79082 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2020–0129; 

FXES111607MRG01–212–FF07CAMM00] 

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take 

During Specified Activities; Proposed 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

for Polar Bears in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of application 

and proposed incidental harassment 

authorization; availability of draft 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, have received a 

request under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 from the 

Kaktovik In ̃upiat Corporation (KIC), for 

authorization to take by harassment 

small numbers of polar bears incidental 

to seismic survey and associated 

activities scheduled to occur between 

January 21, 2021, and September 30, 

2021. KIC has requested this 

authorization for incidental take of polar 

bears that may result from threedimensional (3D) seismic surveys in the 

Marsh Creek East Program Area of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The 

project will consist of activities such as 

over-flights for aerial infrared surveys in 

January 2021 and February 2021 to look 

for maternal polar bear dens; staging 

and mobilization of vehicles and 

equipment; small crew surveys for 

hazards, ice integrity, and snow depth 

assessment; seismic surveys via a sled 

camp with rubber-tracked vibrator 

trucks; camp setup and mobilization; 

aerial activities for crew and supply 

transport; digital elevation modeling for 

river-crossing slope analysis; and 

cleanup activities during the summer of 

2021. We estimate that this project may 

result in the nonlethal incidental take of 

up to three polar bears. This proposed 

authorization, if finalized, will be for 

take of three polar bears by Level B 

harassment only. No take by injury or 

death to polar bears is likely and 

therefore such take is not included in 

this proposed authorization. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

and the accompanying draft 

environmental assessment must be 

received by January 7, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may view this proposed authorization, 

the application package, supporting 

information, draft environmental 

assessment, and the list of references 

cited herein at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2020–0129, or these 

documents may be requested as 

described under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You may submit 

comments on the proposed 

authorization by one of the following 

methods: 

• U.S. Mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7– 

ES–2020–0129, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

• Electronic Submission: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2020–0129. 

We will post all comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

that we withhold personal identifying 

information from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. See Request for 

Public Comments for more information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hamilton, Marine Mammal 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503, by email at 

R7mmmRegulatory@fws.gov or by 

telephone at 1–800–362–5148. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental but not intentional 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals of a species or population 

stock by U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

region during a period of not more than 

1 year. Incidental harassment may be 

authorized only if statutory and 

regulatory procedures are followed and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(hereafter, ‘‘the Service’’ or ‘‘we’’) make 

the following findings: (i) Take is of a 

small number of animals, (ii) take will 

have a negligible impact on the species 

or stock, and (iii) take will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock for 

subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling 

Alaska Natives. 

The term ‘‘take,’’ as defined by the 

MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 

U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as 

defined by the MMPA, means any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance that (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (the MMPA calls this ‘‘Level A 

harassment’’), or (ii) has the potential to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (the MMPA calls this ‘‘Level 

B harassment’’). 

The terms ‘‘negligible impact,’’ ‘‘small 

numbers,’’ and ‘‘unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ are defined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, the 

Service’s regulations governing take of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to specified activities. 

‘‘Negligible impact’’ is defined as 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. ‘‘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. However, we 

do not rely on that definition here, as it 

conflates the terms ‘‘small numbers’’ 

and ‘‘negligible impact,’’ which we 

recognize as two separate and distinct 

requirements (see Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 

1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, in 

our small numbers determination, we 

evaluate whether the number of marine 

mammals likely to be taken is small 

relative to the size of the overall 

population. ‘‘Unmitigable adverse 

impact’’ is defined as 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. 

If the requisite findings are made, we 

shall issue an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA), which may set 

forth the following: (i) Permissible 

methods of taking; (ii) other means of 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

marine mammals and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79083 

significance, and on the availability of 

marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling 

Alaska Natives; and (iii) requirements 

for monitoring and reporting take. 

Summary of Request 

In August 2020, the Kaktovik In ̃upiat 

Corporation (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘KIC’’ or ‘‘the applicant’’) submitted a 

request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘USFWS’’ or ‘‘the Service’’) Marine 

Mammal Management (MMM) office for 

authorization to take polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus, hereafter ‘‘polar bears’’). 

After discussions with the Service about 

the scope and potential impacts to polar 

bears, as well as the feasibility of 

various mitigation measures and 

modifications of the project design, KIC 

submitted an updated request on 

October 24, 2020, and October 28, 2020. 

This proposed incidental harassment 

authorization is in response to KIC’s 

October 28, 2020, request. 

KIC expects that take by incidental 

harassment may occur during their 

planned three-dimensional (3D) seismic 

survey, and associated activities, of 

portions of the coastal plain area of the 

1002 region (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Coastal Plain’’) in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge (ANWR; hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Refuge’’). Specific 

work will occur within the Marsh Creek 

East Program Area (hereafter ‘‘Program 

Area’’), to be accessed via a tundra 

access route within the Refuge 

measuring 78.23 km (48.61 mi). The 

area of this tundra access route 

(inclusive of a 100-m [328-ft] buffer on 

each side) is 15.64 km 2 (6.04 mi 2). All 

work is expected to occur during a 

period of 8 months and 10 days, 

commencing January 21, 2021, and 

concluding by September 30, 2021. 

Equipment will be initially staged at 

Deadhorse, Alaska (located at 70.2002° 

N, 148.4597° W), and then transported 

to Kaktovik (located 113 mi [214 km] to 

the east at 70.1319° N, 143.6239° W) via 

the access route. The timing of 

mobilization is contingent on the 

accumulation of sufficient snow cover 

along the access route, and travel cannot 

commence prior to January 26, 2021; 

crew will be staged on gravel pads 

allowing for tundra access and resupply. 

All mobile equipment and vehicles 

will be equipped with navigation 

systems primarily for hazard 

identification and logistics. Tracked and 

wheeled tundra-specific vehicles will be 

used as the main transport and for sledcamps during the activities. It is 

expected that the camps will move 

every 5 to 7 days depending on the 

survey progress and snow cover. At the 

end of the planned seismic surveys, all 

equipment will travel back to the 

Deadhorse or Kaktovik pads. As trail 

locations may depend on the snow 

coverage and terrain conditions during 

mobilization, the KIC operators 

(hereafter ‘‘the Operator’’) will consider 

and coordinate with companies for use 

of existing or planned trails. 

The original KIC request was received 

on August 17, 2020. Additional details 

regarding the project specifics, 

activities, and locations were requested 

from KIC by the Service on August 30, 

2020, and received on September 1, 

2020. Additional information on the 

proposed seismic acquisition blocks was 

requested by the Service and received at 

a meeting with KIC on September 4, 

2020. Geographic Information System 

(GIS) Shapefiles for use in ArcGIS Pro 

were received by the Service on 

September 9, 2020. Additional 

information pertaining to the planned 

aircraft activities for the proposed 

project was received on September 14, 

2020. The Service and representatives 

from KIC held numerous meetings 

(including August 26 and 27, 2020; 

September 4, 10, and 29, 2020; and 

October 19, 2020) to discuss project 

details, potential impacts to polar bears, 

and the feasibility of various mitigation 

measures and modifications to the 

project design. Two updated requests 

were received by the Service on October 

24 and 28, 2020. This proposed IHA is 

in response to KIC’s October 28, 2020, 

request. 

Description of Specified Activities and 

Geographic Area 

The specified activities (hereafter the 

‘‘project’’) consists of transportation (via 

air and ground-based methods), various 

surveys (aerial infrared [AIR] surveys, 

handheld/vehicle forward-looking 

infrared [FLIR or IR] surveys, 

environmental, 3D seismic), camping, 

temporary developments (i.e., airstrips), 

and potential environmental activities 

(i.e., water withdrawal, river/ice 

crossing, summer cleanup activities). 

The area in which these specified 

activities will occur is referred to as the 

Marsh Creek East Program Area 

(Program Area). The Program Area is 

within the area established under 

section 1002 of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA) of the Refuge. The Refuge is 

the largest National Wildlife Refuge in 

the United States with an area of 

78,051.88 km 2 (30,136 mi 2). Of this 

total area, KIC owns 372.31 km 2 (143.75 

mi 2) of surface land within the Refuge, 

pursuant of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. The 

Program Area includes surface land 

owned by KIC, sub-surface land owned 

by the Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation (ASRC), and land and 

waters owned by the Department of the 

Interior (DOI). The geographic region of 

the seismic survey activities will extend 

from the Kajutakrok Creek in the west 

to Pokok Bay in the east, and from the 

coastline to 40 km (25 mi) inland. The 

specified geographic region of the 

activities is expected to cover a total of 

1,441.82 km 2 (556.69 mi 2), 

incorporating the seismic area of 

1,426.18 km 2 (550.65 mi 2) and a 1.6-km 

(1-mi) buffer (figure 1). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79084 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Seismic activities will include 

operations in all of the following 

townships: U006N036E, U007N036E, 

U008N033E, U008N034E, U008N035E, 

U008N036E. Seismic operations will 

further include operations in parts of 

the following townships: U005N035E, 

U005N036E, U005N037E, U006N035E, 

U006N037E, U007N031E, U007N032E, 

U007N033E, U007N034E, U007N035E, 

U007N037E, U008N031E, U008N032E, 

U008N037E, U009N032E, U009N033E, 

U009N034E, U009N035E, U009N036E. 

KIC will conduct activities starting 

January 21, 2021, and ending September 

30, 2021, during which data collection 

will be performed using a variety of 

equipment and methods. The operations 

will primarily occur during 2021 winter, 

starting with three aerial infrared 

surveys for polar bear maternal dens 

between January 2021 and early 

February 2021 (surveys will not begin 

before January 21, 2021, nor extend past 

February 13, 2021). Mobilization of the 

seismic survey equipment and crew will 

begin once the tundra opens to winter 

travel (but not before January 26, 2021). 

Three AIR surveys are to be performed 

before moving into the access route or 

seismic survey area. Seismic operations 

will commence as soon as February 1, 

2021, if all AIR surveys are performed 

before this time, and will conclude by 

May 25, 2021, or the close of the winter 

travel season, whichever is first. To 

maintain the safety of field personnel, 

work days are subject to change based 

on weather, equipment delays, polar 

bear presence, or discovery of a 

maternal den at survey sites. 

At the end of the snow season or the 

close of tundra travel (July or August), 

whichever is first, KIC will contract one 

helicopter and crew to travel over the 

Program Area to collect any refuse or 

debris that may have been inadvertently 

left during the winter activities. These 

cleanup activities are expected to 

continue for approximately 15 days, 

including possible weather days. The 

cleanup area will not exceed the 

completed portion of the winter 

operating zone in the Program Area. 

Standard aircraft operational limitations 

will apply, and weather delays, flight 

ceilings, etc., will be at the discretion of 

the flight contractor. 

All project-related travel outside of 

the 1002 region of the Refuge will occur 

in areas for which regulations 

authorizing the incidental take of polar 

bears already exist, and are not 

considered in this draft IHA (50 CFR 

part 18, subpart J; 81 FR 52275, August 

5, 2016). Incidental take of polar bears 

caused by this work is expected to be 

authorized by a Letter of Authorization 

(LOA). 

All field personnel will be fully 

trained in bear safety awareness and 

will utilize appropriate deterrence 

methods (see 50 CFR 18.34 for further 

information) should deterrence of polar 

bears become necessary. Additional 

information is provided in the 

Mitigation and Monitoring, Proposed 

Authorization section below and in the 

Polar Bear Avoidance and Interaction 

Plan incorporated by reference in KIC’s 

application (appendix A in KIC 2020). 

The following project descriptions 

(Mobilization and Site access through 

Summer Cleanup Activities) have been 

inserted directly from KIC’s Application 

for Incidental Harassment 

Authorization for the Marsh Creek East 

3D Seismic Program North Slope, 

Alaska (KIC 2020). Additional details 

can be found in the application and are 

incorporated by reference. 

Mobilization and Site Access 

Equipment will be staged at existing 

facilities in Deadhorse. Camp and 

equipment will be transported via an 

overland access route from Deadhorse to 

the Program Area. The portion of the 

route within the Refuge measures 78.23 

km (48.61 mi). Using a 100-m (328-ft) 

buffer on each side, the area of the 

tundra access route in the Refuge is 

15.64 km 2 (6.04 mi 2). Upon entry, data 

acquisition will begin immediately in 

the western portion of the Program 

Area. Specific areas and dates of 

progressing through the Program are 

described in Section 3.0 (KIC 2020). 

Mobilization will begin in January 2021 

at which time KIC estimates there will 

be sufficient snow cover for 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79085 

mobilization and all permits for tundra 

travel from the State of Alaska have 

been received. All mobile equipment 

will have a navigation system installed 

for logistics and hazard identification. 

All transit outside of the 1002 Area will 

be covered under the existing 2016– 

2021 Beaufort Sea Incidental Take 

Regulations (ITR) and permitted under 

separate cover. 

Tracked and wheeled tundra vehicles 

will be used to transport the sled camp 

along the tundra. The camp will remain 

close to the survey activities and will 

move every 5 to 7 days depending on 

the survey progress and snow cover. 

When the survey is completed, the 

camp and equipment will travel along 

the tundra back to a Deadhorse or 

Kaktovik pad location. Snow-packed 

trails will be made throughout the 

Program Area. The location of these 

trails will depend on snow coverage and 

terrain conditions. The Operator will 

attempt to coordinate with companies to 

use any existing or planned trails. 

Survey and Ice Check 

Prior to the start of seismic data 

collection, a smaller crew performs a 

survey for hazards, including ice 

integrity of rivers, lakes, and sea ice. 

One of the highest risk potentials for 

arctic operations is properly verifying 

the integrity of the ice. This will be 

done by ‘‘ice checking units’’ consisting 

of a Tucker vehicle capable of 

supporting 24-hour operations, manned 

by two personnel. Snow machines may 

also be used for survey and ice check 

operations. The survey units will be 

equipped with ground-penetrating radar 

systems (GPR), which are extremely 

accurate on freshwater. In addition, 

each ice check unit is equipped with 

battery-operated ice auger, which is 

used to verify the calibration of the GPR, 

measure ice depths on sea ice, or verify 

depths where the GPR units cannot 

reach. Freeboard testing (ice 

stabilization) is also conducted when 

working on floating ice to ensure the ice 

has the strength to safely hold the 

equipment. Tucker vehicles that are 

conducting the advance ice check 

operations will also have a handheld or 

vehicle-mounted FLIR device to scan at 

tributary crossings for potential dens in 

defined polar bear denning habitat. 

Preliminary trails or snail trails will be 

established for wherever the vibrators 

must travel on the sea ice, lakes, or 

rivers, which will minimize the 

potential for breaking through the ice. 

Surveyors will also map each hazard 

that is discovered and placed into our 

navigation system that allows each 

vehicle to display the Program Area, 

hazards, and avoidance areas. 

Snow surveys will be conducted to 

substantiate depths and will be recorded 

for equipment movement efforts. Snow 

survey crews will move out ahead of the 

main crew by approximately 7–20 days, 

accessing the Program Area. The crew 

includes camp trailers, fuelers, Steigers, 

Tuckers, and support trailers and 

consists of three to four crews of two 

personnel per crew. These crews work 

independently of each other to check ice 

conditions, identify and mark hazards, 

and scout safe routes for seismic 

operations. Depending on the number of 

locations needed to be verified, crews 

can complete and travel up to 16 km (10 

mi) per day. At the end of each day, 

crews return to camp. Once operations 

are too far from camp, the camp is 

moved to stay close to operations. When 

the main camp arrives with the 

recording crew, the advance camp will 

merge with main camp. 

Seismic Acquisition 

The method of seismic acquisition is 

Source Driven Shooting (SDS). Seismic 

operations will be conducted utilizing 

rubber tracked/buggy vibrators with a 

rectangular base plate and wireless, 

autonomous recording channels (nodes). 

Wireless nodes will be laid out by crews 

on foot and through the use of rubbertracked tundra-travel-approved vehicles. 

Using the SDS methodology, multiple 

vibrators can collect data at the same 

time. This methodology means that only 

a single vibrator is required to travel 

down any source line, thereby reducing 

risk of compaction or damage to the 

tundra and the footprint of operations. 

Vibrators will only operate on snowcovered tundra or grounded sea ice. 

There are two sizes of vibrators used for 

this survey: Large vibrators with a 

weight of 44,000 kilograms (kg; 97,000 

pounds [lb]) and small vibrators 

(Univibes) with a weight of 12,475 kg 

(27,500 lb). The lighter Univibes are 

utilized to further reduce potential 

disturbance in narrow riverbeds and on 

ungrounded lakes, risk from working in 

areas that do not have grounded landfast 

ice, and noise levels. 

Seismic operations continue for 24 

hours per work day and are based on 

two 12-hour shifts. Communications 

with the crews while out in the field 

will be via very high frequency radio 

systems and wireless data transfer 

radios. 

Survey Design 

The goal of the program is to collect 

seismic data across the entire Program 

Area to inform stakeholders on the 

potential for oil and gas over the period 

of the IHA. The duration is expected to 

take one winter season as data is only 

collected when the snow cover and ice 

thickness are sufficient to support 

operations. The method of collecting 

data over this area is by collecting data 

over a patch of recording channels and 

moving the patch progressively 

throughout the area. It takes 

approximately 5–7 days to pick and relayout the spread over the entire patch 

area, the crews move continuously on to 

the next patch progressively, including 

the camps and materials. 

The method for collecting data is to 

establish a spread of source lines and 

receiver lines over a set area (or patch). 

The camp is typically set in the center 

of the patch. The crews establish source 

lines and receiver lines within an 

acquisition spread. This spread is 

approximately 248 km 2 (95 mi 2), or 8 

km wide by 31 km long (5 mi wide by 

19 mi long), with a camp for the crew 

at the center of the spread. As the 

vibrators move, the nodes behind the 

vibrations are retrieved, the data are 

downloaded, and the nodes are replaced 

ahead of the source lines. This method 

allows for efficient data collection over 

the winter season. 

Vibrators typically operate within a 

distinct area proximal to each other. 

Geophone receiver lines are spaced 

approximately at 201 m (660 ft) and run 

perpendicular to source lines that are 

spaced approximately 402 m (1,320 ft) 

apart. Up to five receiver lines could be 

placed on the ground at one time. 

Wireless nodes will be laid out by crews 

on foot and through the use of rubbertracked tundra-travel-approved vehicles. 

Each station will be placed individually 

and will be surveyed by global 

positioning system (GPS) upon 

deployment. All GPS data are entered 

into a database. 

During the acquisition phase of the 

project, occupancy of camp will be at its 

highest consisting of approximately 160 

to 180 people. Approximately 7 Tuckers 

will be working on layout and pickup, 

and approximately 12 large vibrators 

and 4 small vibrators (Univibes) with 1 

person each could be working on source 

lines. The lighter Univibes will be 

utilized to further reduce potential 

disturbance in narrow riverbeds and on 

ungrounded lakes, risk from working in 

areas that do not have grounded landfast 

ice, and noise levels. 

Camp Facilities 

The camp can accommodate up to 180 

personnel. Equipment included at camp 

stations include long haul fuel tractors, 

remote fuelers, water maker, incinerator, 

resupply and survival sleigh, tractors, 

loaders, and Tuckers. Camp locations 

are selected based on environmental 

conditions. Typically, once the camp 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79086 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

reaches the Program Area, a site will be 

picked based on topography and snow 

conditions. When good conditions 

allow, the camp may stay at current 

location up to 7 days. Typically, the 

camp will move 1.6–3.2 km (1–2 mi) 

every 5–7 days, which could be four to 

six camp moves per month. The camp 

will generally remain in the center of 

the spread, moving as the spread moves. 

A maximum footprint for a large camp 

is approximately 91x122 m (300x400 ft). 

The mobilization of the camp or 

camps will be from the existing gravel 

roads, starting off a gravel pad located 

outside of the Program Area. A 

predetermined route will be used to 

move equipment to the project location. 

The camp will travel in a single-file 

configuration pulled by a rubber-tracked 

Steiger or CAT. Each string of camp has 

5 trailers, and typically a camp consists 

of 8 strings, but can consist of up to 10 

strings. Camp trails during the project 

will be scouted out in advance by a 

project manager or survey personnel to 

avoid hazards and to measure and 

ascertain proper snow depth. To 

mitigate any tundra damage, the sleigh 

camp could be moved up to 3.2 km (2 

mi) every 5–7 days, depending on the 

weather, snow covering, and the 

advancement of the project. Sanitary 

conditions in the kitchen and diner and 

washrooms will be maintained in full 

compliance with governmental 

regulations. Gray water will be filtered 

to meet the discharge requirements of 

the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (APDES) permit prior to 

discharge. The Operators holds a 

current APDES discharge permit for this 

purpose. 

Temporary Snow Airstrips 

The program will need airstrips to 

transport crews on crew change days 

and to allow personnel, food, and 

potentially fuel (in emergency 

situations) to be delivered to the remote 

camp. The Program Area has few lakes; 

therefore, tundra airstrip is most likely 

to be used. Airstrips will be located 

close to camp locations. Airstrips will 

be within a couple of miles of camp to 

ensure efficiency. The footprint of 

prepacked airstrips could be up to 

approximately 22.8 m (75 ft) wide and 

701 to 1,066 m (2,300 to 3,500 ft) long 

for the aircraft to land. The length of the 

airstrip will depend on which plane is 

to be used. Aircraft will use either 

wheels or skis to land. Estimated air 

traffic will be approximately two trips 

per week, or as operations require. 

Having temporary airstrips will save 

several hours of tundra travel. The 

Operator will create a flat area on 

predetermined grounded ice or tundra 

with sufficient snow cover to serve as a 

landing strip to receive the aircraft for 

crew changes. Planes may be wheeled or 

on skis, whichever will be the safest fit 

for the current environment. An 

advance scouting trip will identify 

grounded lakes, if any, and/or tundra 

locations that can be used for this 

purpose. The landing strip will only be 

on areas that have adequate space for 

safely landing aircraft. On lakes, a 

rubber-tracked Steiger with a blade will 

clear the snow down for the aircraft to 

land. Black bags filled with snow will 

be placed along the side of the berm to 

delineate the edge of the landing strip 

along with lighting. Airstrips on snowcovered tundra will be constructed 

similarly. On tundra areas, a flat area 

with sufficient snow cover will be 

identified by advanced scouting. If 

determined adequate, the Operator will 

utilize groomers to pack a landing strip 

and will delineate the landing strip 

similar to those on grounded lakes. 

After the crews and camps have 

moved to a different location, the 

airstrips will not be maintained unless 

they are needed again. After use of the 

strip is no longer necessary, the crews 

will inspect the location and record the 

area that was used by GPS location to 

be included in the final reporting. 

River Crossings 

There may be areas where floating ice 

is encountered that may not safely 

support the weight of some equipment. 

In these cases, the Operator will permit 

this activity with the State of Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

to apply water to increase the thickness 

of the ice to establish temporary river 

crossings. There also may be areas on 

rivers, streams, and lakes that need to be 

protected with snow for traversing from 

tundra to ice for crossing. As identified 

in section 10 of their application, KIC 

has committed to several mitigation 

measures specifically for drainages 

through reduction of the number of 

source lines crossing major drainages by 

using a slope analysis tool (KIC 2020). 

The slopes along these lines can be 

measured during the preplanning and 

advance crew phases of the operations. 

Equipment will only cross these areas at 

the lowest possible relief points, as 

vibrators are not able to shake on slopes 

greater than 10°. KIC is requiring its 

Operator to place a 25-m (82.5-ft) buffer 

on each side of slopes greater than 10°. 

For areas that are defined denning 

critical habitat (16° slope and height of 

1.6 m [5.2 ft]), a 100-m (328-ft) buffer 

will be used. The area will be mapped 

using digital elevation modeling (DEM) 

data for slopes. Ramp areas or transits 

across these areas will be cleared by the 

advance ice check crews with handheld 

or truck-mounted FLIR prior to 

movement. 

The Operator will make snow ramps 

in these areas and establish that the ice 

is grounded or the ice is of sufficient ice 

depth to cross. Scouting by the Operator 

will determine locations of river 

crossings based on the best available 

information from advanced scouting, 

environmental and terrain conditions, 

local knowledge, surveys, and 

operational safety. 

Water Withdrawal 

Potable water will be produced at 

camp with a skid-mounted snow melter. 

The primary source of water is melting 

snow; if, however, conditions are 

inadequate, snow-melting activities can 

be supplemented by withdrawing water 

from lakes through the ADEC-approved 

water system. KIC has worked with the 

Operator to identify lakes and 

withdrawal that will require permits if 

used. If lakes are used, ADF&Gapproved water withdrawal pumps will 

be used. If there is not an adequate 

source of snow and water withdrawal 

from lakes is not possible, water may 

need to be transported to each camp 

from an approved source. 

Fuel Supply and Storage 

Long-haul sleigh tanks will be used 

for fueling. All fuel will be ultralow 

sulfur for vehicles and equipment. Fuel 

will be delivered using overland 

Rolligon or rubber-tracked carriers. In 

the event the supply is disrupted by 

weather or other unforeseen events, fuel 

may also be delivered by aircraft to a 

public airstrip; temporary airstrips may 

be required for these occasions if 

needed in emergency situations. 

Offloading fuel from aircraft will be 

done in accordance with the Operator’s 

approved fueling procedure. Fueling 

storages and fueling activity will be 

located at least 30.5 m (100 ft) from any 

water body. All equipment fuel 

locations will be tracked and recorded. 

KIC fueling procedures include spill 

management practices such as drip pan 

placement under any vehicle parked 

and placement of vinyl liners with foam 

dikes under all valves or connections to 

diesel fuel tanks. All fuel tanks are 

double-wall tank construction. Fuel dye 

is added to all fuel as part of spill 

detection. 

All spills, no matter what the size, are 

recorded and cleaned up. The Operator 

holds a Spill Prevention 

Countermeasure Control (SPCC) plan for 

fueling and fuel storage operations 

associated with seismic operations. This 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79087 

SPCC plan is site-specific and will be 

amended for each new project. All 

reportable spills will be communicated 

through the proper agencies and 

reporting requirements. 

Waste Management 

Food waste generated by the field 

operations will be stored in vehicles 

until the end of the shift. The garbage 

will then be consolidated at camp in 

wildlife-resistant containers for further 

disposal. All food waste generated in 

camp will also be collected and stored 

in the same consolidation area. A skidmounted incinerator will be used for 

daily garbage waste. This equipment 

falls within the regulatory requirements 

of 40 CFR part 60. The cyclonator will 

use an average of 3.8 to 7.6 liters (1 to 

2 gallons) of fuel per hour while in use. 

The use of electricity is for the motor to 

the unit that maintains the air-to-fuel 

mixture. Data will be collected to 

provide the required records on a 

calendar basis of description and weight 

of camp waste burned. 

Any waste generated by seismic 

operations will be properly stored and 

disposed of in accordance with 

applicable permit stipulations and 

Operator controls. Food waste is 

continually incinerated to avoid 

attracting wildlife. Gray water generated 

from the mobile camp will be 

discharged according to general permit 

AKG332000 and 18 AAC 83.210 and 

APDES discharge limits. Toilets are 

‘‘PACTO’’ type to eliminate ‘‘black 

water.’’ Ash from the incinerator will be 

back-hauled to the North Slope Borough 

(NSB) disposal facility in Deadhorse. 

The sleigh camp will move 

approximately every 5–7 days 

depending on weather conditions. An 

inspection by the Health, Safety, and 

Environment Advisor will be done after 

camp has left to ensure that the area is 

clean of all debris. 

Summer Cleanup Activities 

After all snow is gone, KIC will 

contract one helicopter to perform 

flyovers of the Program Area looking for 

any debris that may have been left 

behind in July or August of 2021. The 

cleanup crew will also inspect all camp 

locations and any area that had an 

unplanned release or tundra 

disturbance. Each source and receiver 

line will be inspected. This phase of the 

project will require one helicopter, 

based in Kaktovik, for approximately 15 

days, including possible weather days. 

The area of the cleanup will be 

determined by the completed portion 

from that winter’s acquisition and will 

not go beyond the Program Area. An 

aircraft use plan will be developed to 

minimize impacts on subsistence 

hunting and activities through 

consultation with local stakeholders and 

ensuring regulatory compliance. The 

coastal portion of summer activities 

(within 2 km of the coast) is targeted to 

be completed by July 19, and all 

cleanup activities will be completed by 

mid-August. 

On-the-Ground Safety and Preparations 

Safety of the personnel will remain a 

top priority of all work within the 

Refuge. The optimal strategy to reduce 

dangerous interactions with a polar bear 

is through a detailed bear plan, as well 

as sufficient training and a high level of 

awareness for all field personnel when 

at work sites. Specific guidelines and 

suggestions on interacting with polar 

bears can be viewed at https://

www.fws.gov/alaska/pages/marinemammals/polar-bear/interactionguidelines. 

All activities will be performed under 

the guidance of a detailed bear 

interaction and avoidance plan 

developed by KIC and approved by the 

Service prior to beginning field 

activities (see appendix A of KIC 2020). 

The Service will provide KIC with the 

most up-to-date Polar Bear Observation 

Form in which to record sightings of 

bears within 24 hours to fw7_mmm_

reports@fws.gov. Details on monitoring 

guidelines and reporting requirements 

can be read in Proposed Authorization, 

Monitoring, and Reporting 

Requirements. Attractants and waste 

will be minimized to reduce likelihood 

of bear presence. All field personnel 

will be up-to-date in their bear 

awareness and safety training. The 

Service can require the presence of a 

bear guard or subsistence advisor if 

deemed necessary and appropriate, 

which will then add one to two staff to 

the survey crew sizes. Further details on 

safety and mitigation techniques can be 

read in Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Avoidance and Minimization. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Specified Area 

The polar bear is the only marine 

mammal under the Service’s 

jurisdiction that occupies the Refuge 

region. Polar bears are distributed 

throughout the circumpolar Arctic in 19 

subpopulations, also known as stocks. 

Two polar bear stocks occur in Alaska, 

the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) and 

Chukchi/Bering Sea (CBS) stocks. 

Together, the two stocks range 

throughout the Beaufort, Chukchi, and 

Bering Seas, including nearshore 

habitats. The stocks overlap seasonally 

in the eastern Chukchi and western 

Beaufort Seas. Management of the SBS 

stock is shared between the United 

States and Canada, and management of 

the CBS stock is shared between the 

United States and the Russian 

Federation. Detailed descriptions of the 

SBS and CBS polar bear stocks can be 

found in the Polar Bear (Ursus 

maritimus) Draft Revised Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs) (announced 

at 82 FR 28526, June 22, 2017), and 

available at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/ 

pages/marine-mammals/polar-bear. 

Once finalized, these revised SARs will 

replace the current SARs last revised in 

2010 and available at https://

www.fws.gov/alaska/pages/marinemammals/polar-bear. 

On May 15, 2008, the Service listed 

polar bears as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 

16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) due to loss of 

sea-ice habitat caused by climate change 

(73 FR 28212). The Service later 

published a final special rule under 

section 4(d) of the ESA for the polar 

bear (78 FR 11766, February 20, 2013) 

that provides measures necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of polar 

bears. Specifically, the 4(d) rule: (a) 

Adopts conservation regulatory 

requirements of the MMPA and the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild 

Fauna and Flora for the polar bear as 

appropriate regulatory provisions, in 

most instances; (b) provides that 

incidental, nonlethal take of polar bears 

resulting from activities outside the 

polar bear’s current range is not 

prohibited under the ESA; (c) clarifies 

that the special rule does not alter the 

section 7 consultation requirements of 

the ESA; and (d) applies the standard 

ESA protections for threatened species 

when an activity is not covered by an 

MMPA or CITES authorization or 

exemption. 

The Service designated critical habitat 

for polar bear populations in the United 

States effective January 6, 2011 (75 FR 

76086, December 7, 2010). 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. Polar bear critical habitat 

units include barrier island habitat, seaice habitat (both described in geographic 

terms), and terrestrial denning habitat (a 

functional determination). Barrier island 

habitat includes coastal barrier islands 

and spits along Alaska’s coast; it is used 

for denning, refuge from human 

disturbance, resting, feeding, and travel 

along the coast. Sea-ice habitat is 

located over the continental shelf, and 

it includes water 300 m (984 ft) or less 

in depth. Terrestrial denning habitat 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79088 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

includes lands within 32 km (20 mi) of 

the northern coast of Alaska between 

the Canadian border and the Kavik 

River and within 8 km (5 mi) of the 

coast between the Kavik River and 

Barrow. The total area designated as 

critical habitat covers 484,734 km 2

(187,157 mi 2), and is entirely within the 

lands and waters of the United States. 

The specified geographic area of this 

proposed IHA is estimated to contain 

approximately 1,608.11 km 2 (620.89 

mi 2) of critical habitat inclusive of 

barrier islands, sea ice habitat, and 

denning habitat. Polar bear critical 

habitat is described in detail in the final 

rule (75 FR 76086, December 7, 2010). 

It should be noted that designation of 

polar bear denning critical habitat is not 

intended to identify actual denning sites 

but rather to identify the essential 

features that support denning habitat. 

KIC is planning to perform work during 

winter months, the primary period 

when polar bears are denning or on the 

sea ice hunting seals. 

Polar bears may occur anywhere 

within the specified geographic area of 

this proposed IHA. SBS polar bears 

historically spent the entire year on the 

sea ice hunting for seals, with the 

exception of a relatively small 

proportion of denning adult females that 

would come ashore during autumn and 

overwinter to den. However, over the 

last two decades, the SBS has 

experienced a marked decline in 

summer sea-ice extent, along with a 

pronounced lengthening of the openwater season (period of time between 

sea ice break-up and freeze-up) (Stroeve 

et al. 2014; Stern and Laidre 2016). The 

dramatic changes in the extent and 

phenology of sea-ice habitat have 

coincided with evidence suggesting that 

use of terrestrial habitat has increased 

during summer and prior to denning, 

including in the Refuge. 

The most recent population estimate 

for SBS polar bears was approximately 

900 individuals in 2010 (Bromaghin et 

al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2020). This 

number represents an approximately 30 

percent decline in SBS polar bear 

abundance between 1986 and 2010 

(Amstrup et al. 1986, Regehr et al. 2006, 

Bromaghin et al. 2015); however, the 

population appears to have remained 

stable from 2010 to 2015 (Atwood et al. 

2020). In addition, analyses of more 

than 20 years of data on the size and 

body condition of SBS polar bears 

demonstrated declines for most sex and 

age classes and a significant negative 

relationship between annual sea ice 

availability and body condition (Rode et 

al. 2010). These lines of evidence 

suggest that the SBS subpopulation is 

declining due to sea ice loss. Schliebe 

et al. (2008) determined that an average 

of 4.0 percent of the SBS subpopulation 

of polar bears were on land in autumn 

during 2000 to 2005, and that the 

percentage increased when sea ice was 

farther from the coast. More recently, 

Atwood et al. (2016) determined that 

the percentage of radio-collared adult 

females coming ashore in summer and 

fall increased from 5.8 to 20 percent 

between 2000 and 2014. Over the same 

period, the mean duration of the openwater season increased by 36 days and 

the mean length of stay on land by polar 

bears increased by 31 days (Atwood et 

al. 2016). While on shore, the 

distribution of polar bears is largely 

influenced by the opportunity to feed on 

the remains of subsistence-harvested 

bowhead whales. Most polar bears are 

aggregated at three sites along the coast, 

Utqiag ̇vik (formerly Barrow), Cross 

Island, and Kaktovik, a community 

located on Barter Island just off the 

Coastal Plain (Rogers et al. 2015; 

McKinney et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 

2017). 

In addition to increased use of land 

during the open-water season, SBS polar 

bears have also increasingly used land 

for maternal denning. Olson et al. (2017) 

examined the choice of denning 

substrate (land compared to sea ice) by 

adult females between 1985 and 2013 

and determined that the frequency of 

land-based denning increased over time, 

constituting 34.4 percent of all dens 

from 1985 to 1995, 54.6 percent from 

1996 to 2006, and 55.2 percent from 

2007 to 2013. Additionally, the 

frequency of land denning was directly 

related to the distance that sea ice 

retreated from the coast. From 1985 to 

1995 and 2007 to 2013, the average 

distance from the coast to 50 percent sea 

ice concentration in September (when 

sea ice extent reaches its annual 

minimum) increased 351 ± 55 km 

(218.10 ± 34.17 mi), while the distance 

to 15 percent sea ice concentration 

increased by 275 ± 54 km (170.88 ± 

33.55 mi). Rode et al. (2018) determined 

that reproductive success was greater for 

females occupying land-based dens 

compared to ice-based dens, which may 

be an additional factor contributing to 

the increase in land-based denning. 

Land-based dens are mostly distributed 

along the central and eastern coast of 

Alaska’s Beaufort Sea, including the 

Coastal Plain (Durner et al. 2010). 

Durner and Atwood (2018) estimate 

there is approximately 79.6 km2 (30.7 

mi2) of maternal denning habitat 

available to polar bears in the Coastal 

Plain. 

The proportion of SBS polar bears 

found in the Coastal Plain at any given 

time is not known. Though polar bears 

can be found throughout the Coastal 

Plain year-round, their density and 

distribution across the area differs 

across seasons. Polar bear density is 

greatest in summer and fall (i.e., the 

open-water period, typically mid-July 

through mid-November), along the shore 

and barrier islands. During late fall and 

winter (generally late mid-November to 

March), non-denning polar bears (i.e., 

adult and subadult males, adult females 

with and without dependent young, and 

subadult females) may travel throughout 

the Coastal Plain, though likely in lower 

numbers than would be expected along 

the coast during the open-water period. 

In late fall (generally late October 

through November), pregnant females 

will begin to excavate and enter dens 

distributed throughout the Coastal Plain 

in areas where snow accumulates, such 

as along coastal bluffs or riverbanks. 

Denning female polar bears give birth to 

cubs, on average, December 15th, and 

remain in their dens until they emerge 

in spring (generally March and April). 

Polar bears in all life stages may travel 

throughout the Coastal Plain in spring 

and early summer (generally March to 

June). 

Mitigation and Monitoring 

KIC has proposed to reduce the effects 

of its action by implementing mitigation 

and monitoring measures described in 

chapter 10 of its application, in its Polar 

Bear Avoidance and Interaction Plan 

(appendix A of the application), and in 

its Plan of Cooperation (POC; appendix 

B of the application). These measures 

have been incorporated into Proposed 

Authorization, (B) Avoidance and 

Minimization, and (E) Reporting 

Requirements, which KIC will be 

required to implement as part of its 

project if an IHA is issued. 

The MMPA requires incidental take 

authorizations to prescribe, where 

applicable, permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable impact on the affected 

stock. In our analysis, we considered the 

availability and feasibility (economic 

and technological) of equipment, 

methods, and manners of conducting 

the proposed seismic acquisition and 

other specified activities in order to 

effect the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the SBS stock of polar 

bears, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses. In 

doing do, we paid particular attention to 

polar bear denning habitat in the action 

area given the significance of this 

habitat and life stage to polar bears. 

The Service’s efforts to identify means 

to achieve the least practicable adverse 

impact began immediately upon receipt 

of KIC’s initial request for an IHA. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79089 

Specifically, the Service began working 

with KIC to revise its request by 

subdividing acquisition blocks and 

establishing dates no earlier than which 

work would begin in each block. The 

purpose of this was to, where feasible, 

delay acquisition in blocks with greater 

overlap with polar bear denning habitat. 

As demonstrated in Wilson and Durner, 

spatial and temporal project planning 

has the greatest impact on reducing 

potential impacts to denning polar 

bears. 

In addition to avoiding work in polar 

bear denning areas until later in the 

season when more mothers and cubs 

will have naturally emerged from their 

dens, the Service also worked with KIC 

to revise its request by placing a 1-mile 

buffer around known dens and 

prohibiting activities with the potential 

to disturb denning bears within that 

buffer. The Service also worked with 

KIC to incorporate into its request the 

use of additional AIR surveys to detect 

polar bear dens. Dens of a depth greater 

than 100 cm are not able to be detected. 

Durner et al. (2003) reported the mean 

den roof thicknesses for 22 polar bear 

dens in northern Alaska was 72 ± 87 cm, 

and ranged from as little as 10 cm to 

more than 400 cm. Snow depth over 

many dens, therefore, is likely near, or 

above, the limits of FLIR detection 

capabilities, regardless of weather 

(Smith et al. 2020). A single AIR survey 

(as was proposed in KIC’s original 

request) is able to detect 45 percent of 

the dens that are less than 100 cm deep. 

In order to increase the likelihood of 

detecting dens, and then being able to 

protect them with a 1-mile buffer, KIC’s 

latest request proposes to conduct three 

AIR surveys of the action area before 

work proceeds. Three AIR surveys 

increases the likelihood of detecting 

dens at less than 100 cm deep to 98 

percent. Detecting and then placing a 1- 

mile buffer around known polar bear 

dens is an accepted means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on denning 

polar bears and therefore the SBS polar 

bear stock. 

Additionally, after coordination with 

the Service, KIC modified its project 

design to incorporate reduced line 

density and reduced crossings in areas 

of high elevation change near streams 

and rivers. These high relief areas 

contain conditions suitable for polar 

bear denning, so reducing activity in 

these areas is an appropriate method to 

help achieve the least practicable 

adverse impact. In addition, prior to 

conducting work in high relief stream or 

river crossings, KIC will use handheld 

FLIR to investigate if a polar bear den 

is present and if so will protect it with 

a 1-mile buffer. 

The Service also worked with KIC to 

develop and incorporate into its request 

a plan for management of food, waste, 

and other potential attractants. 

Development and implementation of 

such a plan is a means of reducing 

impacts on SBS polar bears as it reduces 

the likelihood that bears will be 

attracted to camps and other projectrelated infrastructure. This has 

immediate benefits in reducing the 

potential for interactions between 

project personnel and polar bears that 

could result in injury to humans or 

bears. In addition, it helps reduce the 

potential for polar bears to associate 

humans and human activities with 

positive food rewards that could result 

in them seeking out human 

establishments later in life. 

The above measures reduce the 

potential for overlap between KIC’s 

seismic acquisition and polar bears and 

therefore reduces the potential for 

exposing polar bears to potential 

disturbance. The required attractant 

management and human polar bear 

interaction plans reduce the probability 

and severity of negative consequences to 

polar bears exposed to KIC’s operations. 

These methods, implemented in the 

past, have proven to be both practical 

and effective. The Service has 

determined that these mitigation 

measures constitute the means of 

effecting the least practicable impact to 

SBS polar bears. 

We also evaluated potential 

alternative mitigation measures but 

determined they do not warrant 

inclusion in this proposed IHA. The 

Service considered the use of dogs as an 

alternative mitigation measure to 

identify polar bear dens; however, it 

was determined that, given the large 

area to be surveyed and the limited 

availability of trained dogs, this 

mitigation measure was not practicable 

for the proposed project. The Service 

also considered a requirement that the 

work be conducted outside of polar bear 

denning season, but this approach 

would be in direct conflict with ground 

temperature and snow cover 

requirements for tundra access. 

Additionally, we considered applying 

minimum flight altitudes without 

exception; however, this requirement is 

not practicable given cloud and fog 

conditions encountered in the project 

area. 

Mitigation techniques to achieve the 

least practicable impact are detailed 

below in Proposed Authorization, (B) 

Avoidance and Minimization, 

paragraphs (a) General avoidance 

measures, (b) Mitigation measures for 

onshore activities, and (c) Mitigation 

measures for aircraft. Additionally, all 

measures outlined in the application 

(KIC 2020), including the appendices 

with the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 

and Plan of Cooperation, are 

incorporated by reference herein. 

Types of Incidental Take 

Lethal Take 

Human activity may result in 

biologically significant impacts to polar 

bears. In the most serious interactions, 

human actions can result in mortality of 

polar bears, especially in situations 

where human life is at risk. On the 

North Slope, unintentional mortality 

has occurred during efforts to deter 

polar bears from a work area for safety 

and from direct chemical exposure (81 

FR 52276, August 5, 2016). Incidental 

lethal take could also result from a 

vehicle collision or collapse of a den if 

it were run over by a vehicle. 

Harassment of a female during the 

denning season may cause the female to 

either abandon her den prematurely 

with cubs or abandon her cubs in the 

den before the cubs can survive on their 

own. Either scenario may result in lethal 

take of the cubs. 

Level A Harassment 

Human activity may also result in the 

injury of polar bears. Level A 

harassment, for nonmilitary readiness 

activities, is defined as any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has 

the potential to injure a marine mammal 

or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Take by Level A harassment can be 

caused by numerous actions, including 

the incorrect use of a deterrent 

projectile, a vehicle collision, or a den 

collapse that impairs the animal or 

reduces its likelihood of survival or 

reproduction. Other examples include, 

but are not limited to, separation of 

mothers from dependent cub(s) 

(Amstrup 2003), activities that result in 

mothers leaving the den early (Amstrup 

and Gardner 1994, Rode et al. 2018), or 

prolonged or repeated interruptions in 

nursing or resting (cubs), both of which 

can negatively affect cub survival. 

Level B Harassment 

Level B Harassment for nonmilitary 

readiness activities means any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance that has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. Reactions that disrupt 

biologically significant behaviors for the 

affected animal meet the criteria for take 

by Level B harassment under the 

MMPA. Reactions that indicate take by 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79090 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Level B harassment of polar bears in 

response to human activity include, but 

are not limited to, the following 

examples: 

• Fleeing (running or swimming away 

from a human or a human activity); 

• Displaying a stress-related behavior 

such as jaw or lip-popping, front leg 

stomping, vocalizations, circling, 

intense staring, or salivating; 

• Abandoning or avoiding preferred 

movement corridors such as ice floes, 

leads, polynyas, a segment of coast line, 

or barrier islands; 

• Using a longer or more difficult 

route of travel instead of the intended 

path; 

• Interrupting breeding, sheltering, 

feeding, or hunting; 

• Moving away at a fast pace (adult) 

and cubs struggle to keep up; 

• Ceasing to nurse or rest (cubs); 

• Ceasing to rest repeatedly or for a 

prolonged period (adults); 

• Loss of hunting opportunity due to 

disturbance of prey; or 

• Any interruption in normal denning 

behavior that does not cause injury, den 

abandonment, or early departure of the 

family group from the den site. 

This list is not meant to encompass all 

possible behaviors; other behavioral 

responses may equate to take by Level 

B harassment. Relatively minor 

reactions such as increased vigilance or 

a short-term change in direction of 

travel are not likely to disrupt 

biologically important behavioral 

patterns, and the Service does not view 

such minor reactions as resulting in a 

take by Level B harassment. It is also 

important to note that depending on the 

duration and severity of the abovedescribed behaviors, such responses 

could constitute take by Level A 

harassment (e.g., repeatedly disrupting a 

polar bear versus a single interruption). 

Estimating Incidental Take 

The general approach for quantifying 

take in this proposed IHA was as 

follows: (1) Determine the number of 

animals in the project area; (2) assess 

the likelihood, nature, and degree of 

exposure of these animals to projectrelative activities; (3) evaluate these 

animals’ probable responses; and (4) 

calculate how many of these responses 

constitute take. Our evaluation of take 

included quantifying the number of 

responses that met the criteria for lethal 

take, Level A harassment (potential 

injury), or Level B harassment (potential 

disruption of a biologically significant 

behavioral pattern), factoring in the 

degree to which effective mitigation 

measures will reduce the amount or 

consequences of take. To better account 

for differences in how various aspects of 

the project could impact polar bears, we 

performed separate take estimates for 

Surface-Level Impacts, Aircraft 

Activities, and Impacts to Denning 

Bears. These analyses are described in 

more detail in the subsections below. 

Once these various types of take were 

quantified, the next steps were to: (5) 

Determine whether the total take will be 

of a small number relative to the size of 

the stock; and (6) determine whether the 

total take will have a negligible impact 

on the stock, both of which are 

determinations required under the 

MMPA. 

Analysis of Surface-Level Impact 

Individual polar bears can be affected 

by activities of the oil and gas industry 

(‘‘Industry’’) in numerous ways during 

the open-water and ice-covered seasons. 

During the early portion of the openwater season (June and mid-July), most 

polar bears occur in offshore areas 

associated with multiyear pack ice. 

However, in the latter portion of the 

open-water season (mid-July to midNovember), polar bears are attracted to 

whale carcasses deposited at bone piles 

following subsistence whaling activities 

in Alaska Native communities. During 

this time, polar bears can be found in 

large numbers and high densities on 

barrier islands, along the coastline, and 

in the nearshore waters of the Beaufort 

Sea, particularly on and around Barter 

Island. Alternatively, as sea ice recedes 

over the deeper waters of the Arctic 

Ocean, some bears may abandon the sea 

ice for shore. During late fall, winter, 

spring, and early summer (generally 

mid-November to mid-July), nondenning polar bears may travel 

throughout the Coastal Plain, though in 

lower numbers than would be expected 

along the coast during the open-water 

period. Non-denning polar bear 

responses will vary by the type, 

duration, intensity, and location of the 

source of disturbance. 

Disturbance from surface-level 

activities associated with the proposed 

project would originate primarily from 

camp activities and mobile sources such 

as vehicle and aircraft traffic, 3D winter 

seismic surveys, and summer cleanup 

work. The noises, sights, and smells 

produced by the project could elicit 

variable responses from polar bears. 

Noise disturbance can originate from 

either stationary or mobile sources. 

Stationary sources include construction, 

maintenance, repair and remediation 

activities, operations at production 

facilities, gas flaring, and drilling 

operations from either onshore or 

offshore facilities. Mobile sources 

include aircraft traffic, open-water 

winter vibroseis programs, geotechnical 

surveys, ice road construction, vehicle 

traffic, and tracked vehicles and 

snowmobiles. 

Noise may act as a deterrent to polar 

bears entering work areas, conversely 

camp odors could attract them (see 50 

CFR 18.34 for further guidance). 

Attracting polar bears to these locations 

could result in human-bear encounters, 

unintentional harassment, intentional 

hazing, or possible lethal take in defense 

of human life. When disturbed by noise, 

animals may respond behaviorally (e.g., 

escape response) or physiologically 

(e.g., increased heart rate, hormonal 

response) (Harms et al. 1997; Tempel 

and Gutierrez 2003). Noise produced by 

Industry activities during the openwater and ice-covered seasons could 

disturb polar bears. The available 

studies of polar bear behavior indicate 

that polar bears can be sensitive to noise 

disturbance based on previous 

interactions, sex, age, and maternal 

status (Anderson and Aars 2008; Dyck 

and Baydack 2004). Additionally, 

habituation may impact individual bear 

behavior. A more detailed description of 

the impact of noise on polar bear 

hearing can be found below in Analysis 

of Aircraft Impact. 

Encounter Rate 

The most comprehensive dataset of 

human-polar bear encounters along the 

coast of Alaska consists of records of 

Industry encounters during activities on 

the North Slope. This database is 

referred to as the ‘‘LOA database’’ 

because it aggregates data reported by 

the oil and gas industry to the Service 

pursuant to the terms and conditions of 

LOAs, issued under current and 

previous incidental take regulations (50 

CFR part 18, subpart J). While KIC’s 

project area does not spatially overlap 

with the activities that inform the LOA 

database, the LOA database does 

include data from the same types of 

activities as specified in KIC’s request 

and serves as a reasonable proxy for 

how polar bears may interact with KIC’s 

project. We have used the LOA database 

in conjunction with bear density 

projections for the entire coastline to 

generate quantitative encounter rates in 

the project area. We used records from 

2014–2018 to conduct the analyses 

described below. These records were 

entered into a larger LOA database, 

which included the date and time of the 

encounter, a general description, 

number of bears encountered, latitude 

and longitude, weather variables, and a 

take determination made by the Service. 

If latitude and longitude were not 

supplied in the initial report, we 

georeferenced the encounter using the 

location description and a map of North 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79091 

Slope infrastructure. We also calculated 

distance to shore for each encounter 

record using a shapefile of the coastline 

and the dist2Line function found in the 

R geosphere package. 

Spatially Partitioning the North Slope 

Into ‘‘Coastal’’ and ‘‘Inland’’ Zones 

Polar bear encounters along the 

Alaskan coast exhibit a high degree of 

spatial autocorrelation, with the vast 

majority of encounters occurring along 

the shore or immediately offshore 

(Atwood et al. 2015, Wilson et al. 2017). 

Thus, encounter rates for inland 

operations should be significantly lower 

than those for offshore or coastal 

operations. To partition the North Slope 

into ‘‘coastal’’ and ‘‘inland’’ zones, we 

calculated the distance to shore for all 

encounter records in the period 2014– 

2018 in the Service’s LOA database. 

Linked sightings of the same bear(s) 

were removed from the analysis, and 

individual records were created for each 

bear encountered. However, because we 

were only able to identify and remove 

repeated sightings that were designated 

as linked within the database, it is likely 

that some repeated encounters of the 

same bear remained in our analysis. Of 

the 1,713 bears encountered from 2014 

through 2018, 1,140 (66.5 percent) of the 

bears were offshore. While these bears 

were encountered offshore, the 

encounters were reported by onshore or 

island operations (i.e., docks, drilling 

and production islands, or causeways). 

We examined the distribution of bears 

that were onshore and up to 10 km (6.2 

mi) inland to determine the distance at 

which encounters sharply decreased 

(figure 2). 

The histogram illustrates a steep 

decline in human-polar bear encounters 

at 2 km (1.2 mi) from shore. Using this 

data, we divided the North Slope into 

the ‘‘coastal zone,’’ which includes 

offshore operations and up to 2 km (1.2 

mi) inland, and the ‘‘inland zone,’’ 

which includes operations more than 2 

km (1.2 mi) inland. 

Dividing the Year Into Seasons 

The Service’s LOA database was also 

used to divide the year into seasons of 

high bear activity and low bear activity. 

Below is a histogram of all bear 

encounters from 2014 through 2018 by 

day of the year (Julian date). Two clear 

seasons of polar bear encounters can be 

seen: An ‘‘open water season’’ that 

begins in mid-July and ends in midNovember, and an ‘‘ice season’’ that 

begins in mid-November and ends in 

mid-July. The 200th and 315th days of 

the year were used to delineate these 

seasons when calculating encounter 

rates (figure 3). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.001</GPH>
79092 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

North Slope Encounter Rates 

Encounter rates in bears/season/km2

were calculated using a subset of the 

Industry encounter records maintained 

in the Service’s LOA database. The 

following formula was used to calculate 

encounter rate (Equation 1): 

The subset consisted of encounters in 

areas that were constantly occupied 

year-round to prevent artificially 

inflating the denominator of the 

equation and negatively biasing the 

encounter rate. To identify constantly 

occupied North Slope locations, we 

gathered data from a number of sources. 

We used past LOA applications to find 

descriptions of projects that occurred 

anywhere within 2015–2018 and the 

final LOA reports to determine the 

projects that proceeded as planned and 

those that were never completed. 

Finally, we relied upon the institutional 

knowledge of our staff, who have 

worked with operators and inspected 

facilities on the North Slope. To 

determine the area around industrial 

facilities in which a polar bear can be 

seen and reported, we queried the LOA 

database for records that included the 

distance to an encountered polar bear. It 

is important to note that these values 

may represent the closest distance a 

bear came to the observer, or the 

distance at initial contact. The 

histogram of these values shows a drop 

in the distance at which a polar bear is 

encountered at roughly 1,600 m (1 mi) 

(figure 4). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.002</GPH> EN08DE20.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79093 

Using this information, we buffered 

the 24-hour occupancy locations listed 

above by 1,600 m (1 mi) and calculated 

an overall search area for both the 

coastal and inland zones. The coastal 

and inland occupancy buffer shapefiles 

were then used to select encounter 

records that were associated with 24- 

hour occupancy locations, resulting in 

the number of bears encountered per 

zone. These numbers were then 

separated into open-water and ice 

seasons (table 1). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF ENCOUNTERS WITHIN 1,600 m (1 mi) OF THE 24-HOUR OCCUPANCY LOCATIONS AND

SUBSEQUENT ENCOUNTER RATES FOR COASTAL (a) AND INLAND (b) ZONES

Year Ice season encounters Open-Water season encounters 

(A) Coastal Zone (Area = 133 km2) 

2014 ................................................................... 2 ........................................................................ 193. 

2015 ................................................................... 8 ........................................................................ 49. 

2016 ................................................................... 4 ........................................................................ 227. 

2017 ................................................................... 7 ........................................................................ 313. 

2018 ................................................................... 13 ...................................................................... 205. 

Average ............................................................. 6.8 ..................................................................... 197.4. 

Seasonal Encounter Rate ................................. 0.05 bears/km2 ................................................. 1.48 bears/km2. 

(B) Inland Zone (Area = 267 km2) 

2014 ................................................................... 3 ........................................................................ 3. 

2015 ................................................................... 0 ........................................................................ 0. 

2016 ................................................................... 0 ........................................................................ 2. 

2017 ................................................................... 3 ........................................................................ 0. 

2018 ................................................................... 0 ........................................................................ 2. 

Average ............................................................. 1.2 ..................................................................... 1.4. 

Seasonal Encounter Rate ................................. 0.004 bears/km2 ............................................... 0.005 bears/km2. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.004</GPH>
79094 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Correction for Increased Bear Density in 

the Project Area 

Distribution patterns of polar bears 

along the coast of the SBS were 

estimated by Wilson et al. (2017) using 

a Bayesian hierarchical model based on 

14 years of aerial surveys in late 

summer and early fall. The model 

estimated 140 polar bears per week 

along the coastline (a measurement that 

included barrier islands), with the 

highest density occurring on Barter 

Island, which is within the project area. 

In order to correct the encounter rates 

for the higher density of polar bears in 

this area, we calculated the proportional 

relationship between bear density in the 

North Slope area and the project area. 

Wilson et al. (2017) divided the 

coastline into 10 equally sized grids. 

The North Slope area for which the 

above encounter rates are calculated 

falls within grids 4–7, and the Marsh 

Creek-East 3D seismic survey project 

area falls within grids 8 and 9. Wilson 

et al. (2017) found 40 percent of the 

bears along the coastline were estimated 

to occur in grids 4–7, and 40 percent 

were estimated to occur in grids 8 and 

9. When accounting for the length of 

coastline in these segments, we found 

the number of bears in grids 8 and 9 to 

be 2.33 times higher than the number of 

bears in grids 4–7. We therefore 

multiplied the North Slope coastal and 

inland encounter rates described above 

by 2.33 during the open-water and ice 

seasons. 

Take Rate 

Level B take rate, or the probability 

that an encountered bear will 

experience either incidental or 

intentional Level B take, was calculated 

using the 2014–2018 dataset from the 

LOA database. A binary logistic 

regression of take regressed upon 

distance to shore was not significant (p 

= 0.65), supporting the use of a single 

take rate for both the coastal and inland 

zones. However, a binary logistic 

regression of take regressed upon day of 

the year was significant. This 

significance held when encounters were 

binned into either ice or open-water 

seasons (p<0.0015). We calculated the 

take rate for each season separately and 

found the combined rate of incidental 

and intentional Level B take to be 0.28 

(i.e., 28 percent of encounters end in 

take) during the ice season, and 0.16 

during the open-water season. 

Take Area 

As noted above, we have calculated a 

bear density depending on the distance 

from shore and season, and a take rate 

depending on season. In order to 

estimate take from the project activities, 

we must calculate the area affected by 

project activities to such a degree that 

take is likely. This is sometimes referred 

to as a zone or area of influence. 

Behavioral response rates of polar bears 

to disturbances are highly variable, but 

disturbances within 805 m (0.5 mi) are 

generally more likely to cause take by 

Level B harassment than those at greater 

distances. Observational data to support 

the relationship between distance to 

bears and disturbance is limited. During 

the Service’s coastal aerial surveys, most 

polar bears that responded in a way that 

indicated possible take by Level B 

harassment (polar bears that were 

running when detected or began to run 

or swim in response to the aircraft) did 

so at 760 m (0.47 mi) or less (as 

measured from the ninetieth percentile 

horizontal detection distance from the 

flight line). Similarly, Andersen and 

Aars (2008) found that polar bears began 

to walk or run away from approaching 

snowmobiles at a mean distance of 843 

m (0.52 mi). The authors also found 

females with cubs responded by 

walking or running away at a distance 

of 1.5 km (0.95 mi). Conversely, Dyck 

and Baydack (2004) found females 

showed decreased vigilance in the 

presence of vehicles on the tundra. 

Furthermore, in their summary of polar 

bear behavioral response to icebreaking 

vessels in the Chukchi Sea, Smultea et 

al. (2016) found no difference between 

reactions of males, females with cubs, or 

females without cubs. Thus, while 

further research into the reaction of 

polar bears to anthropogenic 

disturbance may indicate a greater zone 

of potential impact is appropriate, the 

current literature suggests 805 m (0.5 

mi) will likely encompass the majority 

of polar bear takes. 

Estimated Take 

We used the spatio-temporally 

specific encounter rates and temporally 

specific take rates derived above, in 

conjunction with the spatially and 

temporally specific project proposal 

from KIC, to calculate estimated take. 

The activities proposed by KIC can be 

grouped into three categories: An access 

route, seismic activity, and summer 

cleanup activities. The distribution of 

personnel and equipment across the 

project area is different for each of these 

categories, thus they differ slightly. 

Table 2 provides the definition for each 

variable used in the take formulas. 

TABLE 2—DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES USED IN TAKE ESTIMATES

Variable Definition 

di ........................................... days of impact. 

ds .......................................... days in each season (open-water season = 116, ice season = 249). 

Sp ......................................... proportion of the season an area of interest is impacted. 

Bes ........................................ bears encountered in an area of interest for the entire season. 

ac .......................................... coastal exposure area. 

ai ........................................... inland exposure area. 

ro ........................................... occupancy rate. 

eco ......................................... coastal open-water season bear-encounter rate in bears/season. 

eci ......................................... coastal ice season bear-encounter rate in bears/season. 

eio ......................................... inland open-water season bear-encounter rate in bears/season. 

eii .......................................... inland ice season bear-encounter rate in bears/season. 

ti ............................................ ice season take rate. 

to ........................................... open-water season take rate. 

Bt .......................................... number of estimated Level B takes. 

BT ......................................... total bears taken for activity type. 

The variables defined above were 

used in a series of formulas to 

ultimately estimate the total take from 

surface-level interactions. Encounter 

rates were originally calculated as bears 

encountered per square kilometer per 

season (see North Slope Encounter 

Rates above). Therefore, we calculated 

the proportion of the season (Sp) that an 

area of interest (i.e., a buffered access 

route, seismic sub-block, or summer 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79095 

cleanup area) would be impacted with 

the following formula (Equation 2). 

The area of impact to non-denning 

bears from linear (access route) 

activities was calculated by buffering 

the access route by 805 m (0.5 mi) on 

each side, creating a 1,610-m (1.0-mi) 

corridor of impact. We calculated the 

area of access road impact in both the 

coastal and inland zones for each camp 

movement, as the access road grows in 

length with each advance of the camp. 

To determine the area of impact for the 

on-the-ground portion of summer 

cleanup activities, the maximum size of 

a camp (91x122 m; 300x400 ft) was 

buffered by 1,610 m (1 mi) to account 

for personnel venturing outside the 

immediate camp area to pick up debris, 

resulting in a 2.9-km2 impact area. KIC 

will use only one cleanup crew, thus 

only 2.9 km2 will be impacted at any 

given time. The areas of impact were 

then clipped (a function that retains 

only overlapping areas) by coastal and 

inland zone shapefiles in ArcGIS Pro to 

determine the coastal areas of impact 

(ac) and inland areas of impact (ai) for 

each activity category. Impact areas 

were multiplied by the appropriate 

encounter rate to obtain the number of 

bears expected to be encountered in the 

area of interest per season (Bes). The 

equation below (Equation 3) provides an 

example of the calculation of bears 

encountered in the ice season for an 

area of interest in the coastal zone. 

The rate of occupancy (ro) of each 

operation category was determined 

using the description of activities 

provided by the applicant. KIC has 

stated they may use the access road up 

to once a day. We have estimated this 

use will lead to up to 50 percent 

occupancy of the access road impact 

area at any given time. Advance crews 

activity was assigned an occupancy rate 

of ro=0.33, as they will be present in 

only one third of the survey block at any 

given time. Both the main seismic and 

summer cleanup activities were 

assigned ro=1, as these areas will be 

impacted constantly. To generate the 

number of estimated Level B takes for 

each area of interest, we multiplied the 

number of bears in the area of interest 

per season by the proportion of the 

season the area is occupied, the rate of 

occupancy, and the take rate (Equation 

4). 

The total number of Level B takes for 

surface-level interactions was calculated 

by adding the takes for each activity 

type (table 3). A total of one Level B take 

of polar bears are anticipated from 

surface-level activities. 

TABLE 3—VALUES FOR THE VARIABLES DEFINED ABOVE FOR EACH ACTIVITY CATEGORY

Variable Access road Seismic activity Summer cleanup 

di .................................................... See table 9 for days per subblock.See table 9 for days per subblock.3 days in coastal zone, 12 days in 

inland zone. 

ds .................................................... Open water = 116, Ice = 249 ....... Open water = 116, Ice = 249 ....... Open water = 116, Ice = 249. 

Sp ................................................... 0.008–0.012 unique to date and 

sub-block.

0.008–0.012 unique to sub-block 0.012 in coastal zone, 0.10 in inland zone. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.005</GPH> EN08DE20.006</GPH> EN08DE20.007</GPH>
79096 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 3—VALUES FOR THE VARIABLES DEFINED ABOVE FOR EACH ACTIVITY CATEGORY—Continued 

Variable Access road Seismic activity Summer cleanup 

Bes .................................................. 0.364–23.053 bears unique to 

date and sub-block.

0.32–4.39 bears unique to subblock.0.344 bears in coastal zone, 

0.033 bears in inland zone. 

ac .................................................... 101–194 km2 unique to sub-block 7–37 km2 unique to sub-block ..... 2.9 km2. 

ai .................................................... 35–103 km2 unique to sub-block 16–95 km2 unique to sub-block ... 2.9 km2. 

ro .................................................... 0.5 ................................................. 0.33 for advance crew ..................

1 for main crew .............................

1. 

eco .................................................. 3.45 bears/km2/season ................. 3.45 bears/km2/season ................. 3.45 bears/km2/season. 

eci ................................................... 0.118 bears/km2/season ............... 0.118 bears/km2/season ............... 0.118 bears/km2/season. 

eio ................................................... 0.0116 bears/km2/season ............. 0.0116 bears/km2/season ............. 0.0116 bears/km2/season. 

eii .................................................... 0.0104 bears/km2/season ............. 0.0104 bears/km2/season ............. 0.0104 bears/km2/season. 

ti ..................................................... 0.28 ............................................... 0.28 ............................................... 0.28. 

to ..................................................... 0.16 ............................................... 0.16 ............................................... 0.16. 

Bt .................................................... 0.0004–0.038 bears unique to 

sub-block.

0.0002–0.008 bears unique to 

sub-block.

0.0005–0.001 bears unique to 

sub-block. 

BT ................................................... 0.70 Level B takes ........................ 0.25 Level B takes ........................ 0.0017 Level B takes. 

Total Level B takes due to 

surface interactions is 1 

bear.

Analysis of Aircraft Impact to Surface 

Bears 

Potential Impacts From KIC Aircraft 

Activities 

Behavioral responses can be seen 

from acute exposure to high sound 

levels or from long periods of exposure 

to lower sound levels. Prolonged 

exposure over time can lead to a chronic 

stress response (see Level B Harassment) 

that may inhibit necessary life activities 

for polar bears (see Level A 

Harassment). Both the sound levels and 

durations of exposure from KIC’s 

aircraft will depend primarily on a polar 

bear’s vertical distance from the aircraft. 

Airborne sound attenuation rates are 

affected by characteristics of the 

atmosphere and topography, but can be 

conservatively generalized for line 

sources (such as flight lines) over 

acoustically ‘‘hard’’ surfaces like water 

(rather than ‘‘soft’’ surfaces like snow) 

by a loss of 3 dB per doubling of 

distance from the source. At this 

attenuation rate, a sound registering 90 

dB directly below a flyover at 91 to 152 

m (300 to 500 ft) above sea level (ASL) 

will attenuate to 80 dB in 1 to 1.5 km 

(0.6 to 0.9 mi). The same noise level will 

attenuate to 68 dB within 15 to 24 km 

(9 to 15 mi). 

Sound frequencies produced by KIC’s 

aircraft will likely fall within the 

hearing range of polar bears (see 

Nachtigall et al. 2007) and will be 

audible to animals during flyovers. 

During FAA testing, the test aircraft 

produced sound at all frequencies 

measured (50 Hz to 10 kHz) (Healy 

1974; Newman 1979). At frequencies 

centered at 5 kHz, jets flying at 300 m 

(984 ft) produced 1⁄3 octave band noise 

levels of 84 to 124 dB, propeller-driven 

aircraft produced 75 to 90 dB, and 

helicopters produced 60 to 70 dB 

(Richardson et al. 1995). 

Observations of polar bears during fall 

coastal surveys, which flew at much 

lower altitudes than is required of 

Industry aircraft (see Estimating Take 

Rates of Aircraft Activities), indicate 

that the reactions of non-denning polar 

bears is typically varied but limited to 

short-term changes in behavior ranging 

from no reaction to running away. 

Larson et al. 2020 has recently 

determined ‘‘a 20.0 percent probability 

(95 percent CI = 05.1 ¥ 34.9) of eliciting 

increased vigilance, a 57.4 percent 

probability (95 percent CI = 38.9 ¥ 

75.9) of initiating rapid movement, and 

a 22.6 percent probability (95 percent CI 

= 06.8 ¥ 38.4) of causing den 

abandonment’’ in polar bears when 

exposed to aircraft activity. This finding 

indicates the potential that aircraft 

activities can cause the take of both 

surface and denning bears via a 

biologically significant response. 

Aircraft activities can impact bears over 

all seasons; however, during the 

summer and fall seasons, aircraft have 

the potential to disturb both individuals 

and congregations of polar bears. Polar 

bears are onshore during this time of 

year and spend the majority of their 

time resting and limiting their 

movements on land. Exposure to aircraft 

traffic at this time of year is expected to 

result in changes in behavior, such as 

going from resting to walking or 

running, and therefore has the potential 

to be more energetically costly 

compared to other times of year. 

Mitigation measures, such as minimum 

flight elevations over polar bears, 

habitat areas of concern, and flight 

restrictions around known polar bear 

habitat will be required to achieve least 

practicable adverse impact of the 

likelihood that polar bears are disturbed 

by aircraft. 

KIC has requested authorization for 

Level B incidental harassment of polar 

bears. Polar bears in the project area will 

likely be exposed to the visual and 

auditory stimulation associated with 

KIC’s flight plans. If polar bears are 

disturbed, it may be more likely due to 

the airborne noise associated with KIC’s 

take-offs and landings, or possibly the 

noise in tandem with the sight of the 

aircraft during flight. These impacts are 

likely to be minimal and not longlasting to surface bears. KIC’s flights 

will generate noise that is louder and 

recurs more frequently than noise from 

regular air traffic due to the survey’s 

particular aircraft and flight pattern, 

taking off and landing multiple times 

per day. Flyovers may cause disruptions 

in the polar bear’s normal behavioral 

patterns, thereby resulting in incidental 

take by Level B harassment. Sudden 

changes in direction, elevation, and 

movement may also increase the level of 

noise produced from the helicopter, 

especially at lower altitudes. This 

increased level of noise could result in 

a Level B take and adverse behavioral 

modifications from polar bears in the 

area. Mitigation measures, such as 

minimum flight elevations over polar 

bears and restrictions on sudden 

changes to helicopter movements and 

direction, will be required to reduce the 

likelihood that polar bears are disturbed 

by aircraft. Once mitigated, such 

disturbances are expected to have no 

more than short-term, temporary, and 

minor impacts on individuals. 

Estimating Take Rates of Aircraft 

Activities 

To predict how polar bears will 

respond to aircraft overflights during 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79097 

North Slope oil and gas work, we first 

developed a behavioral response curve 

to determine various exposure areas at 

which polar bears may react to aircraft 

noise. We then developed an aircraft 

noise profile using noise mapping 

software and Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) test values for 

aircraft noise in A-weighted decibels 

(dBA). With the noise profile and 

exposure distances, we then developed 

a Level B take rate response curve to 

determine the estimated take rate within 

each exposure area based on the noise 

levels of the aircraft. 

The behavioral response curve plots 

the decibel level and distance at which 

polar bears exposed to aircraft noise 

show behavioral responses that indicate 

take by Level B harassment. To develop 

the behavioral response curve, we 

examined existing data on the 

behavioral responses of polar bears 

during aircraft surveys conducted by the 

Service along with the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) between August and 

October during most years from 2000 to 

2014 (Wilson et al. 2017, Atwood et al. 

2015, and Schliebe et al. 2008). 

Behavioral responses due to sight and 

sound of the aircraft have both been 

incorporated into this analysis as there 

was no ability to differentiate between 

the two response sources during aircraft 

survey observations. Aircraft types used 

for surveys during the study included a 

fixed-wing Aero-Commander from 2000 

to 2004, an R–44 helicopter from 2012 

to 2014, and an A-Star helicopter for a 

portion of the 2013 surveys. During 

surveys, all aircraft flew at an altitude 

of approximately 90 m (295 ft), and at 

a speed of 150 to 205 km per hour (km/ 

h) or 93 to 127 mi per hour (mi/h). 

Reactions indicating possible take by 

Level B harassment were recorded when 

a polar bear was observed running from 

the aircraft or began to run or swim in 

response to the aircraft. Of 951 polar 

bears observed during coastal aerial 

surveys, 162 showed these reactions, 

indicating that the percentage of Level 

B take during these low-altitude coastal 

survey flights was 17 percent. 

Detailed data on the behavioral 

responses of polar bears to the aircraft 

were available for only the flights 

conducted between 2000 and 2004 (n = 

581). The Aero Commander 690, also 

known as the Turbo Commander, was 

used during this period. The horizontal 

detection distance from the flight line 

was recorded for 108 polar bears that 

reacted by running or swimming away 

from aircraft, indicating a Level B 

harassment. Using these data, we 

parameterized a logistic function to 

predict distances at which bears 

responded (R2 = 0.99; Equation 5). 

Accordingly, the approximate sum of 

the declining response rates from the 

center of the flight line to 400 m (0.25 

mi) was 0.87 and to 800 m (0.5 mi) was 

0.92. This calculation indicates that the 

majority (92 percent) of polar bears with 

responses to aircraft indicating take by 

Level B harassment responded within 

800 m, whereas 8 percent of Level B 

take occurred beyond that (1 ¥ 0.92 = 

0.08) (figure 5). The response distances 

(400 m [0.25 mi], 800 m [0.5 mi], and 

2,000 m [1.2 mi]) were then combined 

with the sound produced by the aircraft, 

based on altitude, to determine the level 

of noise at which polar bears are likely 

to exhibit a behavioral response. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.008</GPH>
79098 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

The intensity of response within each 

exposure area will be affected by the 

altitude and aircraft type. To predict 

how polar bears might respond to 

different levels of noise within each 

exposure area, we evaluated the sound 

levels at the source that were generated 

during the coastal surveys using the 

Aero Commander. Sound waves 

propagate as a sphere and follow the 

‘‘inverse square law’’ of attenuation. A 

general rule is that the level reduces by 

6 dB per doubling of distance. The 

source sound levels of the Aero 

Commander were back-calculated from 

the FAA test values based on this 

generalized modelling approach. 

Specifically, we used noise mapping 

software by MAS Environmental, Ltd. 

(2020), to generate a geometric 

spreading loss model with attenuation 

by atmospheric absorption according to 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) 9613–2 

methodology (ISO 1996). 

Parameters for estimating the source 

sound pressure levels include the 

received sound levels, frequency 

distribution of aircraft sound, and 

atmospheric conditions. The received 

sound pressure level for the Aero 

Commander 690 flying at an altitude of 

305 m (1,000 ft) and maximum 

continuous power (approximately 525 

km/hr or 326 m/hr [Twin Commander 

Aircraft]) was 76.4 dBA measured at 

ground level (FAA 2012). The Aero 

Commander’s noise levels have also 

been measured during a gliding flight 

path at 152.4 m (500 ft) altitude and 

airspeeds up to 324 km/hr (201 mi/hr), 

during which the aircraft produced a 

maximum of 75.4 dB (Healy 1974). 

Frequency distribution of broadband 

aircraft sound was generalized from 

figure 2 in Bajdek et al. (2016). 

Environmental parameters were based 

on average Prudhoe Bay weather 

conditions (Thorsen 2020) of –11°C, 82 

percent humidity, and a ‘‘ground factor’’ 

of 0 for hard ground, ice, and water. 

Based on these parameters, the source 

levels of the Aero Commander were 

estimated to be 132.5 dB during the test 

flights conducted by the FAA. 

The noise levels that would have been 

received by polar bears on the ground 

surface during the USFWS/USGS 

coastal surveys were then estimated 

using the same geometric spreading loss 

model for attenuation at a flight altitude 

of 90 m (295 ft). The model outputs 

indicated that polar bears under the 

center of the flight line were likely to 

have been exposed to approximately 

80.4 dBA, while those at 400 m (0.25 

mi) from the centerline were likely 

exposed to approximately 65.3 dBA 

(figure 6). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79099 

Model outputs incorporated Aweighting. A-weighting reduces the 

decibel levels perceived outside of the 

best hearing range of human beings and 

was applied herein as a conservative 

reduction of decibel levels for polar 

bears due to the high degree of overlap 

in the frequency ranges of hearing 

(figure 7). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.010</GPH>
79100 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Aircraft flight for the oil and gas 

Industry on the North Slope seldom 

occur at cruising altitudes less than 

152.4 m (500 ft). But, the estimated rate 

of Level B take at less than 152.4 m (500 

ft) was assumed to be appropriate for 

takeoffs and landings. The sound source 

levels of the Aero commander and 

corresponding behavioral response rates 

at various distances from the center line 

of flight path were used to inform the 

spatiotemporally explicit Level B take 

rate response curve (figure 8). We were 

then able to apply this take rate 

response curve to noise profiles 

calculated for other types of aircraft. For 

winter and summer activities, we used 

the De Havilland DH6–300 Twin Otter 

and noise tests conducted for this 

aircraft by the FAA (2012). Although the 

Bell 206 is planned to be used during 

summer operations, there was a lack of 

information to inform the sound 

propagation model. We do know, 

however, that the estimated dBA at 400 

ft above ground level for the Bell 206 is 

less than what is estimated for the Twin 

Otter (82.4 dBA [NPS 2007] and 89.7 

dBA respectively). Therefore, there is 

likely a slight overestimation of take in 

regards to summer activities. Decibel 

levels from flights at various altitudes 

were estimated using the geometric 

spreading model, and the resulting take 

rate was predicted from the response 

curve (table 4). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79101 

The sound level at which all polar 

bears would respond was set to 132.5 

dBA based on thresholds identified for 

possible hearing damage due to sound 

exposure for proxy marine mammal 

species identified by Kastak et al. 

(2007), Southall (2019), and Finneran 

(2015). 

TABLE 4—RATE OF LEVEL B TAKE BY EXPOSURE TYPE (ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE FROM CENTER OF FLIGHT LINE) AND

ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THESE RATES APPLY. 

Aircraft Up to (m) 

altitude 

Max estimated 

SPL in the zone 

(dBA) 

Up to (m) 

distance from 

center 

Level B response 

rate for the 

distance category 

(percent) 

Applicable to 

Twin Otter ................................... 90 95.2 0–399 68.6 Takeoffs/landings (<300 ft) 

Twin Otter ................................... 90 79.1 400–799 14.1 Takeoffs/landings (<300 ft) 

Twin Otter ................................... 90 71.5 800–2,000 3.8 Takeoffs/landings (<300 ft) 

Twin Otter ................................... 152.4 89.7 0–399 48.7 Flights 500–1,000 ft 

Twin Otter ................................... 152.4 78.6 400–799 13.1 Flights 500–1,000 ft 

Twin Otter ................................... 152.4 71.3 800–2,000 3.7 Flights 500–1,000 ft 

Twin Otter ................................... 457 82.3 0–399 22.2 Flights 1,000–1,500 ft 

Twin Otter ................................... 457 76.8 400–799 9.8 Flights 1,000–1,500 ft 

Twin Otter ................................... 457 70.7 800–2,000 3.3 Flights 1,000–1,500 ft 

General Approach to Estimating Take 

for Aircraft Activities 

Aircraft information was determined 

using details provided in the 

application, including flight paths, 

flight take-offs and landings, altitudes, 

and aircraft type. We marked the 

approximate flight path start and stop 

points using ArcGIS Pro (version 2.4.3), 

and the paths were drawn. 

For winter activities, we started the 

flight paths at the Deadhorse airport and 

ended them at the centroid of each subblock using a frequency of 3 flights per 

week totaling approximately 62 flights 

during the winter season. A portion of 

this flight path lies within the 

authorization area for the 2016–2021 

Beaufort Sea ITR and was excluded 

from this analysis. For summer cleanup 

activities, we started flight paths at 

Barter Island Airport and extended one 

flight path approximately 160 km (∼99 

mi) into the coastal zone, extended one 

flight path approximately 160 km (∼99 

mi) into the inland zone, and added an 

additional flight path in the inland zone 

to serve as the basis for inland tundra 

landing analysis. Because Barter Island 

Airport is within the coastal zone, we 

did not have to draw a separate tundra 

landing path to analyze coastal 

landings. These flight paths were 

analyzed based on the coastal portion of 

summer cleanup activities occurring 

prior to July 19th and lasting for 3 days 

before moving inland for the remaining 

12 days occurring after July 19th. A total 

of 32 tundra landings per day were also 

included in the analysis. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.012</GPH>
79102 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Flight segments flown at lower 

altitudes were estimated to have greater 

impact on encountered polar bears due 

to higher received sound levels. For 

example, received sound levels are 

higher from aircraft flying at 91 m (300 

ft) than at 305 m (1,000 ft). To account 

for this, once the flight paths were 

generated, flights were broken up into 

segments for landing, take-off, and 

traveling. For winter activities, the takeoff area and a portion of the travel 

segment of the flight path resides within 

the area covered by the 2016–2021 

Beaufort Sea ITR and is excluded from 

KIC’s IHA request and this analysis. 

‘‘Landing’’ and ‘‘take-off’’ areas were 

marked along the flight paths at each 

end point to designate low-altitude 

areas. The ‘‘traveling area’’ is considered 

the point in which an aircraft is likely 

to be at its maximum altitude (altitudes 

of 152.4 m (500 ft) up to 457 m (1,500 

ft) depending on the aircraft activity). 

The distance considered the ‘‘landing’’ 

area is based on approximately 4.83 km 

(3 mi) per 305 m (1,000 ft) of altitude 

descent speed. For all flight paths at or 

exceeding an altitude of 152.4 m (500 

ft), the ‘‘take-off’’ area was marked as 

2.41 km (1.5 mi) based on flight logs 

found through FlightAware, which 

noted that ascent to maximum flight 

altitude took approximately half the 

time of the average descent. We then 

applied exposure areas along the flight 

paths (see section Estimating Take Rates 

of Aircraft Activities). These areas 

consisted of 0–399 m (0.25 mi), 400–799 

m (0.50 mi), and 800–2,000 m (1.2 mi) 

distances from the center of the flight 

path. 

After these exposure areas were 

determined, we differentiated the 

coastal and inland zones. The coastal 

zone was the area offshore and within 

2 km (1.2 mi) of the coastline (see 

section Spatially Partitioning the North 

Slope into ‘‘coastal’’ and ‘‘inland’’ 

zones), and the inland zone is anything 

greater than 2 km (1.2 mi) from the 

coastline. We calculated the areas in 

square kilometers for each exposure area 

within the coastal zone and the inland 

zone for all take-offs, landings, and 

traveling areas (with the exception of 

winter aircraft activities authorized 

through an LOA and excluded from 

KIC’s request). For flights that involve 

an inland and a coastal airstrip, we 

considered landings to occur at airstrips 

within the coastal zone, such as Barter 

Island. Seasonal encounter rates 

developed for both the coastal and 

inland zones (see section Search Effort 

Buffer) were applied to the appropriate 

segments of each flight path. 

Surface encounter rates are calculated 

based on the number of bears per season 

(see section Search Effort Buffer). To 

apply these rates to aircraft activities, 

we needed to calculate a proportion of 

the season in which aircraft were flown. 

However, the assumption involved in 

using a seasonal proportion is that the 

area is impacted for an entire day (i.e., 

for 24 hours). Therefore, in order to 

prevent estimating impacts along the 

flight path over periods of time where 

aircraft are not present, we calculated a 

proportion of the day the area will be 

impacted by aircraft activities for each 

season (table 5). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79103 

The number of times each flight path 

was flown (i.e., flight frequency) was 

determined from the application. We 

used the description combined with the 

approximate number of weeks and 

months within the open-water season 

and the ice season to determine the total 

number of flights per season for each 

year (ƒ). We then used flight frequency 

and number of days per season (ds) to 

calculate the seasonal proportion of 

flights (Sp; Equation 6). 

After we determined the seasonal 

proportion of flights, we estimated the 

amount of time an aircraft would be 

impacting the landing/take-off areas 

within a day (tLT). Assuming an aircraft 

is not landing at the same time another 

is taking off from the same airstrip, we 

estimated the amount of time an aircraft 

would be present within the landing or 

take-off zone would be tLT = 10 minutes. 

We then calculated how many minutes 

within a day an aircraft would be 

impacting an area and divided by the 

number of minutes within a 24-hour 

period (1,440 minutes). This determined 

the proportion of the day in which a 

landing/take-off area is impacted by an 

aircraft for each season (Dp(LT); Equation 

7). 

To estimate the amount of time an 

aircraft would be impacting the travel 

areas (, we calculated the minimum 

amount of time it would take for an 

aircraft to travel the maximum exposure 

area at any given time, 4 km (2.49 mi). 

We made this estimate using average 

aircraft speeds at altitudes less than 305 

m (1,000 ft) to account for slower flights 

at lower altitudes, such as summer 

cleanup activities, and determined it 

would take approximately 2 minutes. 

We then determined how many 4-km 

(2.49-mi) segments are present along 

each traveling path (x). We determined 

the total number of minutes an aircraft 

would be impacting any 4-km (2.49-mi) 

segment along the travel area in a day 

and divided by the number of minutes 

in a 24-hour period. This calculation 

determined the proportion of the day in 

which an aircraft would impact an area 

while traveling during each season 

(Dp(TR); Equation 8). 

We then used an aircraft noise profile 

and the parametric behavioral response 

curve (see section Estimating Take Rates 

of Aircraft Activities) to determine the 

appropriate take rate in each exposure 

area (up to 400 m [0.25 mi], 800 m [0.5 

mi], and 2,000 m [1.2 mi] from the 

center of the flight line; see Estimating 

Take Rates of Aircraft Activities). The 

take rate areas were then calculated 

separately for the landing and take-off 

areas along each flight path as well as 

the traveling area for flights with 

altitudes at or exceeding 152.4 m (500 

ft). 

To estimate number of polar bears 

taken due to aircraft activities, we first 

calculated the number of bears 

encountered (Bes) for the landing/take 

off and traveling sections using both 

coastal (eci or co) and inland (eii or io) 

encounter rates within the coastal (ac) 

and inland (ai) exposure areas (Equation 

9). 

Using the calculated number of 

coastal and inland bears encountered for 

each season, we applied the daily 

seasonal proportion for both landings/ 

take-offs and traveling areas to 

determine the daily number of bears 

impacted due to aircraft activities (Bi). 

We then applied the appropriate aircraft 

take rates (ta) associated with each 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.014</GPH> EN08DE20.015</GPH> EN08DE20.016</GPH> EN08DE20.017</GPH>
79104 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

exposure area at the altitude intervals of 

<91.4 m (<300 ft; take-offs and 

landings), 152.4 m (500 ft) to 305 m 

(1,000 ft), and 305 m (1,000 ft) to 457 

m (1,500 ft) (see section Estimating Take 

Rates of Aircraft Activities) resulting in 

a number of bears taken during each 

season (Bt; Equation 10). Take associated 

with AIR surveys were analyzed 

separately. 

Analysis Approach for Estimating Take 

During Aerial Infrared Surveys 

Typically during every ice season 

Industry conducts polar bear surveys 

using AIR. These surveys are not 

conducted along specific flight paths 

and generally overlap previously flown 

areas within the same trip. The altitudes 

for these surveys can also vary. Given 

the above, the take estimates for surface 

bears during AIR surveys were analyzed 

using a different methodology. 

Rather than estimate potential flight 

paths, we used the provided survey 

blocks to serve as a basis for our flight 

areas. We then estimated the area of 

each block that was within the coastal 

and inland zones. We accounted for 

three survey trips consisting of 

approximately 7 days each, and 

calculated the daily proportion of the 

ice season in which AIR surveys were 

impacting the direct area (see General 

Approach to Estimating Take for 

Aircraft Activities). Using the seasonal 

bear encounter rates for the appropriate 

zones multiplied by the proportion of 

the day the areas were impacted for the 

season AIR surveys were flown, we 

determined the number of bears 

encountered. Because the altitude is 

variable (ranging from 152.4 m [500 ft]— 

305 m [1,000 ft] or greater), we 

calculated a constant take rate based on 

the Twin Otter’s noise profile. We 

averaged take rates associated with three 

categorical exposure areas measured as 

the perpendicular distance to the center 

of the flight line at ground level. The 

exposure areas were 0–399 m (0–0.25 

mi), 400–799 m (0.25–0.5 mi), and 800– 

2,000 m (0.5–1.2 mi) for altitudes of 

152.4 m (500 ft)—305 m (1,000 ft). We 

then applied this take rate to the 

number of bears encountered per zone 

to determine number of bears taken for 

the project’s duration. 

Estimated Take From Aircraft Activities 

Using the approach described in 

General Approach to Estimating Take 

for Aircraft Activities and Analysis 

Approach for Estimating Take during 

Aerial Infrared Surveys, we were able to 

estimate the total number of bears taken 

by the aircraft activities during the KIC 

project Marsh Creek East 3D seismic 

project (table 6). 

Analysis of Impact to Denning Bears 

To assess the likelihood and degree of 

exposure and predict probable 

responses of denning polar bears to 

activities proposed in the application, 

we characterized, evaluated, and 

prioritized a series of definitions and 

rules in a predictive model. We used 

information from published sources as 

well as information submitted to the 

Service by the Industry on denning 

chronology, behavior, and cub survival 

(i.e., case studies). We considered all 

available scientific and observational 

data on polar bear denning behavior and 

effects of disturbance to that behavior. 

In the models discussed below, we 

define the following terms: (1) Exposure 

means any human activity within 1,610 

m (1 mi) of a polar bear or active den. 

In the case of aircraft, an overflight 

within 1,500 feet (0.3 mi) above ground 

level; (2) Discrete exposure means an 

exposure that occurs only once; (3) 

Repeated exposure means an exposure 

that occurs more than once; and (4) 

Response probability means the 

probability that an exposure resulted in 

a response by denning polar bears. 

Additionally, we applied the following 

rules to our review of the case studies: 

(1) Any exposure that did not result 

in a Level A or lethal take could result 

in a Level B harassment take. 

Consequently, multiple exposures could 

result in multiple Level B harassment 

takes. 

(2) If dates of exposure were not 

explicit in a case study and the type of 

exposure could be daily (e.g., the den 

was located within 1,610 m (1 mi) of an 

ice road versus exposed to an aerial den 

survey), we assumed exposures 

occurred daily. 

(3) In the event of an exposure that 

resulted in a disturbance to denning 

bears, take was assigned for each bear 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.018</GPH> EN08DE20.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79105 

(i.e., female and each cub) associated 

with that den. 

(4) In the absence of additional 

information, we assumed dens did not 

contain cubs prior to December 1, but 

did contain cubs on or after December 

1. 

(5) If an exposure occurred and the 

female subsequently abandoned her den 

after cubs were born (i.e., after 

December 1), we assigned a lethal take 

for each cub. 

(6) If an exposure occurred during the 

early denning period and bears emerged 

from the den before cubs reached 60 

days of age, we assigned a lethal take for 

each cub. In the absence of information 

about cub age, den emergences that 

occurred between December 1 and 

February 15 were considered to be early 

emergences and resulted in a lethal take 

of each cub. 

(7) If an exposure occurred during the 

late denning period and bears emerged 

from the den after cubs reached 60 days 

of age but before their intended (i.e., 

undisturbed) emergence date, we 

assigned a serious injury (i.e., an injury 

likely to result in mortality) Level A 

harassment take for each cub. In the 

absence of information about cub age 

and intended emergence date (which 

was known only for simulated dens), 

den emergences that occurred between 

(and including) February 16 and March 

14 were considered to be early 

emergences and resulted in a serious 

injury Level A harassment take of each 

cub. If a den emergence occurred after 

March 14 but was clearly linked to an 

exposure, we considered the emergence 

to be early and resulted in a serious 

injury Level A harassment take of each 

cub. 

(8) For dens where emergence was not 

classified as early, if an exposure 

occurred during the post-emergence 

period and bears departed the den site 

prior to their intended (i.e., 

undisturbed) departure date, we 

assigned a non-serious Level A 

harassment take for each cub. In the 

absence of information about the 

intended departure date (which was 

known only for simulated dens), den 

site departures that occurred <9 days 

after the emergence date were 

considered to be early departures and 

resulted in a non-serious Level A 

harassment take of each cub. Lethal take 

of cubs could occur if a female 

abandoned them at the den site even 

after they spent ≥9 days at the den postemergence. 

We used details from 85 disturbance 

events from 56 polar bear dens to 

generate probabilities for model 

outcomes (table 7). Below, we provide 

definitions for terms used in this 

analysis category, a general overview of 

each denning stage, and the rules 

established for the model. 

TABLE 7—PROBABILITY THAT A DISCRETE OR REPEATED EXPOSURE ELICITED A RESPONSE BY DENNING POLAR BEARS

THAT WOULD RESULT IN LEVEL B, LEVEL A, OR LETHAL TAKE. LEVEL B TAKE WAS APPLICABLE TO BOTH ADULTS

AND CUBS, IF PRESENT; LEVEL A AND LETHAL TAKE WERE APPLICABLE TO CUBS ONLY AND WERE NOT POSSIBLE

DURING THE DEN ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD, WHICH ENDED WITH THE BIRTH OF CUBS. PROBABILITIES WERE CALCULATED FROM THE ANALYSIS OF 56 CASE STUDIES OF POLAR BEAR RESPONSES TO HUMAN ACTIVITY. 

Exposure type Period Level B Level A Lethal 

Discrete ........................................................... Den Establishment ......................................... 0.667 NA NA 

Early Denning ................................................. NA NA 0.000 

Late Denning .................................................. 0.091 0.909 0.000 

Post-emergence ............................................. 0.000 0.600 0.400 

Repeated ......................................................... Den Establishment ......................................... 0.000 NA NA 

Early Denning ................................................. 0.000 NA 0.222 

Late Denning .................................................. 0.650 0.200 0.050 

Post-emergence ............................................. 0.250 0.625 0.125 

We further define the following 

exposure categories for clarification 

based on polar bear response: (1) No 

response indicates a physiological and/ 

or behavioral reaction by a polar bear to 

an exposure that is so minor that it may 

be discounted as having no effect; (2) A 

likely physiological response would be 

indicated by an alteration in the normal 

physiological function of a polar bear 

(e.g., elevated heart rate or stress 

hormone levels) that is typically 

unobservable, but is likely to occur in 

response to an exposure; and (3) An 

observed behavioral response is when 

changes in behavior are observed in 

response to an exposure. Changes can be 

minor or significant. For example, a 

resting bear raising its head and sniffing 

the air in response to a vehicle driving 

along a road is a minor behavioral 

response to exposure to vehicle activity. 

If a female nursing cubs-of-the-year 

stops nursing and runs away from a 

flying aircraft, that activity would 

constitute a significant behavioral 

response to the exposure. 

Defining the terms used to describe 

the timing for the den emergence period 

as well as the den entry period was a 

relevant consideration within the 

models: (1) The entrance date was 

considered the date that a female bear 

first enters a maternal den after 

excavation is complete; (2) The 

emergence is the time where a maternal 

den is first opened and a bear is exposed 

directly to external conditions; and (3) 

The departure date is typically the date 

when the bears leave the den site to 

return to the sea ice. If a bear leaves the 

den site after a disturbance but later 

returns, we considered the initial 

movement to be the departure date. 

Although a bear may exit the den 

completely at emergence, we considered 

even partial-body exits (e.g., only a 

bear’s head protruding above the surface 

of the snow) to represent emergence in 

order to maintain consistency with 

dates derived from temperature sensors 

on collared bears (e.g., Rode et al. 2018). 

For dens located near regularly 

occurring human activity, we 

considered the first day a bear was 

observed near a den to be the emergence 

date. 

Several denning stages were also 

considered in the models, which might 

impact the outcome: (1) The den 

establishment period was considered 

the period of time between the start of 

maternal den excavation and the birth of 

the cubs. Unless evidence indicates 

otherwise, all dens that are excavated by 

adult females in the fall or winter are 

presumed to be maternal dens. In the 

absence of other information, this 

period is defined as denning activity 

prior to December 1. (2) The early 

denning period was considered the 

period of time from the birth of the cubs 

until the point where they reach 60 days 

of age and are capable of surviving 

outside the den. In the absence of other 

information, this period is defined as 

any denning activity occurring between 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79106 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

December 1 and February 13. (3) The 

late denning stage was determined to be 

the period of time between when cubs 

reach 60 days of age and den emergence. 

In the absence of other information, this 

period of time was defined as any 

denning activity occurring between 

February 14 and den emergence. (4) The 

post-emergence period was determined 

to be the period of time between den 

emergence and den site departure. 

The negative outcomes of disturbance 

were categorized as follows: (1) Cub 

abandonment: Occurs when a female 

leaves all or part of her litter, either in 

the den or on the surface, at any stage 

of the denning process. We classified 

events where a female left her cubs but 

later returned (or was returned by 

humans) as cub abandonment. (2) Early 

departure: Departure of the denning 

female with her cubs from the den site 

post-emergence that occurs as the result 

of an exposure. (3) Early emergence: 

Den emergence that occurs as the result 

of an exposure. 

Den Establishment 

‘‘Den Establishment’’ occurs in 

autumn between den excavation and 

birth of cub(s). Mating takes place in the 

spring (March–May) (Ramsay and 

Stirling 1986; L<n< 1970). Implantation 

is delayed until September to November 

(L<n< 1972; Deroche et al., 1992), and 

timing of implantation likely depends 

on female body condition, as is the case 

for other Ursids (Robbins et al. 2012). 

Gestation is probably around 60 days, as 

suggested by Tsubota et al. (1987) for 

brown bears, and cubs are born in early 

to mid-winter (Ramsay and Stirling 

1988). Pregnant female polar bears begin 

scouting for, excavating, and occupying 

a den near the time of implantation. For 

polar bears of the SBS, the den 

establishment phase extends between 

October and December. Durner et al. 

(2001) and Amstrup (2003) documented 

den excavation activities throughout 

this time. Data from USGS (2018) and 

Rode et al. (2018) found no significant 

difference in den entrance dates 

between SBS and CBS populations, and 

estimated a mean den entrance date of 

November 15 ± 1.9 days (n = 215). 

In the case studies, the beginning of 

the den establishment period was 

variable and based on the behavior of 

the bear being observed (i.e., 

constructing a den). November 30th was 

selected as the end of the den 

establishment period, and December 1 

as the beginning of the ‘‘Early Denning’’ 

phase unless the observed behavior of 

the bear indicated it was still in the den 

establishment phase. These dates 

correlate well with available 

information on timing of denning and 

parturition. Curry et al. (2015) found the 

mean and median birth dates for captive 

polar bears in the Northern Hemisphere 

were both November 29. Messier et al. 

(1994) estimated, based on activity level 

of females in maternity dens, that by 

December 15 most births already had 

occurred among polar bears of the 

Canadian Arctic archipelago. 

Much of what is known of the effects 

of disturbance during early denning 

comes from studies of polar bears 

captured in the autumn. Capture is a 

severe form of disturbance and is not 

typical of disturbance that is likely to 

occur during oil and gas activities, but 

bear responses to capture events provide 

some information that can help inform 

our understanding of how polar bears 

respond to disturbance. Ramsay and 

Stirling (1986) reported that 10 of 13 

pregnant female polar bears that were 

captured and collared at dens in 

October or November abandoned their 

existing dens. The polar bears instead 

moved a median distance of 24.5 km, 

excavated, and occupied new dens 

within a day or two after their release. 

The remaining 3 polar bears reentered 

their initial dens or different dens <2 

km from their initial den soon after 

being released. Amstrup (1993, 2003) 

documented in Alaska a similar 

response and reported 5 polar bears that 

abandoned den sites following human 

disturbances during autumn and 

subsequently denned elsewhere. 

The observed high rate of den 

abandonment during autumn capture 

efforts suggests that polar bears have a 

low tolerance threshold for intense 

disturbance during den initiation and 

are willing to expend energy to avoid 

further disturbance. During the den 

establishment period, the female is 

scouting for, excavating, and occupying 

a den while pregnant. A disturbance 

during den establishment may cost the 

female polar bear energy and fat 

reserves. While denning, female Ursids 

do not eat or drink, instead relying 

solely on body fat (Nelson et al. 1983; 

Spady et al. 2007). Female body 

condition during denning affects the 

size of cubs at emergence from the den, 

and larger cubs have better survival 

rates (Derocher and Stirling 1996; 

Robbins et al. 2012). Therefore, 

disturbances that cause additional 

energy expenditures in fall could have 

latent effects on cubs in spring. 

During any disturbance event, a polar 

bear must expend energy that would 

otherwise be invested in denning. 

Abandoning a den site requires energy 

to travel and excavate a new den, and 

polar bears, subject to capture and 

release, were willing to expend this 

energy in addition to the energy 

required for recovery from capture. 

Among Ursids, recovery from capture 

and immobilization requires from 3 

days to 6 weeks (Cattet et al. 2008; 

Thiemann et al. 2013; Rode et al. 2014). 

The available research does not 

conclusively demonstrate whether 

capture or den abandonment during den 

initiation is consequential for survival 

and reproduction. Ramsay and Stirling 

(1986) reported that captures of females 

did not significantly affect numbers and 

mean weights of cubs, but the overall 

mean litter size and weights of cubs of 

previously handled mothers 

consistently tended to be slightly lower 

than those of mothers not previously 

handled. Amstrup (1993) could see no 

significant effect of handling on cub 

weight, litter size, or survival. Seal et al. 

(1970) reported no loss of pregnancy 

among captive Ursids following 

repeated chemical immobilization and 

handling. However, Lunn et al. (2004) 

concluded that handling and 

observations of pregnant female polar 

bears in the autumn resulted in 

significantly lighter female, but not 

male, cubs in spring. Swenson et al. 

(1997) found that female grizzly bears 

(U. arctos horribilis) that abandoned a 

den site lost cubs significantly more 

often than those that did not. 

Polar bears may be willing to abandon 

a den site during den initiation because 

the pregnant female has less investment 

in a den site at this time than at later 

stages, and she may be able to re-den 

with fewer consequences than at later 

times during denning (Amstrup 1993). 

Amstrup (1993) and Lunn et al. (2004) 

supported the hypotheses that, after 

giving birth, females are likely to be 

more invested in the denning process 

and less likely to abandon a den site. 

Den establishment is influenced by 

environmental variables, which suggests 

that polar bears may be able to tolerate 

low-level disruptions to the den 

establishment process. Environmental 

variables affecting Ursid den 

establishment include the number and 

timing of snowfall events (Zedrosser et 

al. 2006; Evans et al. 2016; Pigeon et al. 

2016), accumulation of snowpack 

(Amstrup and Gardner 1994; Durner et 

al. 2003, 2006), temperature (Rode et al. 

2018), and timing of sea ice freeze-up 

(Webster et al. 2014). Environmental 

variability across the polar bear’s range 

results in a high degree of variability in 

den initiation dates among 

subpopulations (see summary data in 

Escajeda et al. 2018). For example, 

Ferguson et al. (2000) observed females 

entering their dens on eastern Baffin 

Island in the 1990s considerably earlier 

than reported by Harington (1968) for 

polar bears in the 1960s. This suggests 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79107 

that polar bears are able to 

accommodate a wide variety of 

influences during den initiation if a 

minimum total denning duration can be 

achieved. 

Although additional energy 

expenditures from disturbance would be 

compounded by natural food restriction 

during denning, we have determined 

that, before giving birth, females will be 

able to accommodate the effects of a 

low-level disturbance without 

experiencing injury or a reduction in 

likelihood of her or her cub’s survival. 

This conclusion is based on evidence 

that den initiation is influenced by a 

variety of factors, and polar bears appear 

to tolerate many of these influences 

without experiencing lethal or Level A 

effects on denning success. Energy 

reserves are biologically significant for 

denning polar bears. Therefore, a polar 

bear will experience Level B take if it 

responds to anthropogenic exposures by 

devoting energetic resources or 

sufficient time to behaviors that disrupt 

the progression of normal denning. 

Early Denning 

We defined early denning as the 

period of time from the birth of cubs 

until they are capable of surviving 

outside of the den. In the absence of 

other information, this period is defined 

as any denning activity that occurs 

between December 1 and February 13 

when cubs are on average presumed to 

be 60 days old (Messier et al. 1994). 

Although cubs grow quickly and may 

weigh 10–12 kg upon emergence from 

the den in the spring, sufficient time (≥2 

months) is needed prior to den 

emergence for adequate development 

(Harington 1968, L<n< 1970, Amstrup 

1993, Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Smith 

et al. 2007, Rode et al. 2018). Polar bear 

cubs are among the most undeveloped 

mammals at birth (Ramsay and 

Dunbrack 1986). Altricial, newborn 

polar bears have little fur, are blind, and 

weigh ∼0.6 kg (Blix and Lentfer 1979). 

At birth, cubs have limited fat reserves 

and thin natal fur, which provides little 

thermoregulatory value (Blix and 

Lentfer 1979, Kenny and Bickel 2005). 

However, roughly 2 weeks after birth 

their ability to thermoregulate begins to 

improve as they grow longer guard hairs 

and an undercoat (Kenny and Bickel 

2005). As development continues, cubs 

first open their eyes at an average age of 

35 days (Kenny and Bickel 2005). At 

60–70 days of age, cubs achieve 

sufficient musculoskeletal development 

to walk (Kenny and Bickel 2005); 

however, movements may still be 

clumsy at this time (Harington 1968). 

Based on the abovementioned 

developmental milestones, we define 

the minimum amount of time required 

in the den prior to emergence to be 60 

days; longer denning periods have been 

found to increase cub survival 

probabilities (Rode et al. 2018). 

Currently no studies have directly 

examined birth dates of polar bear cubs 

in the wild; however, several studies 

have estimated parturition based on 

indirect metrics. Messier et al. (1994) 

found that the activity levels of radiocollared females dropped significantly 

in mid-December, leading the authors to 

conclude that a majority of births 

occurred before or around December 15. 

Additionally, Van de Velde et al. 

(2003) evaluated information from 

historic records of bears legally 

harvested in dens. Their findings 

suggest that cubs were born between 

early December and early January. 

Based on the cumulative evidence 

presented in these studies, we assume 

that the average birth date of polar bear 

cubs is December 15; however, births 

could occur as early as December 1 or 

as late as January 15. Therefore, we 

defined the early denning period as the 

time when it was first possible to have 

cubs in the den (December 1) until 60 

days after the average birth date 

(February 13). Due to the variability of 

birth dates, we selected December 15 as 

the most appropriate metric for this 

analysis given most cubs are born 

around mid-December (Messier et al. 

1994). 

Given that cubs are largely 

undeveloped during early denning (i.e., 

unable to thermoregulate, see, or walk), 

den abandonment and early den 

departure due to disturbance are both 

assumed to result in lethal take of cubs. 

Late Denning 

We defined late denning as the time 

period from when cubs reach 60 days of 

age until the date of natural emergence 

from the den (i.e., emergence without 

disturbance). In a study of marked polar 

bears in the CBS and SBS 

subpopulations, Rode et al. (2018) 

report all females that denned through 

the end of March had ≥1 cub when resighted ≤100 days after den emergence. 

Conversely, roughly half of the females 

that emerged from dens before the end 

of February did not produce cubs or had 

cubs that did not survive to emergence, 

suggesting that later den emergence may 

result in a greater likelihood of cub 

survival (Rode et al. 2018). Date of 

emergence was also identified as the 

most important variable determining 

cub survival (Rode et al. 2018). For land 

denning bears in the SBS, the median 

emergence date was March 15 (Rode et 

al. 2018, USGS 2018). 

Any disturbance to denning bears is 

costly as the amount of time females 

spend in dens has been found to 

influence reproductive success (i.e., cub 

production and survival) (Elowe and 

Dodge 1989, Amstrup and Gardner 

1994, Rode et al. 2018). If a female 

leaves a den (with or without the cubs) 

prematurely, decreased cub survival is 

likely (Linnell et al. 2000) for reasons 

including, for example, susceptibility to 

cold temperatures (Blix and Lentfer 

1979, Hansson and Thomassen 1983, 

Van de Velde et al. 2003) or predation 

(Derocher and Wiig 1999) and mobility 

limitations (Frame et al. 2007, Habib 

and Kumar 2007, Tablado and Jenni 

2017). While den abandonment is the 

most extreme response to disturbance, 

lower level responses including 

increased heart rate (Craighead et al. 

1976, Laske et al. 2011) or increased 

body temperature (Reynolds et al. 1986) 

can result in significant energy 

expenditure (Karpovich et al. 2009, 

Geiser 2013, Evans et al. 2016). 

We divided the period of time polar 

bears spend in dens into two phases: 

Early denning and late denning. The 

late denning phase differs from the early 

denning phase in that the cubs are more 

developed, e.g., they are larger in size, 

able to see and walk, and have grown 

some fur for insulation. While any 

disturbance to cubs while within a den 

is considered detrimental, we 

distinguished between these two phases 

because the cubs of females disturbed in 

the late denning phase may survive, 

whereas cub survival is highly unlikely 

if a den is disturbed in the early phase 

and the female abandons the den. In the 

absence of other information, late 

denning is defined as any denning 

activity occurring between February 14 

and median den emergence (March 15). 

While exact birth date of wild polar 

bears cubs is unknown, most births are 

estimated to occur between early 

December and late January (Blix and 

Lentfer 1979, Messier at al. 1994, Van de 

Velde et al. 2003). For our purposes, we 

assumed the average cub birth date is 

December 15 (Messier et al. 1994). 

During the late denning period there 

were five possible outcomes to 

disturbance: Cub abandonment, early 

emergence, behavioral response, likely 

physiological response, or insufficient 

information. 

Post-Emergence Period 

This denning stage is defined as the 

period of time after the female polar 

bear first emerges from her den up to 

her final departure from the den site. 

Polar bears are known to remain at or 

near den sites for up to 30 days after 

emergence before heading out to the sea 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79108 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

ice (Harington 1968, Jonkel et al. 1972, 

Kolenosky and Prevett 1980, Hansson 

and Thomassen 1983, Ovsyanikov 1998, 

Robinson 2014). Behaviors observed 

when outside the den include: Walking 

short distances away from the den, 

foraging on vegetation, digging, rolling, 

grooming, nursing, playing, sitting, 

standing, and repeatedly reentering the 

den (Harington 1968, Jonkel et al. 1972, 

Hansson and Thomassen 1983, 

Ovsyanikov 1998, Smith et al. 2007, 

2013). While mothers outside the den 

spend most of their time inactive, cubs 

tend to be more active (Robinson 2014). 

These behaviors likely reflect the need 

for an adjustment period that allows for 

improving cub mass and strength and 

their acclimation to the harsh 

environmental conditions that will be 

encountered once they depart for the sea 

ice (Harington 1968, Lentfer and Hensel 

1980, Hansson and Thomassen 1983, 

Messier et al. 1994). Departure from the 

den site before this adjustment period 

may hinder a cub’s ability to travel 

(Ovsyanikov 1998), thereby increasing 

the chances for cub abandonment 

(Haroldson et al. 2002) or susceptibility 

to predation (Derocher and Wiig 1999, 

Amstrup et al. 2006). 

While considerable variation exists in 

the duration of time that bears spend at 

dens post-emergence, it remains unclear 

whether a minimum or maximum 

number of days is required to prevent 

negative consequences to cub survival. 

For 25 dens observed in the Beaufort 

Sea region from 2002 through 2010, a 

mean post-emergence duration of 8.3 

days was noted (see table 1 in Smith et 

al. 2007, table 1 in Smith et al. 2010, 

table 1.1 in Robinson 2014). Therefore, 

in the absence of information on the 

intended departure date (which was 

known only for simulated dens), we 

considered a ‘‘normal’’ duration at the 

den site between first emergence and 

departure to be ≥8 days and classified 

departures that occurred post emergence 

‘‘early’’ if they occurred <9 days after 

emergence. If the adult female left the 

den site (with or without cubs) after a 

disturbance but later returned, we 

considered the initial movement to be 

the departure date. 

During review of the case studies, 

early departures during post emergence 

were classified as a non-serious level A 

harassment for each cub, and a Level B 

take (potential to disturb) for the adult 

female. We classified these instances as 

non-serious Level A harassment because 

cubs were at an age where they could 

effectively thermoregulate and keep up 

with their mother as they headed 

towards the sea ice. We acknowledge, 

however, that there must be some 

survival consequence for cubs to stay at 

the den site for a period of time given 

that the adult female’s long fasting 

period should lead her to want to reach 

sea ice to begin hunting as soon as 

possible. Thus, an early departure from 

the den site could have potential 

survival consequences for cubs. 

However, if following exposure the 

female left without her cubs, we 

classified this as ‘‘cub abandonment,’’ 

which is assigned a lethal take for each 

cub and Level B take for the adult 

female. 

Post-emergent departure information 

was not used to assess disturbances 

when an incident(s) resulted in an early 

emergence during the late (or early) 

denning period; rather, the final 

outcomes from these incidents were 

classified as ‘‘early emergence,’’ in 

keeping with the decision criteria to use 

the most severe outcome when an 

incident has more than one outcome 

classification (e.g., early emergence and 

early departure). 

Methods for Modeling the Effects of Den 

Disturbance 

Den Simulation 

We simulated dens across the Coastal 

Plain of the Refuge on areas identified 

as denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006). 

To simulate dens on the landscape, we 

relied on the estimated number of dens 

in the Coastal Plain provided by 

Atwood et al. (2020). The mean 

estimated number of dens in the Coastal 

Plain was 14 dens (95 percent CI: 5–30; 

Atwood et al. 2020). For each iteration 

of the model (described below), we 

drew a random sample from a gamma 

distribution for the number of dens in 

the Refuge based on the above 

parameter estimates, which allowed 

uncertainty in the number of dens in 

each area to be perpetuated through the 

modeling process. Specifically, we used 

the method of moments (Hobbs and 

Hooten 2015) to develop the shape and 

rate parameters and modeled the 

number of dens in the Coastal Plain as 

Gamma (142/6.32,14/6.32). 

Because not all areas in the Coastal 

Plain are equally used for denning, and 

some areas do not contain the requisite 

topographic attributes required for 

sufficient snow accumulation for den 

excavation, we did not simply randomly 

place dens on the landscape. Instead, 

we followed a similar approach to that 

used by Wilson and Durner (2020). For 

each iteration of the model, we 

randomly distributed dens across areas 

within the focal area identified as 

denning habitat (Durner et al. 2006), 

with the probability of a den occurring 

at a given location being proportional to 

the density of dens predicted by a 

kernel density map (figure 9). The 

kernel density map was developed by 

using known den locations in northern 

Alaska identified either by GPS-collared 

bears or through systematic surveys for 

denning bears (Durner et al. 2020). To 

approximate the distribution of dens we 

used a scaled adaptive kernel density 

estimator applied to n observed den 

locations, which took the form 

where the adaptive bandwidth h(s) = (b0

+ b1I(Si eM)I(seM))b2z(s) for the location 

of the ith den and each location in the 

study area. An east-west gradient scaled 

the density and bandwidth to account 

for lower sampling effort in western 

areas, and the indicator functions 

allowed the bandwidth to vary abruptly 

between the mainland M and barrier 

islands. The kernel k was the Gaussian 

kernel, and the parameters q, b0,b1, b2, 

were chosen so that the density estimate 

approximated the observed density of 

dens and our understanding of likely 

den locations in areas with low 

sampling effort. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79109 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

For each simulated den, we assigned 

dates of key denning events: Den 

entrance, birth of cubs, when cubs 

reached 60 days of age, den emergence, 

and departure from the den site after 

emergence. These events represent the 

chronology of each den under 

undisturbed conditions. We selected the 

entrance date for each den from a 

normal distribution parameterized by 

entrance dates of radio-collared bears in 

the SBS subpopulation that denned on 

land included in Rode et al. (2018) and 

published in USGS (2018; n = 52, mean 

= November 11, SD = 18 days); we 

truncated this distribution to ensure that 

all simulated dates occurred within the 

range of observed values (i.e., 

September 12 to December 22) +/¥ 1 

week. We selected a date of birth for 

each litter from a normal distribution of 

mean of 348 (i.e., corresponding to the 

ordinal date for December 15) and 

standard deviation of 10. The mean 

corresponds to the date around when 

most cubs are thought to be born 

(Messier et al. 1994), and a standard 

deviation of 10 was used because it 

allowed the tails of the normal 

distribution to occur at approximately 

the earliest (December 1) and latest 

(January 15) dates expected for cubs to 

be born (Messier et al. 1994, Van de 

Velde et al. 2003). 

To ensure that birth dates remained 

within the range of December 1 to 

January 15, we restricted draws from the 

normal distribution to occur within this 

range. We selected the emergence date 

as a random draw from an asymmetric 

Laplace distribution with parameters m 

= 81.0, s = 4.79, and p = 0.79 estimated 

from the empirical emergence dates in 

Rode et al. (2018) and published in 

USGS (2018, n = 52) of radio-collared 

bears in the SBS subpopulation that 

denned on land using the mleALD 

function from package ‘ald’ (Galarza and 

Lachos 2018) in program R (R Core 

Development Team 2019, 2020). We 

constrained simulated emergence dates 

to occur within the range of observed 

emergence dates (Jan 9 to Apr 9) +/¥ 1 

week and not to occur prior to cubs 

reaching an age of 60 days. Finally, we 

assigned the number of days each family 

group spent at the den site postemergence based on values reported in 

three behavioral studies, Smith et al. 

(2007, 2013) and Robinson (2014), 

which monitored dens near the target 

area immediately after emergence (n = 

25 dens). 

Specifically, we used the mean (8.3) 

and SD (5.6) of the dens monitored in 

these studies to parameterize a gamma 

distribution using the method of 

moments (Hobbs and Hooten 2015) with 

a shape parameter equal to 8.32/5.62 and 

a rate parameter equal to 8.3/5.62; we 

selected a post-emergence, predeparture time for each den from this 

distribution. Additionally, we assigned 

each den a litter size by drawing the 

number of cubs from a multinomial 

distribution with probabilities derived 

from litter sizes (n = 25 litters) reported 

in Smith et al. (2007, 2010, 2013) and 

Robinson (2014). Because there is some 

probability that a female naturally 

emerges with 0 cubs, we also wanted to 

ensure this scenario was captured. It is 

difficult to parameterize the probability 

of litter size equal to 0 because it is 

rarely observed. We therefore assumed 

that dens in the USGS (2018) dataset 

had denning durations less than the 

shortest den duration where a female 

was later observed with cubs (i.e., 79 

days). There were only 3 bears in the 

USGS (2018) data that met this criteria, 

leading to an assumed probability of a 

litter size of 0 at emergence being 0.07. 

We therefore assigned the probability of 

0, 1, 2, or 3 cubs as 0.07, 0.15, 0.71, and 

0.07, respectively. 

Seismic Activities 

The model developed by Wilson and 

Durner (2020) provides a template for 

estimating the level of potential impact 

to denning polar bears from proposed 

activities while also considering the 

natural denning ecology of polar bears 

in the region. The approach developed 

by Wilson and Durner (2020) also 

allows for the incorporation of 

uncertainty in both the metric 

associated with denning bears and in 

the timing and spatial patterns of 

proposed activities when precise 

information on those activities is 

unavailable. Below we describe how the 

model was applied based on 

information provided in the request. 

The application from KIC indicates 

that winter seismic surveys will occur 

over an area of approximately 1,430 km2

in the central portion of the Coastal 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.021</GPH>
79110 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

Plain (figure 9). The seismic acquisition 

area is broken into 21 sub-blocks that 

are assigned specific dates before which 

the model assumes no activity will 

occur (figure 9) and which will require 

2–3 days from which to acquire seismic 

data. KIC requested obtaining incidental 

take authorization for starting at the 

northwestern sub-block and then 

moving through the rest of the subblocks in a clockwise manner. 

Access to the seismic acquisition 

blocks will occur along a land-based 

route beginning near the northwestern 

corner of the Refuge and reaching the 

northwestern corner of the 

northwestern-most sub-block (figure 9). 

The route can deviate up to 250 m south 

and 500 m north of the proposed route. 

This does not imply that the entire area 

can be used to access the survey area, 

but rather the linear access route can 

occur anywhere within that region. 

The application states that crews will 

first enter the Refuge along the access 

route on January 26, 2021, and have 

continuous activity along the access 

route until the end of the acquisition 

period (May 15, 2021). Crews are 

proposed to arrive at the seismic blocks 

on February 1, 2021, and begin activities 

associated with seismic acquisition. 

Crews would then move sequentially 

through the sub-blocks according to the 

number of days required to fully survey 

the sub-block as indicated in the 

application. The results of this analysis 

rely on the access route not being used 

prior to January 26 and having crews 

enter the acquisition area no earlier than 

February 1. 

Aerial Infrared Surveys 

The application indicates that three 

complete aerial infrared (AIR) surveys of 

denning habitat along the access route 

and seismic blocks will occur prior to 

activity commencing in those areas. For 

the analysis, we assumed that 

independent aerial infrared surveys 

occurred on January 21, 23, and 25, 

2021. However, surveys could occur as 

late as February 13, 2021, without 

affecting take estimates, as long as they 

occurred prior to activity commencing 

in an area. 

We applied the same approach as 

Wilson and Durner (2020) to simulate if 

a den was detected during an AIR 

survey, including the assumption that 

dens with snow depths >100 cm would 

be unavailable for detection by AIR 

(Amstrup et al. 2004, Robinson 2014). 

For those dens that were detected 

during a simulated AIR survey, we 

assumed effective mitigation measures 

would be put in place to avoid further 

disturbance to the den until after bears 

emerged from and departed the den (i.e., 

a 1,610-m buffer around dens where 

activity is prohibited). We also assumed 

that dens would not be run over given 

the condition in the application 

restricting driving over embankments, 

when possible, and using vehicle-based 

infrared sensors to survey areas where 

vehicles will intersect denning habitat. 

Model Implementation 

For each iteration of the model, we 

first determined which (undetected) 

dens were exposed to activity associated 

with the access route and seismic 

operations inside the Refuge. We 

assumed that any den within 1.61 km (1 

mi) of infrastructure or human activities 

was exposed (MacGillivray et al. 2003, 

Larson et al. 2020), excluding those 

detected during AIR surveys. We then 

identified the stage in the denning cycle 

when the exposure occurred based on 

the date range of the activities to which 

the den was exposed: Early denning 

(i.e., birth of cubs until they are 60 days 

old), late denning (i.e., date cubs are 60 

days old until den emergence), and 

post-emergence (i.e., the date of den 

emergence until permanent departure 

from the den site). We then determined 

whether the exposure elicited a 

response by the denning bear based on 

probabilities derived from the reviewed 

case studies (table 7). Level B take was 

applicable to both adults and cubs, if 

present, whereas Level A and lethal take 

were only applicable to cubs. 

For dens exposed to activities 

associated with seismic surveys, we 

applied a multinomial distribution with 

the probabilities of different levels of 

take for that period associated with 

continuous activity (table 7). If the 

probabilities summed to <1, the 

remainder was assigned to a noresponse class. After a Level A or lethal 

take was simulated to occur, a den was 

not allowed to be disturbed again during 

the subsequent denning periods because 

the outcome of that denning event was 

already determined. 

The level of take associated with a 

disturbance varied according to the 

severity and timing of the exposure 

(table 7). Exposures that resulted in 

abandonment of cubs (during late 

denning or post-emergence) or 

emergence from dens prior to cubs 

reaching 60 days of age were considered 

lethal takes of cubs. If a disturbance 

resulted in den emergence prior to the 

date assigned to the den in the absence 

of disturbance, the level of take was 

considered serious Level A. If a postemergence exposure resulted in bears 

leaving the den site prior to the nonexposure departure date, the outcome 

was classified as a non-serious Level A 

take for each cub. Adult females also 

received Level B takes for any 

disturbance that resulted in Level B 

takes for cubs. Cubs could similarly be 

applied a Level B take during the late 

denning and post-emergence time 

periods if only a behavioral response 

was simulated to have occurred. 

We developed the code to run this 

model in program R (R Core 

Development Team 2020) and ran 

10,000 iterations of the model (i.e., 

Monte Carlo simulation) to derive the 

estimated number of dens disturbed and 

associated levels of take for starting at 

the northwestern block and moving 

clockwise (figure 9). 

Model Results 

We estimated an average of 2.74 (95 

percent CI: 0–7, median=2) land-based 

dens in the area of proposed activity. 

For seismic surveys, starting in the 

northwestern block (figure 9), we 

estimated a mean of 1.26 (95 percent CI: 

0–8, median=0) Level B takes would 

occur. We estimated a mean of 0.45 (95 

percent CI: 0–3, median=0) serious 

Level A or Lethal takes during the 

proposed project, with a probability of 

≥1 Serious Level A or Lethal take 

occurring during the project being 0.21. 

Sum of Take From All Sources 

The applicant will conduct seismic 

work over the entire project area within 

one winter season. A summary of total 

numbers of estimated take via Level B 

harassment during the duration of the 

project by season and take category is 

provided in table 8. The potential for 

lethal or Level A take was explored and 

estimated to be 0.45 lethal or Level A 

takes of polar bears. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79111 

Critical Assumptions 

In order to conduct this analysis and 

estimate the potential amount of Level 

B take, several critical assumptions were 

made. 

Level B take by harassment is equated 

herein with behavioral responses that 

indicate harassment or disturbance. 

There are likely to be a proportion of 

animals that respond in ways that 

indicate some level of disturbance but 

do not experience significant biological 

consequences. A correction factor was 

not applied, although we considered 

using the rate of Level B take reported 

by Service biologists during polar bear 

surveys conducted between 2008 and 

2015 (below 0.01 percent; USFWS and 

USGS, unpublished data). In 2016, the 

Service applied such a correction factor 

when analyzing behavioral responses in 

polar bears; however, we have not 

included this correction factor in our 

current analysis. Consequently, the 

reported rate of take prior to 2016 may 

not represent the current definition; 

therefore, it was not deemed appropriate 

for use in determining the ratio of 

behavioral response to Level B take. The 

analysis’ lack of a correction factor may 

result in overestimation of take. 

Our estimates do not account for 

variable responses by age and sex; 

however, sensitivity of denning bears 

was incorporated into the analysis. The 

available information suggests that polar 

bears are generally resilient to low 

levels of disturbance. Females with 

dependent young and juvenile polar 

bears are physiologically the most 

sensitive (Andersen and Aars 2008) and 

most likely to experience take from 

disturbance. There is not enough 

information on composition of the SBS 

polar bear population in the KIC survey 

area to incorporate individual 

variability based on age and sex or to 

predict its influence on take estimates. 

Our estimates are derived from a variety 

of sample populations with various age 

and sex structures, and we assume the 

exposed population will have a similar 

composition and therefore the response 

rates are applicable. 

The estimates of behavioral response 

presented here do not account for the 

individual movements of animals away 

from the KIC survey area or habituation 

of animals to the survey noise. Our 

assessment assumes animals remain 

stationary; i.e., density does not change. 

There is not enough information about 

the movement of polar bears in response 

to specific disturbances to refine this 

assumption. This situation could result 

in overestimation of take; however, we 

cannot account for take resulting from a 

polar bear moving into less preferred 

habitat due to disturbance. 

Potential Impacts on the Polar Bear 

Stock 

The KIC project is predicted to result 

in up to 3 Level B takes of polar bears 

in 8 months and 10 days (table 8). The 

most recent population size estimate for 

the SBS stock was approximately 907 

polar bears in 2010 (Bromaghin et al. 

2015, Atwood et al. 2020). The greatest 

proportion of the stock that may 

experience Level B harassment in a 

given year during KIC’s activities is 0.33 

percent ((3÷907)×100 = 0.0033). 

Denning polar bears encountered 

during KIC’s winter activities may be in 

a sensitive physiological state or may be 

less tolerant of disturbance, resulting in 

a heightened stress response. Nutrientdeprived females or dependent young 

that are disturbed during or shortly after 

denning may take longer to recover and 

could remain sensitive to additional 

environmental stressors for some time 

after the encounter. Up to eight denning 

females may be present in the project 

area during the course of KIC’s proposed 

work (see Analysis of Impact to Denning 

Bears, Model Results). The number of 

adult females in the SBS stock is 

estimated at 316 based on Bromaghin et 

al. (2015) and Atwood et al. (2020). The 

proportion denning in the project area 

might therefore constitute up to 2.5 

percent of the breeding stock. 

Noise levels are not expected to reach 

levels capable of causing harm. Animals 

in the area are neither expected to incur 

hearing impairment (i.e., Temporary 

Threshold Shift or Permanent Threshold 

Shift), nor level A harassment. Aircraft 

noise may cause behavioral 

disturbances (i.e., Level B harassment). 

Polar bears exposed to sound produced 

by the project are likely to respond with 

temporary behavioral modification or 

displacement. With the adoption of the 

measures proposed in KIC’s mitigation 

and monitoring plan and required by 

this proposed IHA, we conclude that the 

only anticipated effects from noise 

generated by the proposed project 

would be the short-term temporary 

behavioral alteration of polar bears. 

Animals that encounter the proposed 

activities may exert more energy than 

they would otherwise due to temporary 

cessation of feeding, increased 

vigilance, and retreat from the project 

area, but we expect that most would 

tolerate this exertion without 

measurable effects on health or 

reproduction. In sum, we do not 

anticipate injuries or mortalities to 

result from KIC’s operation, and none 

will be authorized. The takes that are 

anticipated would be from short-term 

Level B harassment in the form of 

startling reactions or temporary 

displacement. 

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses 

The proposed activities will occur 

near marine subsistence harvest areas 

used by Alaska Natives from the village 

of Kaktovik. From 2008 to 2017, 16 

polar bears were reported harvested for 

subsistence use in and around Kaktovik, 

the majority of which were taken within 

16 km (10 mi) of Kaktovik. Harvest 

occurs year-round, but peaks in 

September, with about 60 percent of the 

total taken during this month. October 

and November are also high harvest 

months. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2EN08DE20.022</GPH>
79112 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

The proposed project has the 

potential to disrupt subsistence 

activities if activities occur after the 

beginning of August near Kaktovik; 

however, KIC has proposed to conduct 

helicopter-based cleanup activities prior 

to the main subsistence hunting season. 

If activities were to be delayed, the 

applicant’s activities may disrupt hunter 

access, displace polar bears, and polar 

bears may be more vigilant during 

periods of disturbance, which could 

affect hunting success rates. 

Additionally, KIC’s aircraft may 

temporarily displace polar bears, 

resulting in changes to availability of 

polar bears for subsistence use during 

the project period. Through 

implementation of the Plan of 

Cooperation (POC), and spatial temporal 

planning, impacts to subsistence 

hunting are not anticipated. 

While KIC’s activities may have a 

temporary effect on polar bear 

distribution, it will not alter the ability 

of Alaska Native residents of Kaktovik 

to harvest polar bears in the long term. 

KIC will coordinate with Alaska Native 

villages and Tribal organizations to 

identify and avoid the potential shortterm conflicts. KIC has developed a POC 

specifying the particular steps that will 

be taken to minimize any effects the 

project might have on subsistence 

harvest. The POC is available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov and may be 

requested as described under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The POC 

also describes KIC’s intentions for 

stakeholder engagement and for 

communicating information to oversight 

agencies. These measures are likely to 

reduce potential conflicts and to 

facilitate continued communication 

between KIC and subsistence users of 

polar bears, ensuring availability of the 

species at a level sufficient for harvest 

to meet subsistence needs. 

The proposed project will be 

completed by August 2021 and therefore 

avoids significant overlap with peak 

polar bear subsistence harvest months. 

KIC’s activities will not preclude access 

to hunting areas or interfere in any way 

with individuals wishing to hunt. 

Findings 

Small Numbers 

For small numbers analyses, the 

statute and legislative history do not 

expressly require a specific type of 

numerical analysis, leaving the 

determination of ‘‘small’’ to the agency’s 

discretion. In this case, we propose a 

finding that the KIC project may result 

in approximately 3 takes by harassment 

of polar bears from the SBS stock. This 

figure represents about 0.33 percent of 

the stock (USFWS 2010, Bromaghin et 

al. 2015, Atwood et al. 2020) 

((3÷907)×100≈0.33). Based on these 

numbers, we propose a finding that the 

KIC project will take only a small 

number of animals. 

Negligible Impact 

We propose a finding that any 

incidental take by harassment resulting 

from the proposed project cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to adversely affect the 

SBS stock of polar bears through effects 

on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival. The proposed project would 

therefore have no more than a negligible 

impact on the stock. In making this 

finding, we considered the best 

available scientific information, 

including: the biological and behavioral 

characteristics of the species, the most 

recent information on species 

distribution and abundance within the 

area of the specified activities, the 

potential sources of disturbance caused 

by the project, and the potential 

responses of animals to this disturbance. 

In addition, we reviewed material 

supplied by the applicant, other 

operators in Alaska, our files and 

datasets, published reference materials, 

and consulted species experts. 

Polar bears are likely to respond to 

proposed activities with temporary 

behavioral modification or 

displacement. These reactions are 

unlikely to have consequences for the 

health, reproduction, or survival of 

affected animals. Sound production is 

not expected to reach levels capable of 

causing harm, and Level A harassment 

is not expected to occur. Most animals 

will respond to disturbance by moving 

away from the source, which may cause 

temporary interruptions of foraging, 

resting, or other natural behaviors. 

Affected animals are expected to resume 

normal behaviors soon after exposure, 

with no lasting consequences. Some 

animals may exhibit more severe 

responses typical of Level B harassment, 

such as fleeing or ceasing feeding. These 

responses could have significant 

biological impacts for a few affected 

individuals, but most animals will also 

tolerate this type of disturbance without 

lasting effects. Thus, although the KIC 

project may result in approximately 3 

takes by Level B harassment of polar 

bears from the SBS stock, we do not 

expect this type of harassment to affect 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

or result in adverse effects on the 

species or stocks. 

Our proposed finding of negligible 

impact applies to incidental take 

associated with the proposed activities 

as mitigated by the avoidance and 

minimization measures identified in 

KIC’s mitigation and monitoring plan 

and in this authorization. These 

mitigation measures are designed to 

minimize interactions with and impacts 

to polar bears. These measures, and the 

monitoring and reporting procedures, 

are required for the validity of our 

finding and are a necessary component 

of the IHA. For these reasons, we 

propose a finding that the 2021 KIC 

project will have no more than a 

negligible impact on polar bears. 

Impact on Subsistence 

We propose a finding that the 

anticipated harassment caused by KIC’s 

activities would not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of polar bears for taking for 

subsistence uses. In making this finding, 

we considered the timing and location 

of the proposed activities and the timing 

and location of polar bear subsistence 

harvest activities in the area of the 

proposed project. We also considered 

the applicant’s consultation with 

subsistence communities, proposed 

measures for avoiding impacts to 

subsistence harvest, and development of 

a POC, should any adverse impacts be 

identified. Further information on 

impacts to subsistence can be found in 

Potential Impacts on Subsistence Uses. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment in 

accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily 

concluded that authorizing the 

nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take 

of up to three polar bears from the SBS 

stock by Level B harassment in Alaska 

during activities conducted by KIC and 

its subcontractors in 2021 would not 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment, and that the 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement for this incidental take 

authorization is not required by section 

102(2) of NEPA or its implementing 

regulations. We are accepting comments 

on the draft environmental assessment 

as specified above in DATES and 

ADDRESSES. 

Endangered Species Act 

Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), 

all Federal agencies are required to 

ensure the actions they authorize are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Prior to issuance of this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79113 

IHA, the Service will complete intraService consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA on our proposed issuance of an 

IHA. These evaluations and findings 

will be made available on the Service’s 

website at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ 

report/biological-opinion and added to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2020–0129 at 

regulations.gov when completed. 

It is our responsibility to 

communicate and work directly on a 

Government-to-Government basis with 

federally recognized Alaska Native 

Tribes and organizations in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems. We 

seek their full and meaningful 

participation in evaluating and 

addressing conservation concerns for 

protected species. It is our goal to 

remain sensitive to Alaska Native 

culture, and to make information 

available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts 

are guided by the following policies and 

directives: (1) The Native American 

Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016); 

(2) the Alaska Native Relations Policy 

(currently in draft form); (3) Executive 

Order 13175 (January 9, 2000); (4) 

Department of the Interior Secretarial 

Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 

(January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 

2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016); (5) 

the Alaska Government-to-Government 

Policy (a departmental memorandum 

issued January 18, 2001); and (6) the 

Department of the Interior’s policies on 

consultation with Alaska Native Tribes 

and organizations. 

We have evaluated possible effects of 

the proposed activities on federally 

recognized Alaska Native Tribes and 

organizations. Through the IHA process 

identified in the MMPA, the applicant 

has presented a communication process, 

including a POC, with the Native 

organizations and communities most 

likely to be affected by their work. KIC 

has engaged these groups in 

informational meetings. 

We invite continued discussion, 

either about the project and its impacts, 

or about our coordination and 

information exchange throughout the 

IHA/POC process. The Service will 

contact Tribal organizations in 

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Arctic Village, 

as well as relevant ANSCA corporations, 

to inform them of the availability of this 

proposed authorization and offer them 

the opportunity to consult. 

Proposed Authorization 

We propose to authorize the nonlethal 

take by Level B harassment of three 

animals from the Beaufort Sea stock of 

polar bears. Authorized take will be 

limited to disruption of behavioral 

patterns that may be caused by aircraft 

overflights, seismic surveys, and 

support activities conducted by KIC in 

the 1002 area of the Refuge, from 

January to September 30, 2021. We 

anticipate no take by injury or death to 

polar bears resulting from these 

activities. 

A. General Conditions for Issuance of 

the Proposed IHA 

(1) Activities must be conducted in 

the manner described in the request for 

an IHA and in accordance with all 

applicable conditions and mitigations 

measures. The taking of polar bears 

whenever the required conditions, 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are not fully implemented as 

required by the IHA will be prohibited. 

Failure to follow measures specified 

may result in the modification, 

suspension, or revocation of the IHA. 

(2) If project activities cause 

unauthorized take (i.e., take of more 

than three polar bears or take of one or 

more polar bear through methods not 

described in the IHA), KIC must take the 

following actions: (i) Cease its activities 

immediately (or reduce activities to the 

minimum level necessary to maintain 

safety); (ii) report the details of the 

incident to the Service within 48 hours; 

and (iii) suspend further activities until 

the Service has reviewed the 

circumstances and determined whether 

additional mitigation measures are 

necessary to avoid further unauthorized 

taking. 

(3) All operations managers, vehicle 

operators, and aircraft pilots must 

receive a copy of the IHA and maintain 

access to it for reference at all times 

during project work. These personnel 

must understand, be fully aware of, and 

be capable of implementing the 

conditions of the IHA at all times during 

project work. 

(4) The IHA will apply to activities 

associated with the proposed project as 

described in this document and in KIC’s 

amended application. Changes to the 

proposed project without prior 

authorization may invalidate the IHA. 

(5) KIC’s IHA application will be 

approved and fully incorporated into 

the IHA, unless exceptions are 

specifically noted herein or in the final 

IHA. The application includes: 

• KIC’s original request for an IHA, 

dated August 17, 2020 (KIC 2020); 

• The letters requesting additional 

information, dated August 30, 2020, 

September 4, 2020, and October 26, 

2020; 

• KIC’s responses to requests for 

additional information from the Service, 

dated September 1, 9, and 14, 2020, and 

October 27, 2020; 

• The letters requesting an 

amendment to the original application, 

dated August 30, 2020, and October 23, 

2020; 

• Updated applications from KIC, 

dated October 24 and 28, 2020; 

• The Polar Bear Avoidance and 

Interaction Plan (Appendix A in KIC 

2020); 

• The Plan of Cooperation (Appendix 

B in KIC 2020). 

(6) Operators will allow Service 

personnel or the Service’s designated 

representative to visit project work sites 

to monitor impacts to polar bears and 

subsistence uses of polar bears at any 

time throughout project activities so 

long as it is safe to do so. ‘‘Operators’’ 

are all personnel operating under KIC’s 

authority, including all contractors and 

subcontractors. 

B. Avoidance and Minimization 

KIC must implement the following 

policies and procedures to avoid 

interactions with and minimize to the 

greatest extent practicable any adverse 

impacts on polar bears, their habitat, 

and the availability of these marine 

mammals for subsistence uses. 

(a) General avoidance measures. 

(1) Avoidance and minimization 

policies and procedures shall include 

temporal or spatial activity restrictions 

in response to the presence of polar 

bears engaged in a biologically 

significant activity (e.g., resting, feeding, 

denning, or nursing, among others). 

Dates of access to survey sub-blocks are 

detailed in table 9, below. 

TABLE 9—DATES OF EARLIEST ENTRY AND LOCATIONS OF SUB-BLOCKS 1. GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES (X, Y, Datum 

WGS 1984 Alaska Polar Stereographic) AND EARLIEST POSSIBLE ACCESS DATES ARE SHOWN FOR SUB-BLOCKS

WITHIN EACH BLOCK OF KIC’S SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE COASTAL PLAIN

Sub-block No. Date of earliest access Number of days 

in block 

Northwest corner 

(X, Y) m 

Northeast corner 

(X, Y) m 

Southwest corner 

(X, Y) m 

Southeast corner 

(X, Y) m 

Mobilization ....... 26 January 2020 ............... 6 See Figure 1 for designated access route to survey area 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79114 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

TABLE 9—DATES OF EARLIEST ENTRY AND LOCATIONS OF SUB-BLOCKS 1. GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES (X, Y, Datum 

WGS 1984 Alaska Polar Stereographic) AND EARLIEST POSSIBLE ACCESS DATES ARE SHOWN FOR SUB-BLOCKS

WITHIN EACH BLOCK OF KIC’S SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE COASTAL PLAIN—Continued 

Sub-block No. Date of earliest access Number of days 

in block 

Northwest corner 

(X, Y) m 

Northeast corner 

(X, Y) m 

Southwest corner 

(X, Y) m 

Southeast corner 

(X, Y) m 

1.1 ..................... 1 February 2021 ............... 2 2223374–225114 2228717–221397 2224397–235331 2229482–235046 

1.2 ..................... 3 February 2021 ............... 3 2228717–221397 2233761–219327 2229482–235046 2234629–234756 

1.3 ..................... 6 February 2021 ............... 3 2233761–219327 2238136–216352 2234629–234756 2239158–234501 

1.4 ..................... 9 February 2021 ............... 3 2239158–234501 2242370–214588 2239158–234501 2243481–234257 

1.5 ..................... 12 February 2021 ............. 3 2242370–214588 2246042–213443 2243481–234257 2247187–234047 

1.6 ..................... 15 February 2021 ............. 3 2246042–213443 2249447–211741 2247187–234047 2250687–233849 

1.7 ..................... 18 February 2021 ............. 3 2249447–211741 2253010–212947 2250687–233849 2254187–233650 

1.8 ..................... 21 February 2021 ............. 3 2253010–212947 2256907–212795 2254187–233650 2258099–233427 

1.9 ..................... 24 February 2021 ............. 3 2256907–212795 2259678–210417 2258099–233427 

2260056–244262 

2261603–244174 

1.10 ................... 27 February 2021 ............. 3 2259678–210417 2262159–210463 2261603–244174 2264074–244033 

1.11 ................... 1 March 2021 .................... 3 2262159–210463 2264925–211912 2264074–244033 2266751–243881 

1.12 ................... 4 March 2021 .................... 3 2264925–211912 2267701–213530 2266751–243881 2269428–243728 

1.13 ................... 7 March 2021 .................... 3 2267701–213530 2270898–215289 2269428–243728 2272517–243551 

1.14 ................... 10 March 2021 .................. 3 2270898–215289 2274285–216733 2272517–243551 2275811–243362 

1.15 ................... 13 March 2021 .................. 2 2274285–216733 2275966–217272 2275811–243362 2277459–243267 

2.1 ..................... 15 March 2021 .................. 3 2275966–217272 2279558–218691 2277459–243267 2280960–243066 

2.2 ..................... 18 March 2021 .................. 2 2279558–218691 2281556–219294 2280960–243066 2282918–242953 

3.1 ..................... 20 March 2021 .................. 3 2276598–235467 2282467–235129 2277556–252164 2283429–251826 

3.2 ..................... 23 March 2021 .................. 3 2270627–235809 2276598–235467 2271583–252506 2277556–252164 

3.3 ..................... 26 March 2021 .................. 3 2264657–236150 2270627–235809 2265610–252848 2271583–252506 

3.4 ..................... 29 March 2021 .................. 3 2259611–236438 2264657–236150 2260561–253136 2265610–252848 

1 The sub-blocks are formed by straight-line connections following this order: southwest, southeast, northeast, and northwest, except where 

borders of sub-blocks follow the coastline. In these instances, the sub-block boundaries roughly follow the coastline, including barrier islands 

where present. 

(2) KIC must cooperate with the 

Service and other designated Federal, 

State, and local agencies to monitor and 

mitigate the impacts of their activities 

on polar bears. 

(3) Trained and qualified personnel 

must be designated to monitor for the 

presence of polar bears, initiate 

mitigation measures, and monitor, 

record, and report the effects of the 

proposed activities on polar bears. KIC 

must provide polar bear awareness 

training to all personnel with the 

Service playing a major role in 

delivering this training. 

(4) An approved polar bear safety, 

awareness, and interaction plan must be 

on file with the Service MMM and 

available onsite. The interaction plan 

must include: 

(i) A description of the activity (i.e., 

a summary of the plan of operation); 

(ii) A food, waste, and other 

attractants management plan; 

(iii) Personnel training policies, 

procedures, and materials; 

(iv) Site-specific polar bear interaction 

risk evaluation and mitigation measures; 

(v) Polar bear avoidance and 

encounter procedures; and 

(vi) Polar bear observation and 

reporting procedures. 

(5) KIC must contact affected 

subsistence communities and hunter 

organizations to discuss potential 

conflicts caused by the activities and 

provide the Service documentation of 

communications as described in (D) 

Measures to Reduce Impacts to 

Subsistence Users. 

(b) Mitigation measures for onshore 

activities. KIC must undertake the 

following activities to limit disturbance 

around known polar bear dens: 

(1) Attempt to locate polar bear dens. 

Prior to carrying out activities in known 

or suspected polar bear denning habitat 

during the denning season (November to 

April), KIC must make efforts to locate 

occupied polar bear dens within and 

near areas of operation, utilizing 

appropriate tools, such as AIR cameras 

and vehicle-mounted FLIR, among 

others. All observed or suspected polar 

bear dens must be reported to the 

Service prior to the initiation of 

activities. ‘‘Suitable denning habitat’’ is 

defined as terrain with features of slope 

greater than or equal to 16 degrees, and 

of height greater than or equal to 1.3 m 

(4.3 ft). 

(i) Prior to the start of project 

activities, and no earlier than January 1 

(or date of issuance of the IHA, 

whichever is later), and no later than 

February 13, three AIR polar bear den 

detection surveys will be conducted. 

Each survey must cover the entire 

project area. Exact dates will be 

determined by weather such that the 

surveys are conducted during the best 

practicable atmospheric and surface 

snow conditions. 

(A) Surveys will be conducted during 

darkness or civil twilight and not during 

daylight hours. Flight crews will record 

and report environmental parameters 

including air temperature, dew point, 

wind speed and direction, cloud ceiling, 

and percent humidity, and a flight log 

will be provided to the Service within 

48 hours of the flight. 

(B) An experienced scientist will be 

on board the survey aircraft to analyze 

the AIR data in real-time. The data 

(infrared video) will be available for 

viewing by the Service immediately 

upon return of the survey aircraft to the 

base of operations in Deadhorse, Alaska. 

Data will be transmitted electronically 

to the Service in Anchorage for review. 

(C) If a suspected den site is located, 

KIC will immediately consult with the 

Service to analyze the data and 

determine if additional surveys or 

mitigation measures are required. All 

located dens will be subject to the 1.6- 

km (1.0-mi) exclusion zone as described 

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(ii) Vehicle-mounted and hand-held 

infrared radar units will be used to 

locate polar bear dens when personnel 

or vehicles are advancing along the 

transit corridor or entering new terrain 

within the seismic survey area. If a 

suspected den site is located, KIC will 

immediately consult with the Service to 

analyze the data and determine if 

additional surveys or mitigation 

measures are required. All located dens 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79115 

will be subject to the 1.6 km (1.0 mi) 

setback buffer as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(2) Construction or use of transit 

routes cannot deviate more than 250 m 

south or 500 m north of the centerline 

of the routes shown in figure 1 in 

Methods for Modeling the Effects of Den 

Disturbance. Deviations beyond these 

limits invalidate the assumptions of the 

analyses, and resulting take estimates, 

and would invalidate this authorization. 

All identified mitigation measures will 

be applied. If the infrared surveys 

cannot be completed as described, work 

in that area will not proceed. 

(3) Where suitable denning habitat, as 

defined in paragraph (5) of this section, 

is identified, KIC will plot survey lines 

such that a 100-m (330-ft) exclusion 

buffer exists on either side of the survey 

midline. Ramp areas or transits across 

rivers occurring in suitable denning 

habitat will be cleared with hand-held 

or truck-mounted FLIR prior to 

movement. Crossings will also take 

place at the lowest possible relief 

points. Coordinates for crossings will be 

installed in all navigation systems to 

ensure that drivers use plotted 

crossings. 

(4) Avoid the exclusion zone around 

known polar bear dens. Operators must 

avoid a 1.6-km (1.0-mi) operational 

exclusion zone around all known polar 

bear dens during the denning season 

(November to April, or until the female 

and cubs leave the area). Should 

previously unknown occupied dens be 

discovered within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of 

activities, work must immediately cease 

and the Service contacted for guidance. 

All personnel and vehicles are to be 

moved beyond 1.6 km (1.0 mi) from the 

den. The Service will evaluate these 

instances on a case-by-case basis to 

determine the appropriate action. 

Potential actions may range from 

cessation or modification of work to 

conducting additional monitoring; KIC 

must comply with any additional 

measures specified. 

(5) Use the den habitat map 

developed by the USGS. A map of 

potential coastal polar bear denning 

habitat can be found at: https://

alaska.usgs.gov/products/ 

data.php?dataid=201. This measure 

ensures that the location of potential 

polar bear dens is considered when 

conducting activities in the Coastal 

Plain. A 100-m (330-ft) buffer will be 

placed on each side of defined denning 

critical habitat (16° slope and height of 

1.6 m [5.2 ft]). The critical habitat will 

be entered into the navigation system 

that allows each vehicle to display the 

Program Area, hazards, and avoidance 

areas. 

(c) Mitigation measures for aircraft. 

(1) Operators of support aircraft 

should, at all times, conduct their 

activities at the maximum distance 

possible from polar bears. 

(2) Aircraft must not operate at an 

altitude lower than 457 m (1,500 ft) 

within 805 m (0.5 mi) of polar bears 

observed on ice, land, or in water. 

Helicopters may not hover, circle, or 

land within this distance. When 

weather conditions do not allow a 457- 

m (1,500-ft) flying altitude, such as 

during severe storms or when cloud 

cover is low, aircraft may be operated 

below this altitude for the minimum 

duration necessary to maintain safety. 

(3) Aircraft operators must not fly 

directly over or within 805 m (0.5 mile) 

of areas of known polar bear 

concentrations on Barter Island, Bernard 

Spit, and Jago Spit between September 

1 and October 31 except along standard 

approach and departure routes to or 

from the Kaktovik airport during 

arrivals and departures. 

(4) Aircraft routes must be planned to 

minimize any potential conflict with 

active or anticipated polar bear hunting 

activity as determined through 

community consultations. 

(5) KIC must not land in the Barter 

Island, Bernard Spit, Jago Spit, and Arey 

Island complex (other than at the 

Kaktovik airport) from September 7 to 

30. 

(6) Aircraft will not land within 805 

m (0.5 mi) of a polar bear(s). 

(7) If a polar bear is observed while 

the aircraft is grounded, personnel will 

board the aircraft and leave the area. 

The pilot will also avoid flying over the 

polar bear. 

(8) Aircrafts should avoid performing 

any evasive and sudden maneuvers, 

especially when traveling at lower 

altitudes. The Service recommends that 

if a bear is spotted within the landing 

zone or work area, aircraft operators 

travel away from the site, and slowly 

increase altitude to 1,500 ft or a level 

that is safest and viable given current 

traveling conditions. 

(9) Aircraft may not be operated in 

such a way as to separate members of 

a group of polar bears from other 

members of the group. 

C. Monitoring 

(1) Implement the Service-approved 

polar bear avoidance and interaction 

plan to monitor the project’s effects on 

polar bears and subsistence uses and to 

evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures. 

(2) Provide trained, qualified, and 

Service-approved onsite observers to 

carry out monitoring and mitigation 

activities identified in the polar bear 

avoidance and interaction plan, with the 

Service playing a major role in 

delivering this training to all personnel. 

(3) Cooperate with the Service and 

other designated Federal, State, and 

local agencies to monitor the impacts of 

project activities on polar bears. Where 

information is insufficient to evaluate 

the potential effects of activities on 

polar bears and the subsistence use of 

this species, KIC may be required to 

participate in joint monitoring efforts to 

address these information needs and 

ensure the least practicable impact to 

this resource. 

(4) Allow Service personnel or the 

Service’s designated representative to 

visit project work sites to monitor 

impacts to polar bears and subsistence 

use at any time throughout project 

activities so long as it is safe to do so. 

D. Measures for Subsistence Use of 

Polar Bears 

KIC must conduct its activities in a 

manner that, to the greatest extent 

practicable, minimizes adverse impacts 

on the availability of polar bears for 

subsistence uses. 

(1) KIC will conduct community 

consultation as specified in (D) 

Measures to Reduce Impacts to 

Subsistence Users. 

(2) KIC has provided a Serviceapproved POC as described in (D) 

Measures to Reduce Impacts to 

Subsistence Users. 

Prior to conducting the work, KIC will 

take the following steps to reduce 

potential effects on subsistence harvest 

of polar bears: (i) Avoid work in areas 

of known polar bear subsistence harvest; 

(ii) discuss the planned activities with 

subsistence stakeholders including the 

North Slope Borough (NSB), the Native 

Village of Kaktovik, the City of 

Kaktovik, subsistence users in Kaktovik, 

community members of Kaktovik, the 

State of Alaska, the Service, the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), and other 

interested parties on a Federal, State, 

and local regulatory level; (iii) identify 

and work to resolve concerns of 

stakeholders regarding the project’s 

effects on subsistence hunting of polar 

bears; (iv) if any unresolved or ongoing 

concerns remain, modify the POC in 

consultation with the Service and 

subsistence stakeholders to address 

these concerns; and (v) develop 

mitigation measures that will reduce 

impacts to subsistence users and their 

resources. 

E. Reporting Requirements 

KIC must report the results of 

monitoring and mitigation to the Service 

MMM via email at: fw7_mmm_reports@

fws.gov. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2
79116 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

(1) In-season monitoring reports. 

(i) Activity progress reports. KIC must: 

(A) Notify the Service at least 48 

hours prior to the onset of activities; 

(B) Provide the Service weekly 

progress reports summarizing activities. 

Reports must include GPS/GIS tracks of 

all vehicles including scout vehicles in 

.kml or .shp format with time/date 

stamps and metadata. 

(C) Notify the Service within 48 hours 

of project completion or end of the work 

season. 

(ii) Polar bear observation reports. 

KIC must report, within 48 hours, all 

observations of polar bears and potential 

polar bear dens during any project 

activities including AIR surveys. Upon 

request, monitoring report data must be 

provided in a common electronic format 

(to be specified by the Service). 

Information in the observation report 

must include, but is not limited to: 

(A) Date and time of each observation; 

(B) Locations of the observer and 

bears (GPS coordinates if possible); 

(C) Number of polar bears; 

(D) Sex and age class—adult, 

subadult, cub (if known); 

(E) Observer name and contact 

information; 

(F) Weather, visibility, and if at sea, 

sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the 

time of observation; 

(G) Estimated closest distance of polar 

bears from personnel and facilities; 

(H) Type of work being conducted at 

time of sighting; 

(I) Possible attractants present; 

(J) Polar bear behavior—initial 

behavior when first observed (e.g., 

walking, swimming, resting, etc.); 

(K) Potential reaction—behavior of 

bear potentially in response to presence 

or activity of personnel and equipment; 

(L) Description of the encounter; 

(M) Duration of the encounter; and 

(N) Mitigation actions taken. 

(2) Notification of human–bear 

interaction incident report. KIC must 

report all human–bear interaction 

incidents immediately, and not later 

than 48 hours after the incident. A 

human–bear interaction incident is any 

situation in which there is a possibility 

for unauthorized take. For instance, 

when project activities exceed those 

included in an IHA, when a mitigation 

measure was required but not enacted, 

or when injury or death of a polar bear 

occurs. Reports must include: 

(i) All information specified for an 

observation report in paragraphs 

(1)(ii)(A–N) of this section; 

(ii) A complete detailed description of 

the incident; and 

(iii) Any other actions taken. 

Injured, dead, or distressed polar 

bears that are clearly not associated with 

project activities (e.g., animals found 

outside the project area, previously 

wounded animals, or carcasses with 

moderate to advanced decomposition or 

scavenger damage) must also be 

reported to the Service immediately, 

and not later than 48 hours after 

discovery. Photographs, video, location 

information, or any other available 

documentation must be included. 

(3) Final report. The results of 

monitoring and mitigation efforts 

identified in the polar bear avoidance 

and interaction plan must be submitted 

to the Service for review within 90 days 

of the expiration of this IHA. Upon 

request, final report data must be 

provided in a common electronic format 

(to be specified by the Service). 

Information in the final report must 

include, but is not limited to: 

(i) Copies of all observation reports 

submitted under the IHA; 

(ii) A summary of the observation 

reports; 

(iii) A summary of monitoring and 

mitigation efforts including areas, total 

hours, total distances, and distribution; 

(iv) Analysis of factors affecting the 

visibility and detectability of polar bears 

during monitoring; 

(v) Analysis of the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures; 

(vi) A summary and analysis of the 

distribution, abundance, and behavior 

of all polar bears observed; and 

(vii) Estimates of take in relation to 

the specified activities. 

Request for Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed authorization, the associated 

draft environmental assessment, or both 

documents, you may submit your 

comments by any of the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. Please identify 

if you are commenting on the proposed 

authorization, draft environmental 

assessment or both, make your 

comments as specific as possible, 

confine them to issues pertinent to the 

proposed authorization, and explain the 

reason for any changes you recommend. 

Where possible, your comments should 

reference the specific section or 

paragraph that you are addressing. The 

Service will consider all comments that 

are received before the close of the 

comment period (see DATES). The 

Service does not anticipate extending 

the public comment period beyond the 

30 days required under section 

101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA. 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will 

become part of the administrative record 

for this proposal. Before including your 

address, telephone number, email 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised that your entire comment, 

including your personal identifying 

information, may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask 

us in your comments to withhold from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Gregory Siekaniec, 

Regional Director, Alaska Region. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26747 Filed 12–7–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES2