although it is reasonable to assume 

that the chance of one or more large 

spills occurring during the period of 

these regulations on the Alaskan OCS 

from production activities is low, for 

analysis purposes, we assume that a 

large spill does occur in order to 

evaluate potential impacts to polar 

bears. The BOEMRE OSRA model 

analyzes the likely paths of over two 

million simulated oil spills in relation 

to biological, physical, and sociocultural 

resource areas specific to the Beaufort 

Sea, which are generically called 

environmental resource areas (ERAs). 

The chance that a large oil spill will 

contact a specific ERA of concern 

within a given time of travel from a 

certain location (launch area or pipeline 

segment) is termed a conditional 

probability. We used the BOEMRE 

OSRA analysis from the Arctic Multisale DEIS to estimate the conditional 

probabilities of a large spill contacting 

sensitive ERAs pertinent to polar bears. 

Oil-Spill Persistence 

How long an oil spill persists on 

water or on the shoreline can vary, 

depending upon the size of the oil spill, 

the environmental conditions at the 

time of the spill, and the substrate of the 

shoreline. In its oil spill analysis, 

BOEMRE conservatively assumes 1,500- 

and 4,600-bbl spills could last up to 30 

days on the water as a coherent slick. To 

be even more conservative, we 

considered BOEMRE conditional 

probabilities out to 60 days for an open 

water (July–September) spill. We 

assume that a spill could last longer as 

a coherent slick if it became entrained 

in the ice and melts out in the spring. 

Therefore, we assume that winter spills 

(October–June) could last up to 180 days 

as a coherent slick. 

We used the BOEMRE maps of launch 

areas (LAs) and pipeline segments (PLs) 

from Appendix A of the Arctic Multisale DEIS (Map A.1–4) to represent the 

location of oil spills originating from the 

four OCS developments described 

previously. Specifically, we assigned LA 

08 and PL 10 to Oooguruk, LA 10 and 

PL 10 to Nikaitchuq, LA 12 and PL 11 

to Northstar, and LA 12 and PL 12 to 

Endicott/Liberty. Conditional 

probabilities for contact from spills from 

LAs and PLs should be considered 

slightly higher for Oooguruk and 

Nikaitchuq because the hypothetical 

pipelines used by BOEMRE in their 

OSRA model are much longer than 

actual existing offshore pipelines in the 

Beaufort Sea (i.e., the model pipelines 

extend beyond the barrier islands). 

Oil-Spill-Trajectory Model 

Assumptions 

For purposes of this oil spill trajectory 

simulation, BOEMRE made the 

following assumptions: 

• All spills occur instantaneously; 

• Large oil spills occur in the 

hypothetical launch areas or along the 

hypothetical pipeline segments noted 

above; 

• Large spills do not weather for 

purposes of OSRA analysis; 

• The model does not simulate 

cleanup scenarios. The oil spill 

trajectories move as though no oil spill 

response action is taken; and 

• Large oil spills stop when they 

contact the mainland coastline. 

Analysis of the Oil-Spill-Trajectory 

Model 

As noted above, the chance that a 

large oil spill will contact a specific 

ERA of concern within a given time of 

travel from a certain location (LA or PL) 

is termed a conditional probability. 

From the DEIS, Appendix A, we chose 

ERAs and Land Segments (LSs) to 

represent areas of concern pertinent to 

polar bears (MMS 2008a). Those ERAs 

and LSs, and the conditional 

probabilities that an oil spill originating 

from one of the four existing OCS 

developments would contact them, are 

presented in Table 1. From Table 1 we 

were able to estimate the highest 

probability and the range of 

probabilities that could occur should a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13477 

spill contact the selected land segments 

from launch areas or pipeline segments. 

BILLING CODE 3410–55–C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR11.000</GPH>
13478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Polar bears are most vulnerable to an 

oil spill during the open water period 

when bears aggregate on shore. In the 

Beaufort Sea these aggregations often 

form in the fall near subsistenceharvested bowhead whale carcasses. 

Specific aggregation areas include Point 

Barrow, Cross Island, and Kaktovik. In 

recent years, more than 60 polar bears 

have been observed feeding on whale 

carcasses just outside of Kaktovik, and 

in the autumn of 2002, NSB and Service 

biologists documented more than 100 

polar bears in and around Barrow. In 

order for significant impacts on polar 

bears to occur, an oil spill would have 

to contact an aggregation of polar bears. 

We believe the probability of this 

occurring is low. For example, in the 

unlikely event of an oil spill, the 

probability of it contacting a polar bear 

aggregation in resource areas or land 

segments (ERA 55, 93, 95, 96, 100; LS 

85, 107) is 13 percent or less (Table 1). 

The greatest probability would be oil 

spilled from Northstar or Endicott/ 

Liberty Launch Areas contacting ERA 96 

(Midway, Cross, and Bartlett islands). 

Some polar bears will aggregate at these 

sites during a 3-month portion of the 

year (August–October). If an oil spill 

occurred and contacted those 

aggregation sites outside of that 

timeframe of use by polar bears, 

potential impacts to polar bears would 

be minimized. 

Coastal areas provide important 

denning habitat for polar bears, such as 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(ANWR) and nearshore barrier islands 

exhibiting relief (containing tundra 

habitat) (Amstrup 1993, Amstrup and 

Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2006, 

USFWS unpubl. data). Considering that 

65 percent of confirmed terrestrial dens 

found in Alaska from 1981 through 2005 

were on coastal or island bluffs (Durner 

et al. 2006), oiling of such habitats could 

have a negative impact on polar bears, 

although specific nature and 

ramifications of such effects are 

unknown. 

If an oil spill does occur, tundra relief 

barrier islands (ERA 92, 93, and 94, LS 

97 and 102) would have up to a 12 

percent conditional probability of spill 

contact (range: Less than 1 percent to 12 

percent) from either Northstar or the 

Endicott/Liberty complex (Table 1). The 

highest conditional probability of a spill 

contacting the coastline of the ANWR 

(LS 138) would be 11 percent. The 

Kaktovik area (ERA 95 and 100, LS 107) 

has up to a 5 percent chance of spill 

contact, assuming spills occur during 

the summer season and contact the 

coastline within 60 days. The chance of 

a spill contacting the coast near Barrow 

(ERA 55, LS 85) would be as high as 5 

percent (Table 1). 

All barrier islands are important 

resting and travel corridors for polar 

bears, larger barrier islands that contain 

tundra relief are also important denning 

habitat. Tundra-bearing barrier islands 

within the geographic region and near 

oil field development are the Jones 

Island group of Pingok, Bertoncini, 

Bodfish, Cottle, Howe, Foggy, Tigvariak, 

and Flaxman islands. In addition, Cross 

Island has gravel relief and polar bears 

have previously denned on it. The Jones 

Island group is located in ERA 92 and 

LS 97. If a spill were to originate from 

Oooguruk during the summer months, 

the probability that this spill would 

contact these land segments could be as 

great as 8 percent from a pipeline 

segment. The probability that a spill 

from Nikaitchuq would contact the 

Jones Island group would range from 1 

percent to as high as 11 percent. 

Likewise, for Northstar and the 

Endicott/Liberty complex, the range 

would be from 4 percent to as high as 

12 percent and from 3 percent to as high 

as 12 percent, respectively. 

Risk Assessment From Prior Incidental 

Take Regulations (ITRs) 

In previous ITRs, we used a risk 

assessment method that considered oil 

spill probability estimates for two sites 

(Northstar and Liberty), oil spill 

trajectory models, and a polar bear 

distribution model based on location of 

satellite-collared females during 

September and October. To support the 

analysis for this proposed action, we 

reviewed the previous analysis and used 

the data to compare the potential effects 

of an oil spill in a nearshore production 

facility (less than 5 miles), such as 

Liberty, and a facility located further 

offshore, such as Northstar (greater than 

5 miles). Although Liberty was 

originally designed as an offshore 

production island, it is currently being 

developed as an onshore production 

facility (connected to the mainland by a 

causeway) using ultra-extended reach 

technology to drill directionally into the 

oil prospect. Even though the risk 

assessment of 2006 did not specifically 

model spills from the Oooguruk or 

Nikaitchuq sites, we believed it was 

reasonable to assume that the analysis 

for Liberty, and indirectly Northstar, 

adequately reflected the potential 

impacts likely to occur from an oil spill 

at either of these additional locations 

due to the similarity in the nearshore 

locations. 

Methodology of Prior Risk Assessment 

The first step in the risk assessment 

analysis was to examine oil spill 

probabilities at offshore production sites 

for the summer (July–October) and 

winter (November–June) seasons based 

on information presented in the original 

Northstar and Liberty EIS. We assumed 

that one spill occurred during the 5-year 

period covered by the regulations. A 

detailed description of the methodology 

can be found at 71 FR 43926 (August 2, 

2006). The second step in the risk 

assessment was to estimate the number 

of polar bears that could be impacted by 

a spill. If a bear contacted oil, it was 

assumed to be a lethal contact. This 

involved estimating the distribution of 

bears that could be in the area and 

overlapping polar bear distributions and 

seasonal aggregations with oil spill 

trajectories. The trajectories previously 

calculated for Northstar and Liberty 

sites were used, as well as BOEMRE 

estimates of where oil spills from other 

production facilities were likely to go. 

The trajectories for Northstar and 

Liberty were provided by the BOEMRE 

and reported in Amstrup et al. (2006). 

BOEMRE estimated probable sizes of oil 

spills from the transportation pipeline 

and production platforms. These spill 

sizes ranged from a minimum of 125 to 

a catastrophic release event of 5,912 

barrels. Hence, researchers set the size 

of the modeled spill at the worst-case 

scenario of 5,912 barrels, simulating 

rupture and drainage of a pipeline. 

The second component incorporated 

polar bear densities overlapped with the 

oil spill trajectories. To accomplish this, 

in 2004, USGS completed analysis 

investigating the potential effects of 

hypothetical oil spills on polar bears. 

Movement and distribution information 

was derived from radio and satellite 

relocations of collared adult females. 

Density estimates were used to 

determine the distribution of polar bears 

in the Beaufort Sea. Researchers then 

created a grid system centered over the 

Northstar production island and the 

Liberty site to estimate the number of 

bears expected to occur within each 1 

km2 grid cell. Each of the simulated oil 

spills were overlaid with the polar bear 

distribution grid. Finally, the likelihood 

of occurrence of bears oiled during the 

duration of the 5-year incidental take 

regulations was estimated. This was 

calculated by multiplying the number of 

polar bears oiled by the spill by the 

percentage of time bears were at risk for 

each period of the year, and summing 

these probabilities. 

In summary, the maximum numbers 

of bears potentially oiled by a 5,912- 

barrel spill during September open 

water seasons from Northstar was 27, 

and the maximum from Liberty was 23. 

Potentially oiled bears ranged up to 74 

polar bears and up to 55 polar bears in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13479 

October mixed-ice conditions for 

Northstar and Liberty, respectively. 

Median number of bears oiled by the 

5,912-barrel spill in September and 

October were 3 and 11 bears from 

Northstar simulation site, respectively. 

Median numbers of bears oiled for 

September and October for the Liberty 

simulation site were 1 and 3 bears, 

respectively. Variation occurred among 

oil spill scenarios and was the result of 

differences in oil spill trajectories 

among those scenarios and not the 

result of variation in the estimated bear 

densities. For example, in October, 75 

percent of trajectories from the 5,912- 

barrel spilled oil affected 20 or fewer 

polar bears from spills originating at the 

Northstar simulation site and 9 or fewer 

bears from spills originating at the 

Liberty simulation site. 

When calculating the probability that 

a spill would oil 5 or more bears during 

the annual fall period, we found that oil 

spills and trajectories were more likely 

to affect small numbers of bears (less 

than 5 bears) than larger numbers of 

bears. Thus, for Northstar, the 

probability of spilled oil that affected 

(resulting in mortality) 5 or more bears 

is 1.0–3.4 percent; for 10 or more bears 

is 0.7–2.3 percent; and for 20 or more 

bears is 0.2–0.8 percent. For Liberty, the 

probability of a spill that will cause a 

mortality of 5 or more bears was 0.3–7.4 

percent; for 10 or more bears, 0.1–0.4 

percent; and for 20 or more bears, 0.1– 

0.2 percent. 

Discussion of Prior Risk Assessment 

Location of Industry sites within the 

marine environment is important when 

analyzing the potential for polar bears to 

contact an oil spill. Simulations from 

the prior risk assessment suggested that 

bears have a higher probability of being 

oiled from facilities located further 

offshore, such as Northstar. Northstar 

Island is nearer the active ice flaw zone 

and in deeper water than Endicott/ 

Liberty, Oooguruk, and Nikaitchuq. 

Furthermore, it is not sheltered from 

deep water by barrier islands. These 

characteristics associated with Industry 

developments located further offshore 

would potentially attract more polar 

bears into close proximity with the 

island and would also allow oil to 

spread more effectively and more 

consistently into surrounding areas. By 

comparison through the model, the 

land-fast ice inside the shelter of the 

islands appeared to dramatically restrict 

the extent of most oil spills in 

comparison to Northstar, which lies 

outside the barrier islands and in deeper 

water. From the standpoint of polar 

bears and based on the simulations, a 

nearshore island production site (less 

than 5 miles) would potentially involve 

less risk to being oiled than a facility 

located further offshore, such as 

Northstar Island. Shell may develop an 

offshore site (Suvulliq) in the active 

flaw zone during the period of the 

proposed action. If developed, future 

scenarios for this prospect will be 

similar to Northstar and would 

influence polar bears in a similar 

manner. 

Discussion of Polar Bear Aerial Coastal 

Surveys for Current Analysis 

The Service has an ongoing project to 

monitor polar bear distribution and 

numbers along the Beaufort Sea 

coastline during the fall season. These 

aerial surveys were conducted between 

2000 to 2009. From 2000 to 2005, the 

Service investigated the relationship 

between sea ice conditions, food 

availability, and the fall distribution of 

polar bears in terrestrial habitats of the 

SBS via weekly aerial surveys. Aerial 

surveys were conducted weekly during 

September and October along the SBS 

coastline and barrier islands between 

Barrow and the Canadian border to 

determine polar bear density during the 

peak use of terrestrial habitat by bears. 

The Service observed that the number of 

bears on land increased when sea-ice 

retreated farthest from the shore. The 

distribution of bears also appeared to be 

related to the availability of subsistenceharvested bowhead whale carcasses and 

the density of ringed seals in offshore 

waters. 

Between 2000 and 2005, the 

maximum density estimate of bears 

observed during any single survey was 

8.6 bears/100 km or 122 bears total. 

Across all years (2000 to 2005) and 

survey dates between mid-September 

and the end of October, an average of 4 

bears/100 km (57 bears total) were 

observed. The Service estimated that a 

maximum of 8.0 percent and an average 

of 3.7 percent of the estimated 1,526 

bears in the SBS population were 

observed on land during the late openwater and broken-ice period. This 

period coincides with increased 

aggregations of bears in the nearshore at 

feeding sites and the peak observation 

period (August through October) of 

bears observed from Industry as 

reported through their bear monitoring 

programs. This would be the period 

posing the greatest risk to the largest 

number of bears from an oil spill. 

The number of bears observed per 

kilometer of survey flown was higher 

between Cape Halkett and Jago Spit (4 

bears/100 km) than the area surveyed 

between Barrow and the Canadian 

border (3 bears/100 km) during the 

2003–2005 surveys. The Service 

reported that this difference was largely 

driven by a major concentration of bears 

(69 percent of total bears onshore) at 

Barter Island (17.0 polar bears/100 km). 

In addition, annual surveys were also 

conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The 

number of bears observed during weekly 

surveys ranged between 2 to 51, 2 to 78, 

and 7 to 75, respectively. The highest 

concentrations continued to be in the 

area of Barter Island and the community 

of Kaktovik. Using the above 

information, if a spill occurred during 

the fall open-water or broken-ice period, 

up to 8 percent of the SBS population 

could potentially contact oil. 

Conclusion of Risk Assessment 

In summary, documented oil spillrelated impacts in the marine 

environment to polar bears to date in 

the Beaufort Sea by the oil and gas 

Industry are minimal. To date, no large 

spills in the marine environment have 

occurred in Arctic Alaska. Nevertheless, 

the possibility of oil spills from Industry 

activities and the subsequent impacts on 

polar bears that contact oil remain a 

major concern. 

With the limited background 

information available regarding oil 

spills in the Arctic environment, it is 

unknown what the outcome of such a 

spill would be if one were to occur. 

Polar bears could encounter oil spills 

during the open-water and ice-covered 

seasons in offshore or onshore habitat. 

Although the majority of the SBS polar 

bear population spends a large amount 

of their time offshore on the pack ice, it 

is likely that some bears would 

encounter oil from a spill regardless of 

the season and location. 

Although the extent of oil spill 

impacts would depend on the size, 

location, and timing of spills relative to 

polar bear distributions and on the 

effectiveness of spill response and 

cleanup efforts, under some scenarios, 

population-level impacts could be 

expected. A large spill could have 

significant impacts on polar bears if an 

oil spill contacted an aggregation of 

polar bears, which generally occur in 

discrete areas in the terrestrial 

environment. A spill occurring during 

the broken-ice period could 

significantly impact the SBS polar bear 

population, in part because effective 

techniques for containing, recovering, 

and cleaning up oil spills in Arctic 

marine environments, particularly 

during poor weather and broken-ice 

conditions has not been proven; 

however, deterrence of polar bears away 

from areas affected by an oil spill could 

help minimize the impact of a spill to 

the SBS population. In the event that an 

offshore oil spill contacted numerous 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

bears, a potentially significant impact to 

the SBS population could result, 

initially to the percentage of the 

population directly contacted by oil. 

This effect would be magnified in and 

around areas of polar bear aggregations. 

Bears would also be affected indirectly 

either by food contamination or by 

chronic lasting effects caused by 

exposure to oil. During the 5 year period 

of these regulations, however, the 

chance of a large spill occurring is 

extremely low. 

While there is uncertainty in the 

analysis, certain vectors have to align 

for polar bears to be impacted by an oil 

spill in the marine environment. First, 

a spill has to occur. Second, the spill 

has to contact areas where bears may be 

located. BOEMRE’s most recent Oil 

Spill Risk Analysis suggests that if a 

large oil spill does occur, there is as 

much as a 13 percent conditional 

probability that oil from the five 

analyzed sites would contact Cross 

Island (ERA 96) (from simulated spills 

originating either at Northstar or the 

Endicott/Liberty complex), and as much 

as an 11 percent conditional probability 

that it would contact Barter Island and/ 

or the coast of the ANWR (ERA 95 and 

100, LS 107 and 138) (from simulated 

spills originating at the Endicott/Liberty 

complex). Similarly, there is as much as 

a 5 percent chance that an oil spill 

would contact the coast near Barrow 

(ERA 55, LS 85) (from simulated spills 

originating at Oooguruk). Third, polar 

bears will have to be seasonally 

distributed within the affected region to 

be impacted by oil. Data from the polar 

bear coastal surveys suggested that, 

while polar bears are not uniformly 

distributed, an average of 3.7 percent 

with maximum of 8 percent (sample 

size of 122 bears) of the estimated 1,526 

bears in the SBS population were 

distributed along the Beaufort Sea 

coastline between the Alaska/Canada 

border and Barrow. 

As a result of the information 

considered here, the Service concludes 

that the probability of an offshore spill 

from Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar, 

or Endicott/Liberty is low. Moreover, in 

the unlikely event of a spill, the 

probability that spills would contact 

areas, or habitat important to bears 

appears low. Third, while individual 

bears could be affected by a spill, the 

potential for a population-level effect 

would be minimal unless the spill 

contacted an aggregation of bears. 

Known aggregations tend to be seasonal 

during the late open-water and brokenice season, further minimizing the 

potential of a spill to impact bears. 

Therefore, we conclude that only small 

numbers of polar bears are likely to be 

affected by a large oil spill in the Arctic 

waters with only a negligible impact to 

the SBS population. 

Documented Impacts of the Oil and Gas 

Industry on Pacific Walruses and Polar 

Bears 

In order to document potential 

impacts to polar bears and walruses, we 

analyzed potential effects that could 

have more than a negligible impact to 

both species. The effects analyzed 

included the loss or preclusion of 

habitat, lethal take, harassment, and oil 

spills. 

Pacific Walrus 

During the history of the incidental 

take regulations, the actual impacts from 

Industry activities on Pacific walruses, 

documented through monitoring, were 

minimal. From 1994 to 2004, Industry 

recorded nine sightings, involving a 

total of ten Pacific walruses, during the 

open-water season. From 2005 to 2009, 

an additional eight individual walruses 

were observed during Industry 

operations in the Beaufort Sea. In most 

cases, walruses appeared undisturbed 

by human interactions; however, three 

sightings during the early 2000s 

involved potential disturbance to the 

walruses. Two of three sightings 

involved walruses hauling out on the 

armor of Northstar Island and one 

sighting occurred at the SDC on the 

McCovey prospect, where the walruses 

reacted to helicopter noise. With the 

additional sightings in the Beaufort Sea, 

walruses were observed during 

exploration (eight sightings; five during 

recent aerial surveys; 2009), 

development (three sightings), and 

production (six sightings) activities. 

There is no evidence that there were any 

physical effects or impacts to these 

individual walruses based on the 

interaction with Industry. We know of 

no other interactions that occurred 

between walrus and Industry during the 

duration of the incidental take program. 

Furthermore, there have been no other 

documented impacts to walruses from 

Industry. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Pacific walruses do not normally 

range into the Beaufort Sea, and 

documented interactions between oil 

and gas activities and walruses have 

been minimal. The proposed Industry 

activities identified by the petitioners 

are likely to result in some incremental 

cumulative effects to the small number 

of walruses exposed to these activities 

through the potential exclusion or 

avoidance of walruses from resting areas 

and disruption of associated biological 

behaviors. However, based on the 

habitat use patterns of walruses and 

their close association with seasonal 

pack ice, relatively small numbers of 

walruses are likely to be encountered 

during the open-water season when 

proposed marine activities are expected 

to occur. Required monitoring and 

mitigation measures designed to 

minimize interactions between 

authorized projects and concentrations 

of resting or feeding walruses are also 

expected to limit the severity of any 

behavioral responses. As a population, 

hunting pressure, climate change, and 

the expansion of commercial activities 

into walrus habitat all have potential to 

impact walruses. Combined, these 

factors are expected to present 

significant challenges to future walrus 

conservation and management efforts. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

proposed exploration activities, 

especially as mitigated through the 

regulatory process, are not at this time 

expected to add significantly to the 

cumulative impacts on the Pacific 

walrus population from past, present, 

and future activities that are reasonably 

likely to occur within the 5-year period 

covered by the regulations, if adopted. 

Polar Bear 

Documented impacts on polar bears 

by the oil and gas Industry during the 

past 40 years appear to be minimal. 

Historically, polar bears spend a limited 

amount of time on land, coming ashore 

to feed, den, or move to other areas. 

With the changing of their distribution 

based on the changing ice environment, 

the Service anticipates that bears will 

remain on land longer. At times, fall 

storms deposit bears along the coastline 

where the bears remain until the ice 

returns. For this reason, polar bears 

have mainly been encountered at or 

near most coastal and offshore 

production facilities, or along the roads 

and causeways that link these facilities 

to the mainland. During those periods, 

the likelihood of interactions between 

polar bears and Industry activities 

increases. We have found that the polar 

bear interaction planning and training 

requirements set forth in these 

regulations and required through the 

LOA process have increased polar bear 

awareness and minimized the number 

of these encounters. LOA requirements 

have also increased our knowledge of 

polar bear activity in the developed 

areas. 

No known lethal take associated with 

Industry has occurred during the period 

covered by incidental take regulations. 

Prior to issuance of regulations, lethal 

takes by Industry were rare. Since 1968, 

there have been two documented cases 

of lethal take of polar bears associated 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13481 

with oil and gas activities. In both 

instances, the lethal take was reported 

to be in defense of human life. In winter 

1968–1969, an Industry employee shot 

and killed a polar bear. In 1990, a 

female polar bear was killed at a drill 

site on the west side of Camden Bay. In 

contrast, 33 polar bears were killed in 

the Canadian Northwest Territories from 

1976 to 1986 due to encounters with 

Industry. Since the beginning of the 

incidental take program, which includes 

measures that minimize impacts to the 

species, no polar bears have been killed 

due to encounters associated with 

current Industry activities on the North 

Slope. For this reason, Industry has 

requested that these regulations cover 

only nonlethal, incidental take. 

To date, most impacts to polar bears 

from industry operations have been the 

result of direct bear-human encounters, 

some of which have led to deterrence 

events. Monitoring efforts by Industry 

required under previous regulations for 

the incidental take of polar bears 

documented various types of 

interactions between polar bears and 

Industry. Between 2006 to 2009, a total 

of 73 LOAs have been issued to 

Industry, with an average of 18 LOAs 

annually. Not all Industry activities 

observe or interact with polar bears. 

Polar bear observations were recorded 

for 56 percent of the LOAs (41 of 73 

LOAs). 

From 2006 through 2009, an average 

of 306 polar bears was observed and 

reported per year. (range: 170 to 420 

bears annually). During 2007, 7 

companies observed 321 polar bears 

from 177 sightings. In 2008, 10 

companies observed 313 polar bears 

from 186 sightings. In 2009, 420 polar 

bears were observed during 245 

sightings. In all 3 years, the highest 

number of bears observed was recorded 

in the fall season in August and 

September. In 2007, the highest number 

of bears was recorded in August, where 

90 sightings totaling 148 bears were 

observed; in 2008, 87 sightings totaling 

162 bears were recorded in August; 

while in 2009, 77 bear sightings were 

reported. Sightings of polar bears have 

increased from previous regulatory time 

periods due to a combination of 

variables. The high number of bear 

sightings for these years was most likely 

the result of an increased number of 

bears using the terrestrial habitat as a 

result of changes in sea ice habitat, 

multiple marine-based projects 

occurring near barrier islands (where 

multiple sightings were reported), as 

well as increased compliance and 

monitoring of Industry projects, 

especially during August and 

September, where some repeat sightings 

of individual bears and family groups 

occurred. This trend in observations is 

consistent with the hypothesis of 

increasing use of coastal habitats by 

polar bears during the summer months. 

Industry activities that occur on or 

near the Beaufort Sea coast continue to 

have the greatest potential for 

encountering polar bears rather than 

Industry activities occurring inland. 

According to AOGA figures, the offshore 

facilities of Endicott, Liberty, Northstar, 

and Oooguruk accounted for 47 percent 

of all bear observations between 2005 

and 2008 (182 of 390 sightings). 

Intentional take of polar bears 

(through separate Service authorizations 

under sections 101(a)(4)(A), 109(h), and 

112(c) of the MMPA) occurs on the 

North Slope as well. It is used as a 

mitigation measure to allow citizens 

conducting activities in polar bear 

habitat to take polar bears by 

harassment (nonlethal deterrence 

activities) for the protection of both 

human life and polar bears. The Service 

provides guidance and training as to the 

appropriate harassment response 

necessary for polar bears. The largest 

operator on the North Slope, BPXA, has 

documented an increase in the total 

number of bear observations for their oil 

units since 2006 (39, 62, 96, and 205 

bears for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 

2009, respectively). However, the 

percentage of Level B deterrence events 

reported by BPXA has decreased from 

64 percent in 2006 to 21 percent in 2009 

of total observations. BPXA attributes 

this decrease to an increase in polar bear 

awareness and deterrence training of 

personnel. A similar trend appears in 

the slope-wide data presented by 

AOGA, which encapsulates multiple 

operators. The percentage of Level B 

deterrence events appeared to have 

decreased from 39 percent of all 

reported polar bear sightings in 2005 to 

23 percent in 2008. We currently have 

no indication that these encounters, 

which alter the behavior and movement 

of individual bears, have an effect on 

survival and recruitment in the SBS 

polar bear population. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts of oil and gas 

activities are assessed, in part, through 

the information we gain in monitoring 

reports, which are required for each 

operator under the authorizations. 

Incidental take regulations have been in 

place in the Arctic oil and gas fields for 

the past 17 years. 

Information from these reports 

provides a history of past effects on 

polar bears from interactions with oil 

and gas activities, including intentional 

take. Information on previous levels of 

impact are used to evaluate future 

impacts from existing and proposed 

Industry activities and facilities. In 

addition, information used in our 

cumulative effects assessment includes: 

polar bear research leading to 

publications and data, such as polar 

bear population assessments by USGS; 

information from legislative actions, 

including the listing of the polar bear as 

a threatened species under the ESA in 

2008; traditional knowledge of polar 

bear habitat use; anecdotal observations; 

and professional judgment. 

While the number of LOAs being 

requested does not represent the 

potential for direct impact to polar 

bears, they do offer an index as to the 

effort and type of Industry work that is 

currently being conducted. LOA trend 

data also helps the Service track 

progress on various projects as they 

move through the stages of oil field 

development. An increase in slope-wide 

projects has the ability to expose more 

people to the Arctic and increase bearhuman interactions. 

The Polar Bear Status Review 

describes cumulative effects of oil and 

gas development on polar bears in 

Alaska (see pages 175 to 181 of the 

status review). This document can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov; 

search for Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC– 

2010–0098. In addition, in 2003 the 

National Research Council published a 

description of the cumulative effects 

that oil and gas development would 

have on polar bears and seals in Alaska. 

They concluded the following: 

(1) ‘‘Industrial activity in the marine 

waters of the Beaufort Sea has been 

limited and sporadic and likely has not 

caused serious cumulative effects to 

ringed seals or polar bears.’’ 

(2) ‘‘Careful mitigation can help to 

reduce the effects of oil and gas 

development and their accumulation, 

especially if there is no major oil spill. 

However, the effects of full-scale 

industrial development off the North 

Slope would accumulate through the 

displacement of polar bears and ringed 

seals from their habitats, increased 

mortality, and decreased reproductive 

success.’’ 

(3) ‘‘A major Beaufort Sea oil spill 

would have major effects on polar bears 

and ringed seals.’’ 

(4) ‘‘Climatic warming at predicted 

rates in the Beaufort and Chukchi sea 

regions is likely to have serious 

consequences for ringed seals and polar 

bears, and those effects will accumulate 

with the effects of oil and gas activities 

in the region.’’ 

(5) ‘‘Unless studies to address the 

potential accumulation of effects on 

North Slope polar bears or ringed seals 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

are designed, funded, and conducted 

over long periods of time, it will be 

impossible to verify whether such 

effects occur, to measure them, or to 

explain their causes.’’ 

A detailed description of climate 

change and its potential effects on polar 

bears, prepared by the Service, can be 

found in the ‘‘Polar Bear Status Review’’ 

(pages 72 to 108) at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; search for Docket 

No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098. 

Additional detailed information by the 

USGS regarding the status of the SBS 

stock in relation to climate change, 

projections of habitat and populations, 

and forecasts of rangewide status can be 

found at: http://www.usgs.gov/ 

newsroom/special/polar_bears/. Climate 

change could alter polar bear habitat 

because seasonal changes, such as 

extended duration of open water, may 

preclude sea ice habitat and restrict 

some bears to coastal areas. Biological 

effects on the worldwide population of 

polar bears are expected to include 

increased movements, changes in bear 

distributions, changes to the access and 

allocation of denning areas, and 

increased energy expenditure from open 

water swimming, and possible 

decreased fitness. Demographic effects 

that may occur due to climate change 

include changes in prey availability to 

polar bears, a potential reduction in the 

access to prey, and changes in seal 

productivity. 

The Service anticipates negligible 

effects on polar bears due to Industry 

activity, even though there may be an 

increased use of terrestrial habitat in the 

fall period by polar bears on the coast 

of Alaska and an increased use of 

terrestrial habitat by denning bears in 

the same area. Polar bears are not 

residents of the oil fields, but use the 

habitat in a transitory nature, which 

limits potential impacts from Industry. 

Furthermore, no known Level A 

harassment or lethal takes on polar 

bears have occurred throughout the 

duration of the incidental take program, 

which was initiated in 1994. The last 

known Industry-caused death of a bear 

by Industry occurred in 1990. This 

documented information suggests that 

Industry will have no more than a 

negligible effect on polar bears for the 5- 

year regulatory period even though 

there may be more bears onshore. The 

Service also believes that current and 

proposed mitigation measures will be 

effective in minimizing any additional 

effects attributed to seasonal shifts in 

distributions of the increased use by 

bears of terrestrial habitats and denning 

polar bears during the 5-year timeframe 

of the regulations as has occurred in the 

past. It is likely that, due to potential 

seasonal changes in abundance and 

distribution of polar bears during the 

fall, more frequent encounters may 

occur and that Industry may have to 

implement mitigation measures more 

often, for example, increasing polar bear 

deterrence events. In addition, if 

additional polar bear den locations are 

detected within industrial activity areas, 

spatial and temporal mitigation 

measures, including cessation of 

activities, may be instituted more 

frequently during the 5-year period of 

the rule. 

The proposed activities identified by 

Industry are likely to result in 

incremental cumulative effects to polar 

bears during the 5-year regulatory 

period. Based on Industry monitoring 

information, for example, deflection 

from travel routes along the coast 

appears to be a common occurrence, 

where bears move around coastal 

facilities rather than traveling through 

them. Incremental cumulative effects 

could also occur through the potential 

exclusion or temporary avoidance of 

polar bears from feeding, resting, or 

denning areas and disruption of 

associated biological behaviors. 

However, based on monitoring results 

acquired from past ITRs, the level of 

cumulative effects, including those of 

climate change, during the 5-year 

regulatory period would result in 

negligible effects on the bear 

population. 

Monitoring results from Industry, 

analyzed by the Service, indicate that 

little to no short-term impacts on polar 

bears have resulted from oil and gas 

activities. We evaluated both subtle and 

acute impacts likely to occur from 

industrial activity and we determined 

that all direct and indirect effects, 

including cumulative effects, of 

industrial activities have not adversely 

affected the species through effects on 

rates of recruitment or survival. Based 

on past monitoring reports, the level of 

interaction between Industry and polar 

bears has been minimal. Additional 

information, such as subsistence harvest 

levels and incidental observations of 

polar bears near shore, provide evidence 

that these populations have not been 

adversely affected. For the next 5 years, 

we anticipate the level of oil and gas 

Industry interactions with polar bears 

will likely increase in response to more 

bears on shore and more activity along 

the coast, however we do not anticipate 

significant impacts on bears to occur. 

Summary of Take Estimates for Pacific 

Walruses and Polar Bears 

Small Numbers Determination 

As discussed in the ‘‘Biological 

Information’’ section, the dynamic 

nature of sea ice habitat influences the 

seasonal and annual distribution and 

abundance of polar bears and walruses 

in the specified geographical region. 

The following analysis concludes that 

only small numbers of Pacific walruses 

and polar bears are likely to be taken 

incidental to the described Industry 

activities relative to the number of 

walruses and polar bears that are 

expected to be unaffected by those 

activities. This conclusion is based 

upon known distribution patterns and 

habitat use of Pacific walruses and polar 

bears. 

1. The number of polar bears and 

walruses utilizing the described 

geographic region during Industry 

operations is expected to be small 

relative to the number of animals in the 

respective populations utilizing pack ice 

habitats in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

seas for polar bears or the Chukchi and 

Bering seas habitats for the Pacific 

walrus. As stated before, the Pacific 

walrus is extralimital in the Beaufort 

Sea, since the majority of the walrus 

population is found exclusively in the 

Chukchi and Bering seas. There is no 

expectation that even discrete 

movements, such as foraging, by some 

individual walruses into the Beaufort 

Sea as a result of climate change will 

increase the number of walruses 

observed by Industry during the 

regulatory period. 

Polar bears are expected to remain 

closely associated with either the sea ice 

or coastal zones throughout the year on 

the North Slope of Alaska. As a result 

of coastal surveys, the Service estimates 

a maximum of 8.0 percent and an 

average of 3.7 percent of the estimated 

1,526 bears in the SBS population have 

been observed on land during the late 

open-water and broken-ice period. This 

period coincides with the peak period 

(August through October) of bears 

observed from Industry as reported 

through their bear monitoring programs. 

If not all bears were counted, this 

suggests that at the peak of terrestrial 

habitat use in early fall prior to freezeup, up to 10 percent of the SBS polar 

bear population can be found near the 

coastal environments, while 90 percent 

of the bears continue to be associated 

with the existing pack ice. 

2. Within the specified geographical 

region, the footprint of authorized 

projects is expected to be small relative 

to the range of polar bear and walrus in 

the region. Again, the fact that the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13483 

Pacific walrus is extralimital to the 

Beaufort Sea suggests that any marine 

operations working in the geographic 

area will have minimal walrus 

interactions within the geographic 

region. Indeed, only 9 walruses have 

been sighted by Industry operations 

since 1994. 

Polar bears range well beyond the 

boundaries of the geographic region of 

these proposed regulations 

(approximately 68.9 million acres) and 

are transient through the regions of 

Industry infrastructure. As reported by 

AOGA, the total infrastructure area on 

the North Slope as of 2007 was 18,129 

acres, which is a small proportion of the 

requested geographic region. 

3. Monitoring requirements and 

adaptive mitigation measures are 

expected to significantly limit the 

number of incidental takes of animals. 

Holders of an LOA will be required to 

adopt monitoring requirements and 

mitigation measures designed to reduce 

potential impacts of their operations on 

walruses and polar bears. Monitoring 

programs are required to inform 

operators of the presence of polar bears 

or walrus. Adaptive management 

responses based on real-time monitoring 

information (described in these 

regulations) will be used to avoid or 

minimize interactions with walruses 

and polar bears. For Industry activities 

in terrestrial environments, where 

denning polar bears may be a factor, 

mitigation measures will require that 

den detection surveys be conducted and 

Industry will maintain at least a 1-mile 

distance from any known polar bear 

den. A full description of the mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

associated with an LOA, which will be 

requirements for Industry, can be found 

in 50 CFR 18.128. 

We expect that only a small 

proportion of the Pacific walrus 

population or the CS and SBS polar bear 

populations will likely to be impacted 

by any individual project because: (1) 

Only small numbers of walruses or 

polar bears will occur in the marine or 

terrestrial environments where Industry 

activities will occur; (2) only small 

numbers will be impacted because 

walrus are extralimital in the Beaufort 

Sea and polar bears are widely 

distributed throughout their expansive 

ranges, which encompasses area outside 

of the geographic region of the 

regulations; and (3) the monitoring 

requirements and mitigation measures 

described below that will be imposed on 

Industry will further reduce impacts. 

Negligible Effects Determination 

Based upon our review of the nature, 

scope, and timing of the proposed oil 

and gas activities and mitigation 

measures, and in consideration of the 

best available scientific information, we 

have determined that the proposed 

activities will have a negligible impact 

on Pacific walrus and on polar bears. 

Factors considered in our negligible 

effects determination include: 

1. The behavior and distribution of 

walruses and polar bears utilizing areas 

that overlap with Industry is expected to 

limit the amount of interactions between 

walruses, polar bears, and Industry. The 

distribution and habitat use patterns of 

walruses and polar bears in conjunction 

with the likely area of Industrial activity 

results in relatively few animals in the 

area of operations and, therefore, likely 

to be affected. As discussed in the 

section ‘‘Biological Information’’ (see 

Pacific Walrus section), only small 

numbers of walruses are likely to be 

found in Beaufort Sea open water 

habitats where offshore Industry 

activities will occur. 

Throughout the year, polar bears are 

closely associated with pack ice and are 

unlikely to interact with open-water 

industrial activities for the same reasons 

discussed in the Small Numbers 

Determination. Likewise, polar bears 

from the SBS and CS populations are 

widely distributed and range outside of 

the geographic region of these 

regulations. In addition, through fall 

coastal surveys we estimated that a 

small proportion of the SBS population, 

approximately 8–10 percent, is 

distributed along the coastal areas 

during the late-summer–early-fall 

season. 

2. The predicted effects of proposed 

activities on walruses and polar bears 

will be nonlethal, temporary passive 

takes of animals. The documented 

impacts of previous Industry activities 

on walruses and polar bears, taking into 

consideration cumulative effects, 

provides direct information that the 

types of activities analyzed for this rule 

will have minimal effects and will be 

short-term, temporary behavioral 

changes. 

3. The footprint of authorized projects 

is expected to be small relative to the 

range of polar bear and walrus 

populations. As with the small numbers 

determination, this factor will also help 

minimize negligible effects of Industry 

on Pacific walrus and polar bears. A 

limited area of activity will reduce the 

potential to exposure of animals to 

Industry activities and limit potential 

interactions of those animals using the 

area, such as walrus feeding in the area 

or polar bears or walruses moving 

through the area. 

4. Mitigation measures will limit 

potential effects of industry activities. 

As described in the Small Numbers 

Determination, holders of an LOA will 

be required to adopt monitoring 

requirements and mitigation measures 

designed to reduce potential impacts of 

their operations on walruses and polar 

bears. Seasonal restrictions, monitoring 

programs required to inform operators 

of the presence of marine mammals and 

environmental conditions, den 

detection surveys for polar bears, and 

adaptive management responses based 

on real-time monitoring information 

(described in these regulations) will be 

used to avoid or minimize interactions 

with polar bears and walruses and, 

therefore, limit Industry effects on these 

animals. 

5. The potential impacts of climate 

change for the duration of the 

regulations (2011–2016) has the 

potential to displace polar bears and 

walruses from the geographic region 

and during the season of Industry 

activity. Climate change is likely to 

result in significant impacts to polar 

bear and walrus populations in the 

future. Recent models indicate that the 

persistence of Alaska’s polar bear stocks 

are in doubt and will possibly disappear 

within 50 to 100 years due to the 

changing Arctic ice conditions as a 

result of climate change. Recent trends 

in the Arctic have resulted in seasonal 

sea-ice retreat off the continental shelf 

and over deep Arctic Ocean waters, 

presenting significant adaptive 

challenges to walruses. Reasonably 

foreseeable impacts to the Pacific walrus 

population as a result of diminishing 

sea ice cover include: Shifts in range 

and abundance, possibly into the 

Beaufort Sea; increased reliance on 

coastal haulouts in the Chukchi Sea; 

and increased mortality associated with 

predation and disturbance events at 

coastal haulouts. 

Although climate change is a pressing 

conservation issue for ice-dependent 

species, such as polar bears and 

walruses, we have concluded that the 

activities proposed by Industry and 

addressed in this 5-year rule will not 

adversely impact the survival of these 

species. One likely response to nearterm climate-driven change (retreat of 

sea ice) will result in each species 

utilizing areas, such as coastal haulouts 

by walrus and the ice shelf by a 

continued majority of the polar bear 

population, outside of the geographic 

region and proposed areas of Industrial 

activity. While the Service suspects that 

a certain portion of the bear population 

using coastal habitats (currently 8–10 

percent of the SBS population) will 

increase and associate with terrestrial 

habitats longer, the types of effects as a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

result of Industry interaction will be 

short-term behavioral changes. 

We, therefore, conclude that any 

incidental take reasonably likely to or 

reasonably expected to occur as a result 

of carrying out any of the activities 

authorized under these regulations will 

have no more than a negligible effect on 

polar bears and Pacific walruses using 

the Beaufort Sea region, and we do not 

expect any resulting disturbances to 

negatively impact the rates of 

recruitment or survival for the polar 

bears and Pacific walrus populations. 

These regulations do not authorize 

lethal take, and we do not anticipate 

that any lethal take will occur. 

Findings 

We propose the following findings 

regarding this action: 

Small Numbers 

Pacific Walrus 

Pacific walruses are extralimital in the 

SBS and, hence, there is a very low 

probability that Industry activities, 

including offshore drilling operations, 

seismic, and coastal activities, will 

adversely affect the Pacific walrus 

population. Given the low numbers in 

the region, we anticipate no more than 

a small number of walruses are likely to 

be taken during the length of this rule. 

We do not anticipate the potential for 

any lethal take from normal Industry 

activities. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate any detrimental effects on 

recruitment or survival. 

We estimate that the projected 

number of takes of Pacific walruses by 

Industry will be no more than 10 takes 

by harassment per year. Takes will be 

Level B harassment, manifested as 

short-term behavioral changes. This take 

estimate is based on historic Industry 

monitoring observations. In addition, 

based on the projected level of 

exploration activity, it is unlikely that 

the number of takes will increase 

significantly in the next 5 years. 

Polar Bear 

Standard operating conditions for 

Industry exploration, development, and 

production activities have the potential 

to incidentally take polar bears. Recent 

reporting data from the current ITRs 

indicates that an annual average of 306 

polar bears have been observed during 

Industry activities. Some of these 

observations are likely sightings of the 

same bears due to the inability to 

distinguish between animals in some 

observations. While the majority of 

observations are sightings where no 

interaction between bears and Industry 

occurs (81 percent of all bear 

observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS 

unpubl. data), takes by harassment do 

occur. Takes by harassment can be 

described as either: (1) Deterrence 

events (15 percent of all bear 

observations from 2006 to 2009: USFWS 

unpubl. data); and (2) those occasions 

when there is clear evidence that the 

bear’s behavior has been altered through 

events other than deterrence (4 percent 

of all bear observations from 2006 to 

2009: USFWS unpubl. data). 

Small takes of this nature are allowed 

through LOAs. According to industry 

monitoring data, the number of Level B 

takes (deterrence events and behavioral 

change events), averaged 66 occurrences 

per year from 2006 to 2009 (67 takes in 

2006, 64 takes in 2007, 33 takes in 2008, 

and 101 takes in 2009). 

Using this data, we anticipate that the 

total number of takes of polar bears by 

all Level B harassment events will not 

exceed 150 per year. All anticipated 

takes will be nonlethal Level B 

harassment, involving only temporary 

changes in bear behavior. The required 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

described in the regulations are 

expected to prevent injurious Level A 

takes. The number of lethal takes is 

projected to be zero. We do not expect 

the total of these disturbances to affect 

rates of recruitment or survival in the 

SBS polar bear population. 

Negligible Impact 

Based on the best scientific 

information available, the results of 

monitoring data from our previous 

regulations (16 years of monitoring and 

reporting data), the review of the 

information generated by the listing of 

the polar bear as a threatened species 

and the designation of polar bear critical 

habitat, the ongoing analysis of the 

petition to list the Pacific walrus as a 

threatened species under the ESA, the 

results of our modeling assessments, 

and the status of the population, we find 

that any incidental take reasonably 

likely to result from the effects of oil 

and gas related exploration, 

development, and production activities 

during the period of the rule, in the 

Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern 

coast of Alaska, will have no more than 

a negligible impact on polar bears and 

Pacific walruses. In making this finding, 

we considered the following: 

(1) The distribution of the species 

(through 10 years of aerial surveys and 

studies of feeding ecology, and a 

regression analysis of pack ice position 

and polar bear distribution); 

(2) The biological characteristics of 

the species (through bio-monitoring for 

toxic chemicals, studies of den site 

behavior, radio-telemetry data); 

(3) The nature of oil and gas Industry 

activities; 

(4) The potential effects of Industry 

activities and potential oil spills on the 

species; 

(5) The probability of oil spills 

occurring; 

(6) The documented impacts of 

Industry activities on the species taking 

into consideration cumulative effects 

(through FLIR surveys, the use of 

trained dogs to detect occupied dens, a 

bear–human conflicts workshop, a study 

assessing sound levels and of industrial 

noise and potential noise and vibration 

exposure for dens, and data mapping 

den habitat); 

(7) The potential impacts of climate 

change, where both walruses and polar 

bears can potentially be displaced from 

preferred habitat; 

(8) The existing and proposed 

mitigation measures designed to 

minimize Industry impacts through 

adaptive management; and 

(9) Other data provided by Industry 

monitoring programs in the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas. 

We also considered the specific 

Congressional direction in balancing the 

potential for a significant impact with 

the likelihood of that event occurring. 

The specific Congressional direction 

that justifies balancing probabilities 

with impacts follows: 

If potential effects of a specified activity 

are conjectural or speculative, a finding of 

negligible impact may be appropriate. A 

finding of negligible impact may also be 

appropriate if the probability of occurrence is 

low but the potential effects may be 

significant. In this case, the probability of 

occurrence of impacts must be balanced with 

the potential severity of harm to the species 

or stock when determining negligible impact. 

In applying this balancing test, the Service 

will thoroughly evaluate the risks involved 

and the potential impacts on marine mammal 

populations. Such determination will be 

made based on the best available scientific 

information [53 FR 8474, March 15, 1988; 

132 Cong. Rec. S 16305 (October 15, 1986)]. 

Pacific walruses are only occasionally 

found during the open-water season in 

the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea polar 

bear population is widely distributed 

throughout its range. A small percentage 

(less than 10 percent) of the SBS polar 

bear population typically occurs in 

coastal and nearshore areas where most 

Industry activities happen. 

We reviewed the effects of the oil and 

gas Industry activities on polar bears 

and Pacific walruses, including impacts 

from noise, physical obstructions, 

human encounters, and oil spills. Based 

on our review of these potential 

impacts, past LOA monitoring reports, 

and the biology and natural history of 

Pacific walrus and polar bear, we 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13485 

conclude that any incidental take 

reasonably likely to or reasonably 

expected to occur as a result of 

projected activities will have a 

negligible impact on polar bear and 

Pacific walrus populations. 

Furthermore, we do not expect these 

disturbances to affect the rates of 

recruitment or survival for the Pacific 

walrus and polar bear populations. 

These regulations do not authorize 

lethal take, and we do not anticipate any 

lethal take will occur. 

The probability of an oil spill that will 

cause significant impacts to Pacific 

walruses and polar bears appears 

extremely low. We have included 

potential spill information from 

Oooguruk, Nikaitchuq, Northstar, and 

Endicott/Liberty offshore projects in our 

oil spill analysis to analyze multiple 

offshore sites. We have analyzed the 

likelihood of an oil spill in the marine 

environment of the magnitude necessary 

to kill a significant number of polar 

bears for offshore projects and, through 

a risk assessment analysis, found that it 

is unlikely that there will be any lethal 

take. In the unlikely event of a 

catastrophic spill, we will take 

immediate action to minimize the 

impacts to these species and reconsider 

the appropriateness of authorizations for 

incidental taking through section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

After considering the cumulative 

effects of existing and proposed 

development, production, and 

exploration activities, and the 

likelihood of any impacts, both onshore 

and offshore, we find that the total 

expected takings resulting from oil and 

gas Industry activities will affect no 

more than small numbers and will have 

no more than a negligible impact on the 

SBS polar bear and Pacific walrus 

populations inhabiting the Beaufort Sea 

area on the North Slope coast of Alaska. 

Our finding of ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

applies to incidental take associated 

with proposed oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production activities 

as mitigated through the regulatory 

process. The regulations establish 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

to evaluate the potential impacts of 

authorized activities, as well as 

mitigation measures designed to 

minimize interactions with and impacts 

to walruses and polar bears. We will 

evaluate each request for an LOA based 

on the specific activity and the specific 

geographic location where the proposed 

activities are projected to occur to 

ensure that the level of activity and 

potential take is consistent with our 

finding of negligible impact. Depending 

on the results of the evaluation, we may 

grant the authorization, add further 

operating restrictions, or deny the 

authorization. 

Conditions are attached to each LOA. 

These conditions minimize interference 

with normal breeding, feeding, and 

possible migration patterns to ensure 

that the effects to the species remain 

negligible. Conditions include: (1) These 

regulations do not authorize intentional 

taking of polar bear or Pacific walruses 

or lethal incidental take; (2) for the 

protection of pregnant polar bears 

during denning activities (den selection, 

birthing, and maturation of cubs) in 

known denning areas, Industry 

activities may be restricted in specific 

locations during specified times of the 

year; and (3) each activity covered by an 

LOA requires a site-specific plan of 

operation and a site-specific polar bear 

interaction plan. We may add additional 

measures depending upon site-specific 

and species-specific concerns. 

Restrictions in denning areas will be 

applied on a case-by-case basis after 

assessing each LOA request and may 

require pre-activity surveys (e.g., aerial 

surveys, FLIR surveys, or polar bear 

scent-trained dogs) to determine the 

presence or absence of denning activity 

and, in known denning areas, may 

require enhanced monitoring or flight 

restrictions, such as minimum flight 

elevations, if necessary. We will analyze 

the required plan of operation and 

interaction plans to ensure that the level 

of activity and possible take are 

consistent with our finding that total 

incidental takes will have a negligible 

impact on polar bear and Pacific 

walruses and, where relevant, will not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of these species for 

subsistence uses. 

We have evaluated climate change in 

regard to polar bears and walruses. 

Although climate change is a worldwide 

phenomenon, it was analyzed as a 

contributing effect that could alter polar 

bear and walrus habitat and behavior. 

Climate change could alter polar bear 

habitat because seasonal changes, such 

as extended duration of open water, 

may preclude sea-ice habitat use and 

restrict some bears to coastal areas. The 

reduction of sea ice extent, caused by 

climate change, may also affect the 

timing of polar bear seasonal 

movements between the coastal regions 

and the pack ice. If the sea ice continues 

to recede as predicted, it is 

hypothesized that polar bears may 

spend more time on land rather than on 

sea ice similar to what has been 

recorded in the Hudson Bay. Climate 

change could also alter terrestrial 

denning habitat through coastal erosion 

brought about by accelerated wave 

action. The challenge in the Beaufort 

Sea will be predicting changes in ice 

habitat, barrier islands, and coastal 

habitats in relation to changes in polar 

bear distribution and use of habitat. 

Within the described geographic 

region of this rule, Industry effects on 

Pacific walruses and polar bears are 

expected to occur at a level similar to 

what has taken place under previous 

regulations. We anticipate that there 

will be an increased use of terrestrial 

habitat in the fall period by polar bears. 

We also anticipate a slight increased use 

of terrestrial habitat by denning bears. 

Nevertheless, we expect no significant 

impact to these species as a result of 

these anticipated changes. The 

mitigation measures will be effective in 

minimizing any additional effects 

attributed to seasonal shifts in 

distribution or denning polar bears 

during the 5-year timeframe of the 

regulations. It is likely that, due to 

potential seasonal changes in 

abundance and distribution of polar 

bears during the fall, more frequent 

encounters may occur and that Industry 

may have to implement mitigation 

measures more often, for example, 

increasing polar bear deterrence events. 

In addition, if additional polar bear den 

locations are detected within industrial 

activity areas, spatial and temporal 

mitigation measures, including 

cessation of activities, may be instituted 

more frequently during the 5-year 

period of the rule. 

Climate change over time continues to 

be a major concern to the Service, and 

we are currently involved in the 

collection of baseline data to help us 

understand how the effects of climate 

change will be manifested in the SBS 

polar bear population. As we gain a 

better understanding of climate change 

effects on the SBS population, we will 

incorporate the information in future 

actions. Ongoing studies include those 

led by the Service and the USGS Alaska 

Science Center to examine polar bear 

habitat use, reproduction, and survival 

relative to a changing sea ice 

environment. Specific objectives of the 

project include: an enhanced 

understanding of polar bear habitat 

availability and quality influenced by 

ongoing climate changes and the 

response by polar bears; the effects of 

polar bear responses to climate-induced 

changes to the sea ice environment on 

body condition of adults, numbers and 

sizes of offspring, and survival of 

offspring to weaning (recruitment); and 

population age structure. 

Although Pacific walruses are 

relatively rare in the Beaufort Sea, the 

Service and USGS are conducting 

multiyear studies on the population to 

investigate movements and habitat use 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

patterns. It is possible that as sea ice 

diminishes in the Chukchi Sea beyond 

the 5-year period of this rule, more 

walruses will migrate east into the 

Beaufort Sea. 

Impact on Subsistence Take 

Based on community consultations, 

locations of hunting areas, the potential 

overlap of hunting areas and Industry 

projects, the best scientific information 

available, and the results of monitoring 

data, we find that take caused by oil and 

gas exploration, development, and 

production activities in the Beaufort Sea 

and adjacent northern coast of Alaska 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of polar bears 

and Pacific walruses for taking for 

subsistence uses during the period of 

the rule. In making this finding, we 

considered the following: (1) Records on 

subsistence harvest from the Service’s 

Marking, Tagging and Reporting 

Program; (2) community consultations; 

(3) effectiveness of the POCs between 

Industry and affected Native 

communities; and (4) anticipated 5-year 

effects of Industry activities on 

subsistence hunting. In addition, our 

findings also incorporated the results of 

coastal aerial surveys conducted within 

the area during the past 7 years, upon 

direct observations of polar bears 

occurring near bowhead whale carcasses 

on Barter Island and on Cross Island 

during the villages of Kaktovik and 

Nuiqsut’s annual fall bowhead whaling 

efforts, respectively, and upon anecdotal 

reports of North Slope residents. 

Polar bear and Pacific walruses 

represent a small portion, in terms of 

the number of animals, of the total 

subsistence harvest for the villages of 

Barrow, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. 

However, the low numbers do not mean 

that the harvest of these species is not 

important to Alaska Natives. Prior to 

receipt of an LOA, Industry must 

provide evidence to us that community 

consultations have occurred or that an 

adequate POC has been presented to the 

subsistence communities. Industry will 

be required to contact subsistence 

communities that may be affected by its 

activities to discuss potential conflicts 

caused by location, timing, and methods 

of proposed operations. Industry must 

make reasonable efforts to ensure that 

activities do not interfere with 

subsistence hunting and that adverse 

effects on the availability of polar bear 

or Pacific walruses are minimized. 

Although multiple meetings for 

multiple projects from numerous 

operators have already taken place, no 

official concerns have been voiced by 

the Native communities with regard to 

Industry activities limiting availability 

of polar bears or walruses for 

subsistence uses. However, should such 

a concern be voiced as Industry 

continues to reach out to the Native 

communities, development of Plans of 

Cooperation, which must identify 

measures to minimize any adverse 

effects, will be required. The POC will 

ensure that oil and gas activities will 

continue not to have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of the 

species or stock for subsistence uses. 

This POC must provide the procedures 

addressing how Industry will work with 

the affected Native communities and 

what actions will be taken to avoid 

interference with subsistence hunting of 

polar bear and walruses, as warranted. 

The Service has not received any 

reports and is aware of no information 

that indicates that bears or walruses are 

being or will be deflected from hunting 

areas or impacted in any way that 

diminishes their availability for 

subsistence use by the expected level of 

oil and gas activity. If there is evidence 

during the 5-year period of the 

regulations that oil and gas activities are 

affecting the availability of polar bear or 

walruses for take for subsistence uses, 

we will reevaluate our findings 

regarding permissible limits of take and 

the measures required to ensure 

continued subsistence hunting 

opportunities. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

The purpose of monitoring 

requirements is to assess the effects of 

industrial activities on polar bears and 

walruses to ensure that take is 

consistent with that anticipated in the 

negligible impact and subsistence use 

analyses, and to detect any 

unanticipated effects on the species. 

Monitoring plans document when and 

how bears and walruses are 

encountered, the number of bears and 

walruses, and their behavior during the 

encounter. This information allows the 

Service to measure encounter rates and 

trends of bear and walrus activity in the 

industrial areas (such as numbers and 

gender, activity, seasonal use) and to 

estimate numbers of animals potentially 

affected by Industry. Monitoring plans 

are site-specific, dependent on the 

proximity of the activity to important 

habitat areas, such as den sites, travel 

corridors, and food sources; however, 

all activities are required to report all 

sightings of polar bears and walruses. 

To the extent possible, monitors will 

record group size, age, sex, reaction, 

duration of interaction, and closest 

approach to Industry. Activities within 

the coast of the geographic region may 

incorporate daily watch logs as well, 

which record 24-hour animal 

observations throughout the duration of 

the project. Polar bear monitors will be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan if 

bears are known to frequent the area or 

known polar bear dens are present in 

the area. At offshore Industry sites, 

systematic monitoring protocols will be 

implemented to statistically monitor 

observation trends of walruses or polar 

bears in the nearshore areas where they 

usually occur. 

Monitoring activities are summarized 

and reported in a formal report each 

year. The applicant must submit an 

annual monitoring and reporting plan at 

least 90 days prior to the initiation of a 

proposed activity, and the applicant 

must submit a final monitoring report to 

us no later than 90 days after the 

completion of the activity. We base each 

year’s monitoring objective on the 

previous year’s monitoring results. 

We require an approved plan for 

monitoring and reporting the effects of 

oil and gas Industry exploration, 

development, and production activities 

on polar bear and walruses prior to 

issuance of an LOA. Since production 

activities are continuous and long-term, 

upon approval, LOAs and their required 

monitoring and reporting plans will be 

issued for the life of the activity or until 

the expiration of the regulations, 

whichever occurs first. Each year, prior 

to January 15, we require that the 

operator submit development and 

production activity monitoring results 

of the previous year’s activity. We 

require approval of the monitoring 

results for continued operation under 

the LOA. 

Treaty Obligations 

The ITRs are consistent with the 

Bilateral Agreement for the 

Conservation and Management of the 

Polar Bear between the United States 

and Russia. Article II of the Polar Bear 

Agreement lists three obligations of the 

Parties in protecting polar bear habitat: 

(1) ‘‘Take appropriate action to protect 

the ecosystem of which polar bears are 

a part;’’ 

(2) ‘‘Give special attention to habitat 

components such as denning and 

feeding sites and migration patterns;’’ 

and 

(3) ‘‘Manage polar bear populations in 

accordance with sound conservation 

practices based on the best available 

scientific data.’’ 

This rule is also consistent with the 

Service’s treaty obligations because it 

incorporates mitigation measures that 

ensure the protection of polar bear 

habitat. LOAs for industrial activities 

are conditioned to include area or 

seasonal timing limitations or 

prohibitions, such as placing 1-mile 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13487 

avoidance buffers around known or 

observed dens (which halts or limits 

activity until the bear naturally leaves 

the den), building roads perpendicular 

to the coast to allow for polar bear 

movements along the coast, and 

monitoring the effects of the activities 

on polar bears. Available denning 

habitat maps are provided by the USGS. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods, as listed above in 

ADDRESSES. If you submit comments by 

e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII 

file format and avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption. Please 

include ‘‘Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7– 

FHC–2010–0098’’ and your name and 

return address in your e-mail message. 

Please note that this e-mail address will 

be closed out at the termination of the 

public comment period. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public view, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are easy 

to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this rule 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

(1) Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

(2) Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

its clarity? 

(3) Does the format of the rule 

(grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce its clarity? 

(4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’ 

appears in bold type and is preceded by 

the symbol ‘‘Sec.’’ and a numbered 

heading; for example, § 18.123. When is 

this subpart effective?) 

(5) Is the description of the rule in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the proposed rule? 

(6) What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public view, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Considerations 

We have prepared a draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

conjunction with this rulemaking. 

Subsequent to closure of the comment 

period for this proposed rule, we will 

decide whether this rulemaking is a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment within the meaning of 

Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA of 1969. 

For a copy of the draft EA, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC–2010–0098 

or contact the individual identified 

above in the section FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Endangered Species Act 

On May 15, 2008, the Service listed 

the polar bear as a threatened species 

under the ESA (73 FR 28212) and on 

December 7, 2010 (75 FR 76086), the 

Service designated critical habitat for 

polar bear populations in the United 

States, effective January 6, 2011. Section 

7(a)(1) and (2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(1) and (2)) direct the Service to 

review its programs and to utilize such 

programs in the furtherance of the 

purposes of the ESA and to ensure that 

a proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of an 

ESA-listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Consistent with these 

statutory requirements, the Service’s 

Marine Mammal Management Office has 

initiated Intra-Service section 7 

consultation over these regulations with 

the Service’s Fairbanks’ Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

We have determined that this rule is 

not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act. The rule is 

also not likely to result in a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, or 

government agencies or have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, productivity, innovation, 

or on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We have also determined that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Oil 

companies and their contractors 

conducting exploration, development, 

and production activities in Alaska have 

been identified as the only likely 

applicants under the regulations. 

Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required. In addition, 

these potential applicants have not been 

identified as small businesses and, 

therefore, a Small Entity Compliance 

Guide is not required. The analysis for 

this rule is available from the individual 

identified above in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Takings Implications 

This rule does not have takings 

implications under Executive Order 

12630 because it authorizes the 

nonlethal, incidental, but not 

intentional, take of walruses and polar 

bears by oil and gas Industry companies 

and thereby exempts these companies 

from civil and criminal liability as long 

as they operate in compliance with the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings 

implications assessment is not required. 

Federalism Effects 

This rule does not contain policies 

with Federalism implications sufficient 

to warrant preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment under Executive Order 

13132. The MMPA gives the Service the 

authority and responsibility to protect 

walruses and polar bears. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et 

seq.), this rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. The Service has determined 

and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act that this 

rulemaking will not impose a cost of 

$100 million or more in any given year 

on local or State governments or private 

entities. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year, i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, Secretarial Order 3225, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

Government-to-Government basis. We 

have evaluated possible effects on 

federally recognized Alaska Native 

tribes. Through the LOA process 

identified in the regulations, Industry 

presents a POC with the Native 

communities most likely to be affected 

and engages these communities in 

numerous informational meetings. 

To facilitate co-management 

activities, cooperative agreements have 

been completed by the Service, the 

Alaska Nanuuq Commission (ANC) and 

the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC). 

The cooperative agreements fund a wide 

variety of management issues, 

including: commission co-management 

operations; biological sampling 

programs; harvest monitoring; collection 

of Native knowledge in management; 

international coordination on 

management issues; cooperative 

enforcement of the MMPA; and 

development of local conservation 

plans. To help realize mutual 

management goals, the Service, ANC, 

and EWC regularly hold meetings to 

discuss future expectations and outline 

a shared vision of co-management. 

The Service also has ongoing 

cooperative relationships with the North 

Slope Borough and the InupiatInuvialuit Game Commission where we 

work cooperatively to ensure that data 

collected from harvest and research are 

used to ensure that polar bears are 

available for harvest in the future; 

provide information to co-management 

partners that allows them to evaluate 

harvest relative to their management 

agreements and objectives; and provide 

information that allows evaluation of 

the status, trends, and health of polar 

bear populations. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The Departmental Solicitor’s Office 

has determined that these regulations do 

not unduly burden the judicial system 

and meet the applicable standards 

provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements. We may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. The 

Information collection requirements 

included in this rule are approved by 

the OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). The OMB control number 

assigned to these information collection 

requirements is 1018–0070, which 

expires on January 31, 2014. This 

control number covers the information 

collection, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in 50 CFR 18, subpart J, 

which are associated with the 

development and issuance of specific 

regulations and LOAs. 

Energy Effects 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This rule provides exceptions 

from the taking prohibitions of the 

MMPA for entities engaged in the 

exploration of oil and gas in the 

Beaufort Sea and adjacent coast of 

Alaska. By providing certainty regarding 

compliance with the MMPA, this rule 

will have a positive effect on Industry 

and its activities. Although the rule 

requires Industry to take a number of 

actions, these actions have been 

undertaken by Industry for many years 

as part of similar past regulations. 

Therefore, this rule is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use and does not 

constitute a significant energy action. 

No Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

References 

For a list of the references cited in this 

rule, see Docket No. FWS–R7–FHC– 

2010–0098, available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, 

Marine mammals, Oil and gas 

exploration, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Service proposes to 

amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 

1, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below. 

PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS 

1. The authority citation of 50 CFR 

part 18 continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Amend part 18 by revising subpart 

J to read as follows: 

Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas 

Exploration, Development, and 

Production Activities in the Beaufort 

Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of 

Alaska 

Sec. 

18.121 What specified activities does this 

subpart cover? 

18.122 In what specified geographic region 

does this subpart apply? 

18.123 When is this subpart effective? 

18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of 

Authorization? 

18.125 What criteria does the Service use to 

evaluate Letter of Authorization 

requests? 

18.126 What does a Letter of Authorization 

allow? 

18.127 What activities are prohibited? 

18.128 What are the mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting requirements? 

18.129 What are the information collection 

requirements? 

Subpart J—Nonlethal Taking of Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Oil and Gas 

Exploration, Development, and 

Production Activities in the Beaufort 

Sea and Adjacent Northern Coast of 

Alaska 

§ 18.121 What specified activities does 

this subpart cover? 

Regulations in this subpart apply to 

the nonlethal incidental, but not 

intentional, take of small numbers of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13489 

polar bear and Pacific walrus by you 

(U.S. citizens as defined in § 18.27(c)) 

while engaged in oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production activities in the Beaufort Sea 

and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 

§ 18.122 In what specified geographic 

region does this subpart apply? 

This subpart applies to the specified 

geographic region defined by all 

Beaufort Sea waters east of a northsouth line through Point Barrow 

(71°23′29′′ N., ¥156 °28′30′′ W., BGN 

1944), and up to 200 miles north of 

Point Barrow, including all Alaska 

coastal areas, State waters, and Outer 

Continental Shelf waters east of that line 

to the Canadian border. The onshore 

region is the same north/south line at 

Barrow, 25 miles inland and east to the 

Canning River. The Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge is not included in the 

area covered by this subpart. Figure 1 

shows the area where this subpart 

applies. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

§ 18.123 When is this subpart effective? 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from [Insert effective date of 

the final rule] through [Insert date 5 

years from the effective date of the final 

rule] for year-round oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production activities. 

§ 18.124 How do I obtain a Letter of 

Authorization? 

(a) You must be a U.S. citizen as 

defined in § 18.27(c). 

(b) If you are conducting an oil and 

gas exploration, development, or 

production activity in the specified 

geographic region described in § 18.122 

that may cause the taking of polar bears 

or Pacific walruses in execution of those 

activities and you want nonlethal 

incidental take authorization under this 

rule, you must apply for a Letter of 

Authorization for each exploration 

activity or a Letter of Authorization for 

activities in each development or 

production area. You must submit the 

application for authorization to our 

Alaska Regional Director (see 50 CFR 

2.2 for address) at least 90 days prior to 

the start of the proposed activity. 

(c) Your application for a Letter of 

Authorization must include the 

following information: 

(1) A description of the activity, the 

dates and duration of the activity, the 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR11.001</GPH>
13490 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specific location, and the estimated area 

affected by that activity, i.e., a plan of 

operation. 

(2) A site-specific plan to monitor the 

effects of the activity on the behavior of 

polar bears and Pacific walruses that 

may be present during the ongoing 

activities (i.e., marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan). Your 

monitoring program must document the 

effects to these marine mammals and 

estimate the actual level and type of 

take. The monitoring requirements 

provided by the Service will vary 

depending on the activity, the location, 

and the time of year. 

(3) A site-specific polar bear and/or 

walrus awareness and interaction plan. 

A polar bear interaction plan for each 

operation will outline the steps the 

applicant will take to limit human-bear 

interactions, increase site safety, and 

minimize impacts to bear. 

(4) A Plan of Cooperation (POC) to 

mitigate potential conflicts between the 

proposed activity and subsistence 

hunting, where relevant. Applicants 

must consult with potentially affected 

subsistence communities along the 

Beaufort Sea coast (Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, 

and Barrow) and appropriate 

subsistence user organizations (the 

Eskimo Walrus Commission and the 

Alaska Nanuuq (polar bear) 

Commission) to discuss the location, 

timing, and methods of proposed 

operations and support activities and 

identify any potential conflicts with 

subsistence walrus and polar bear 

hunting activities in the communities. 

Applications for Letters of 

Authorization must include 

documentation of all consultations with 

potentially affected user groups. 

Documentation must include a 

summary of any concerns identified by 

community members and hunter 

organizations, and the applicant’s 

responses to identified concerns. Some 

of these measures may include, but are 

not limited to, mitigation measures 

described in § 18.128. 

§ 18.125 What criteria does the Service 

use to evaluate Letter of Authorization 

requests? 

(a) We will evaluate each request for 

a Letter of Authorization based on the 

specific activity and the specific 

geographic location. We will determine 

whether the level of activity identified 

in the request exceeds that analyzed by 

us in considering the number of animals 

likely to be taken and evaluating 

whether there will be a negligible 

impact on the species or an adverse 

impact on the availability of the species 

for subsistence uses. If the level of 

activity is greater, we will reevaluate 

our findings to determine if those 

findings continue to be appropriate 

based on the greater level of activity that 

you have requested. Depending on the 

results of the evaluation, we may grant 

the authorization, add further 

conditions, or deny the authorization. 

(b) In accordance with § 18.27(f)(5), 

we will make decisions concerning 

withdrawals of Letters of Authorization, 

either on an individual or class basis, 

only after notice and opportunity for 

public comment. 

(c) The requirement for notice and 

public comment in paragraph (b) of this 

section will not apply should we 

determine that an emergency exists that 

poses a significant risk to the well-being 

of the species or stocks of polar bears or 

Pacific walruses. 

§ 18.126 What does a Letter of 

Authorization allow? 

(a) Your Letter of Authorization may 

allow the nonlethal incidental, but not 

intentional, take of polar bears and 

Pacific walruses when you are carrying 

out one or more of the following 

activities: 

(1) Conducting geological and 

geophysical surveys and associated 

activities; 

(2) Drilling exploratory wells and 

associated activities; 

(3) Developing oil fields and 

associated activities; 

(4) Drilling production wells and 

performing production support 

operations; 

(5) Conducting environmental 

monitoring activities associated with 

exploration, development, and 

production activities to determine 

specific impacts of each activity; 

(6) Conducting restoration, 

remediation, demobilization programs, 

and associated activities. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

identify conditions or methods that are 

specific to the activity and location. 

§ 18.127 What activities are prohibited? 

(a) Intentional take and lethal 

incidental take of polar bears or Pacific 

walruses; and 

(b) Any take that fails to comply with 

this part or with the terms and 

conditions of your Letter of 

Authorization. 

§ 18.128 What are the mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements? 

(a) Mitigation. Holders of a Letter of 

Authorization must use methods and 

conduct activities in a manner that 

minimizes to the greatest extent 

practicable adverse impacts on walruses 

and polar bears, their habitat, and on the 

availability of these marine mammals 

for subsistence uses. Dynamic 

management approaches, such as 

temporal or spatial limitations in 

response to the presence of marine 

mammals in a particular place or time 

or the occurrence of marine mammals 

engaged in a particularly sensitive 

activity (such as feeding), must be used 

to avoid or minimize interactions with 

polar bears, walruses, and subsistence 

users of these resources. 

(1) All applicants. (i) We require 

holders of Letters of Authorization to 

cooperate with us and other designated 

Federal, State, and local agencies to 

monitor the impacts of oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production activities on polar bears and 

Pacific walruses. 

(ii) Holders of Letters of Authorization 

must designate a qualified individual or 

individuals to observe, record, and 

report on the effects of their activities on 

polar bears and Pacific walruses. 

(iii) Holders of Letters of 

Authorization must have an approved 

polar bear and/or walrus interaction 

plan on file with the Service and onsite, 

and polar bear awareness training will 

also be required of certain personnel. 

Interaction plans must include: 

(A) The type of activity and, where 

and when the activity will occur, i.e., a 

plan of operation; 

(B) A food and waste management 

plan; 

(C) Personnel training materials and 

procedures; 

(D) Site at-risk locations and 

situations; 

(E) Walrus and bear observation and 

reporting procedures; and 

(F) Bear and walrus avoidance and 

encounter procedures. 

(iv) All applicants for a Letter of 

Authorization must contact affected 

subsistence communities to discuss 

potential conflicts caused by location, 

timing, and methods of proposed 

operations and submit to us a record of 

communication that documents these 

discussions. If appropriate, the 

applicant for a Letter of Authorization 

must also submit to us a POC that 

ensures that activities will not interfere 

with subsistence hunting and that 

adverse effects on the availability of 

polar bear or Pacific walruses are 

minimized (see § 18.124(c)(4)). 

(v) If deemed appropriate by the 

Service, holders of a Letter of 

Authorization will be required to hire 

and train polar bear monitors to alert 

crew of the presence of polar bears and 

initiate adaptive mitigation responses. 

(2) Onshore activities. Efforts to 

minimize disturbance around known 

polar bear dens.—Holders of a Letter of 

Authorization must take efforts to limit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13491 

disturbance around known polar bear 

dens. 

(i) Efforts to locate polar bear dens.— 

Holders of a Letter of Authorization 

seeking to carry out onshore exploration 

activities in known or suspected polar 

bear denning habitat during the denning 

season (November–April) must make 

efforts to locate occupied polar bear 

dens within and near proposed areas of 

operation, utilizing appropriate tools, 

such as, forward looking infrared (FLIR) 

imagery and/or polar bear scent-trained 

dogs. All observed or suspected polar 

bear dens must be reported to the 

Service prior to the initiation of 

activities. 

(ii) Exclusion zone around known 

polar bear dens.—Operators must 

observe a 1-mile operational exclusion 

zone around all known polar bear dens 

during the denning season (November– 

April, or until the female and cubs leave 

the areas). Should previously unknown 

occupied dens be discovered within 1 

mile of activities, work in the immediate 

area must cease and the Service 

contacted for guidance. The Service will 

evaluate these instances on a case-bycase basis to determine the appropriate 

action. Potential actions may range from 

cessation or modification of work to 

conducting additional monitoring, and 

the holder of the authorization must 

comply with any additional measures 

specified. 

(iii) The use of den habitat map 

developed by the USGS. A map of 

potential coastal polar bear denning 

habitat can be found at: http:// 

alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/ 

polar_bears/pubs.html. This measure 

ensures that the location of potential 

polar bear dens is considered when 

conducting activities in the coastal areas 

of the Beaufort Sea. 

(iv) Restricting the timing of the 

activity to limit disturbance around 

dens. 

(3) Operating conditions for 

operational and support vessels. (i) 

Operational and support vessels must be 

staffed with dedicated marine mammal 

observers to alert crew of the presence 

of walruses and polar bears and initiate 

adaptive mitigation responses. 

(ii) At all times, vessels must maintain 

the maximum distance possible from 

concentrations of walruses or polar 

bears. Under no circumstances, other 

than an emergency, should any vessel 

approach within a 805-m (0.5-mi) radius 

of walruses or polar bears observed on 

land or ice. 

(iii) Vessel operators must take every 

precaution to avoid harassment of 

concentrations of feeding walruses 

when a vessel is operating near these 

animals. Vessels should reduce speed 

and maintain a minimum 805-m (0.5- 

mi) operational exclusion zone around 

feeding walrus groups. Vessels may not 

be operated in such a way as to separate 

members of a group of walruses from 

other members of the group. When 

weather conditions require, such as 

when visibility drops, vessels should 

adjust speed accordingly to avoid the 

likelihood of injury to walruses. 

(iv) The transit of operational and 

support vessels through the specified 

geographic region is not authorized 

prior to July 1. This operating condition 

is intended to allow walruses the 

opportunity to disperse from the 

confines of the spring lead system and 

minimize interactions with subsistence 

walrus hunters. Exemption waivers to 

this operating condition may be issued 

by the Service on a case-by-case basis, 

based upon a review of seasonal ice 

conditions and available information on 

walrus and polar bear distributions in 

the area of interest. 

(v) All vessels shall avoid areas of 

active or anticipated walrus or polar 

bear hunting activity as determined 

through community consultations. 

(vi) The use of trained marine 

mammal monitors associated with 

marine activities. We may require a 

monitor on the site of the activity or on 

board drill ships, drill rigs, aircraft, 

icebreakers, or other support vessels or 

vehicles to monitor the impacts of 

Industry’s activity on polar bear and 

Pacific walruses. 

(4) Operating conditions for aircraft. 

(i) Operators of support aircraft should, 

at all times, conduct their activities at 

the maximum distance possible from 

concentrations of walruses or polar 

bears. 

(ii) Under no circumstances, other 

than an emergency, should aircraft 

operate at an altitude lower than 305 m 

(1,000 ft) within 805 m (0.5 mi) of 

walruses or polar bears observed on ice 

or land. Helicopters may not hover or 

circle above such areas or within 805 m 

(0.5 mile) of such areas. When weather 

conditions do not allow a 305-m (1,000- 

ft) flying altitude, such as during severe 

storms or when cloud cover is low, 

aircraft may be operated below the 305- 

m (1,000-ft) altitude stipulated above. 

However, when aircraft are operated at 

altitudes below 305 m (1,000 ft) because 

of weather conditions, the operator must 

avoid areas of known walrus and polar 

bear concentrations and should take 

precautions to avoid flying directly over 

or within 805 m (0.5 mile) of these 

areas. 

(iii) Plan all aircraft routes to 

minimize any potential conflict with 

active or anticipated walrus or polar 

bear hunting activity as determined 

through community consultations. 

(5) Additional mitigation measures for 

offshore seismic surveys. Any offshore 

exploration activity expected to include 

the production of pulsed underwater 

sounds with sound source levels ≥160 

dB re 1 μPa will be required to establish 

and monitor acoustic exclusion and 

disturbance zones and implement 

adaptive mitigation measures as follows: 

(i) Monitor zones. Establish and 

monitor with trained marine mammal 

observers an acoustically verified 

exclusion zone for walruses 

surrounding seismic airgun arrays 

where the received level would be ≥ 180 

dB re 1 μPa; an acoustically verified 

exclusion zone for polar bear 

surrounding seismic airgun arrays 

where the received level would be ≥ 190 

dB re 1 μPa; and an acoustically verified 

walrus disturbance zone ahead of and 

perpendicular to the seismic vessel 

track where the received level would be 

≥ 160 dB re 1 μPa. 

(ii) Ramp-up procedures. For all 

seismic surveys, including airgun 

testing, use the following ramp-up 

procedures to allow marine mammals to 

depart the exclusion zone before seismic 

surveying begins: 

(A) Visually monitor the exclusion 

zone and adjacent waters for the 

absence of polar bears and walruses for 

at least 30 minutes before initiating 

ramp-up procedures. If no polar bears or 

walruses are detected, you may initiate 

ramp-up procedures. Do not initiate 

ramp-up procedures at night or when 

you cannot visually monitor the 

exclusion zone for marine mammals. 

(B) Initiate ramp-up procedures by 

firing a single airgun. The preferred 

airgun to begin with should be the 

smallest airgun, in terms of energy 

output (dB) and volume (in3). 

(C) Continue ramp-up by gradually 

activating additional airguns over a 

period of at least 20 minutes, but no 

longer than 40 minutes, until the 

desired operating level of the airgun 

array is obtained. 

(iii) Power down/Shut down. 

Immediately power down or shut down 

the seismic airgun array and/or other 

acoustic sources whenever any walruses 

are sighted approaching close to or 

within the area delineated by the 180- 

dB re 1 μPa walrus exclusion zone, or 

polar bears are sighted approaching 

close to or within the area delineated by 

the 190-dB re 1 μPa polar bear exclusion 

zone. If the power down operation 

cannot reduce the received sound 

pressure level to 180-dB re 1 μPa 

(walrus) or 190-dB re 1 μPa (polar 

bears), the operator must immediately 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

13492 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

shut down the seismic airgun array and/ 

or other acoustic sources. 

(iv) Emergency shut down. If 

observations are made or credible 

reports are received that one or more 

walruses and/or polar bears are within 

the area of the seismic survey and are 

in an injured or mortal state, or are 

indicating acute distress due to seismic 

noise, the seismic airgun array will be 

immediately shut down and the Service 

contacted. The airgun array will not be 

restarted until review and approval has 

been given by the Service. The ramp-up 

procedures provided in paragraph 

(a)(5)(ii) of this section must be followed 

when restarting. 

(v) Adaptive response for walrus 

aggregations. Whenever an aggregation 

of 12 or more walruses are detected 

within an acoustically verified 160-dB 

re 1 μPa disturbance zone ahead of or 

perpendicular to the seismic vessel 

track, the holder of this Authorization 

must: 

(A) Immediately power down or 

shutdown the seismic airgun array and/ 

or other acoustic sources to ensure 

sound pressure levels at the shortest 

distance to the aggregation do not 

exceed 160-dB re 1 μPa; and 

(B) Not proceed with powering up the 

seismic airgun array until it can be 

established that there are no walrus 

aggregations within the 160-dB zone 

based upon ship course, direction, and 

distance from last sighting. If shutdown 

was required, the ramp-up procedures 

provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this 

section must be followed when 

restarting. 

(6) Mitigation measures for the 

subsistence use of walruses and polar 

bears. Holders of Letters of 

Authorization must conduct their 

activities in a manner that, to the 

greatest extent practicable, minimizes 

adverse impacts on the availability of 

Pacific walruses and polar bears for 

subsistence uses. 

(i) Community Consultation. Prior to 

receipt of a Letter of Authorization, 

applicants must consult with potentially 

affected communities and appropriate 

subsistence user organizations to 

discuss potential conflicts with 

subsistence walrus and polar bear 

hunting caused by the location, timing, 

and methods of proposed operations 

and support activities (see 18.114(c)(4) 

for details). If community concerns 

suggest that the proposed activities may 

have an adverse impact on the 

subsistence uses of these species, the 

applicant must address conflict 

avoidance issues through a POC as 

described below. 

(ii) Plan of Cooperation (POC). Where 

prescribed, holders of Letters of 

Authorization will be required to 

develop and implement a Serviceapproved POC. The POC must include: 

(A) A description of the procedures by 

which the holder of the Letter of 

Authorization will work and consult 

with potentially affected subsistence 

hunters; and 

(B) A description of specific measures 

that have been or will be taken to avoid 

or minimize interference with 

subsistence hunting of walruses and 

polar bears and to ensure continued 

availability of the species for 

subsistence use. 

(C) The Service will review the POC 

to ensure that any potential adverse 

effects on the availability of the animals 

are minimized. The Service will reject 

POCs if they do not provide adequate 

safeguards to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

availability of walruses and polar bears 

for subsistence use. 

(b) Monitoring. Depending on the 

location, timing, and nature of proposed 

activities, holders of Letters of 

Authorization will be required to: 

(1) Maintain trained, Serviceapproved, on-site observers to carry out 

monitoring programs for polar bears and 

walruses necessary for initiating 

adaptive mitigation responses. 

(i) For offshore activities, Marine 

Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be 

required on board all operational and 

support vessels to alert crew of the 

presence of walruses and polar bears 

and initiate adaptive mitigation 

responses identified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, and to carry out specified 

monitoring activities identified in the 

marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan (see paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section) necessary to evaluate the 

impact of authorized activities on 

walruses, polar bears, and the 

subsistence use of these subsistence 

resources. The MMOs must have 

completed a marine mammal observer 

training course approved by the Service. 

(ii) Polar bear monitors—Polar bear 

monitors will be required under the 

monitoring plan if polar bears are 

known to frequent the area or known 

polar bear dens are present in the area. 

Monitors will act as an early detection 

system in regards to proximate bear 

activity to Industry facilities. 

(2) Develop and implement a sitespecific, Service approved, marine 

mammal monitoring and mitigation 

plan to monitor and evaluate the effects 

of authorized activities on polar bears, 

walruses, and the subsistence use of 

these resources. The marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan must 

enumerate the number of walruses and 

polar bears encountered during 

specified activities, estimate the number 

of incidental takes that occurred during 

specified exploration activities, and 

evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed 

mitigation measures. 

(3) Cooperate with the Service and 

other designated Federal, State, and 

local agencies to monitor the impacts of 

oil and gas activities in the Beaufort Sea 

on walruses or polar bears. Where 

insufficient information exists to 

evaluate the potential effects of 

proposed activities on walruses, polar 

bears, and the subsistence use of these 

resources, holders of Letters of 

Authorization may be required to 

participate in joint monitoring and/or 

research efforts to address these 

information needs and insure the least 

practicable impact to these resources. 

Information needs in the Beaufort Sea 

include, but are not limited to: 

(i) Distribution, abundance, and 

habitat use patterns of polar bears, and 

to a lesser extent walruses in offshore 

environments; and 

(ii) Cumulative effects of multiple 

simultaneous operations on polar bears 

and to a lesser extent walruses. 

(c) Reporting requirements. Holders of 

Letters of Authorization must report the 

results of specified monitoring activities 

to the Service’s Alaska Regional director 

(see 50 CFR 2.2 for address). 

(1) For exploratory and development 

activities, holders of a Letter of 

Authorization must submit a report to 

our Alaska Regional Director (Attn: 

Marine Mammals Management Office) 

within 90 days after completion of 

activities. For production activities, 

holders of a Letter of Authorization 

must submit a report to our Alaska 

Regional Director (Attn: Marine 

Mammals Management Office) by 

January 15 for the preceding year’s 

activities. Reports must include, at a 

minimum, the following information: 

(i) Dates and times of activity; 

(ii) Dates and locations of polar bear 

or Pacific walrus activity as related to 

the monitoring activity; and 

(iii) Results of the monitoring 

activities required under subsection (iv) 

of this section, including an estimated 

level of take. 

(iv) Monitoring requirements include, 

but are not limited to: 

(A) For all activities, all sightings of 

polar bears must be recorded. 

Information within the sighting report 

will include, but is not limited to: 

(1) Date, time, and location of 

observation; 

(2) Number of bears: sex and age; 

(3) Observer name and contact 

information; 

(4) Weather, visibility, and ice 

conditions at the time of observation; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13493 

(5) Estimated closest point of 

approach for bears from personnel and 

facilities; 

(6) Industry activity at time of 

sighting, possible attractants present; 

(7) Bear behavior; 

(8) Description of the encounter; 

(9) Duration of the encounter; and 

(10) Actions taken. 

(v) Activities within the coast of the 

geographic region may incorporate daily 

polar bear watch logs. 

(2) In-season monitoring reports for 

offshore exploration activities—(i) 

Activity progress reports. Operators 

must keep the Service informed on the 

progress of authorized activities by: 

(A) Notifying the Service at least 48 

hours prior to the onset of activities; 

(B) Providing weekly progress reports 

of authorized activities noting any 

significant changes in operating state 

and or location; and 

(C) Notifying the Service within 48 

hrs of ending activity. 

(ii) Walrus observation reports. The 

operator must report, on a weekly basis, 

all observations of walruses during any 

Industry operation. Information within 

the observation report will include, but 

is not limited to: 

(A) Date, time, and location of each 

walrus sighting; 

(B) Number of walruses: sex and age; 

(C) Observer name and contact 

information; 

(D) Weather, visibility, and ice 

conditions at the time of observation; 

(E) Estimated range at closest 

approach; 

(F) Industry activity at time of 

sighting; 

(G) Behavior of animals sighted; 

(H) Description of the encounter; 

(I) Duration of the encounter; and 

(J) Actions taken. 

(iii) Polar bear observation reports. 

The operator must report, within 24 

hours, all observations of polar bears 

during any Industry operation. 

Information within the observation 

report will include, but is not limited to: 

(A) Date, time, and location of 

observation; 

(B) Number of bears: sex and age; 

(C) Observer name and contact 

information; 

(D) Weather, visibility, and ice 

conditions at the time of observation; 

(E) Estimated closest point of 

approach for bears from personnel and 

facilities; 

(F) Industry activity at time of 

sighting, possible attractants present; 

(G) Bear behavior; 

(H) Description of the encounter; 

(I) Duration of the encounter; and 

(J) Actions taken. 

(iv) Notification of incident report. 

Reports should include all information 

specified under the species observation 

report, as well as a full written 

description of the encounter and actions 

taken by the operator. The operator 

must report: 

(A) Any incidental lethal take or 

injury of a polar bear or walrus 

immediately; and 

(B) Observations of walruses or polar 

bears within prescribed mitigationmonitoring zones to the Service within 

24 hours. 

(3) After-action monitoring reports. 

The results of monitoring efforts 

identified in the marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan must be 

submitted to the Service for review 

within 90 days of completing the year’s 

activities. Results must include, but are 

not limited to the following information: 

(i) A summary of monitoring effort 

including: total hours, total distances, 

and distribution through study period; 

(ii) Analysis of factors affecting the 

visibility and detectability of polar bears 

and walruses by specified monitoring; 

(iii) Analysis of the distribution, 

abundance, and behavior of polar bear 

and walrus sightings in relation to date, 

location, ice conditions and operational 

state; and 

(iv) Estimates of take based on density 

estimates derived from monitoring and 

survey efforts. 

§ 18.129 What are the information 

collection requirements? 

(a) We may not conduct or sponsor 

and a person is not required to respond 

to a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The Office of Management and 

Budget has approved the collection of 

information contained in this subpart 

and assigned control number 1018– 

0070. You must respond to this 

information collection request to obtain 

a benefit pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We 

will use the information to: 

(1) Evaluate the application and 

determine whether or not to issue 

specific Letters of Authorization; and 

(2) Monitor impacts of activities 

conducted under the Letters of 

Authorization. 

(b) You should direct comments 

regarding the burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this requirement to the 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 

222 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

Date: February 2, 2011. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5035 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2